This research aims at analyzing the potential benefits of interaction with multimedia software environments by providing strategies to enhance teaching and learning processes. It illuminates some aspects resisting the development of quality interaction while using teaching-learning English as a foreign language multimedia. Interaction includes communication or inter-personal-machine contact and multimedia includes audio (speech, sounds, music), video (text, graphics , pictures, animations, movies) and interactivity (via keyboard, mouse, microphone). A combined ethnographic and oral analysis is used to describe the participants group dynamics. In the development of this research, adults from the Extension English Program were observed in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Gran Colombia University Language Laboratory. Following the communicative approach, the purpose of the study is more to observe what learners do each other around the computer rather than examining what they do with the machine. The teacher is considered as participant observer who describes step by step the students’ behavior in the learning process. The scope is intentionally limited to research concerned with evaluating the nature of interaction and teacher and student’s roles. Results from this study are expected to contribute to the area of TEFL and to raise critical questions about the integration of multimedia in the curriculum and to study how to foster interaction amongst learners, teachers and the use of multimedia software.
This study discusses the nature of interaction and participant’s roles during ten months observation of students and teachers using the Discoveries multimedia teaching–learning software. Interactivity in learning is "a necessary and fundamental mechanism for knowledge acquisition and the development of both cognitive and physical skills" (Barker, 1994:1). The role of interaction in foreign language curriculum has grown since its beginnings. There is a high body of research reported about interaction in the traditional classroom. However, there is a little body of research reported about interaction at instructional settings equipped with computers and programs. At the lab, it is very important to identify ways to promote quality interaction amongst students, teachers and computer software. Quality interaction is understood as the one that allows the development of knowledge acquisition and the one that promotes language use.
The Discoveries multimedia learning software gives a diverse opportunity to interact with learners and teachers. During a typical multimedia session in the computer lab, each student sits (or two students) in front of a computer terminal to work with multimedia programs. The teacher walks around the lab in case any student needs some help. Adequate assistance to students is a very important teacher task because it promotes interaction.
This project evidences the fact that computer pair work enhances interaction. Pool (1999) argues that a growing number of research indicates that group work is an efficient model. In this research, there is evidence that students learn better when they cooperate with others students that when they work alone by their own way.
Several aspects motivated me to study about the use of multimedia in English learning. For instance, computerized classrooms are becoming in something normal in Colombian schools and universities. We need to know how to incorporate the computer in the curriculum and to assist teachers in a effort to become the best educators.
Multimedia is one of the many tools and techniques that can improve the students learning environments available for them. The new technologies for education have increased responsibilities, creativity, productivity and team work. Interactive Teaching Approach and computer-assisted language learning usually look into the topics in their own domain . The research combining the two fields is not common so far, which makes this study important.
This research is related to the conceptual and empirical fundamentals of the technology and education research area presented in the Master’s program in Applied Linguistics because through observation, use, and appraisal in the computer laboratory of a computer specific multimedia application which is thought to be an important alternative that teachers have in preparing future English speakers in the area of foreign language. Ortega (2002) affirms that language learning is concerned with the development of communication skills and teachers and students have traditionally and creatively exploited all these communication elements. The results of this project offer another opportunity for English teachers and foreign language programs to achieve objectives focused on technology and education.
In this study I see to gain insight into what impedes the development of quality interaction while students use multimedia in a setting were I work as the multimedia EFL language laboratory teacher. Recently, I have developed a pronunciation program called "Talker" which complements the Discoveries multimedia activities. With a lesser amount of frequency, students also interact with various multimedia programs like "Talk To Me," The Internet, and they even design electronic Power Point hyper-histories. In spite of this, the report of this study is limited to subjects interacting with the Discoveries because at the laboratory in the research setting is the software most used by students and teachers.
The findings stemming from the existing body of interaction research on multimedia were critically examined. In addition to analyzing interaction outcomes by means of well-motivated measures of communication use, a multiplicity of data sources be used in research, so as to be able to document the processes learners actually engaged in when interpreting and carrying out multimedia tasks. A process and ethnographic-driven research was accomplished with the ultimate goal of describing the nature of interaction and the interlocutors (learners, teachers and computers) adopted roles as well as the context-related specific emerging roles while working with multimedia.
The present thesis is organized as follows. Section one contains the statement of the problem, the objectives and the rationale that supports this study. Section two presents the theoretical framework which explores the relevant theory for this study, the concept of interaction, multimedia, collaboration, autonomy, forms of negotiation of meaning, talk taxonomy, input modification devices, knowledge construction and teachers and learners roles. Section three describes the research design, methodology, and data collection. Section four refers to the instructional design. Sections five, six, seven, and eight present findings and discuss the issues raised by the study with pertinent pedagogical implications, some limitations of the study, and recommendations for further research.
Gran Colombia University has a modern Internet language laboratory equipped with new hardware and software that is not fully exploited as a tool for foreign English language teaching because the absence of current knowledge about effective use of technology and empirical knowledge about the best way to interact with multimedia. For years the teaching of English at Gran Colombia University has used teaching methodologies with a multimedia material and audiovisual rooms, which have not fulfilled the needs and expectations of both students and teachers in the learning process of English as a foreign language. A common concern among students from the Language Center is the technical problems. Some students also ask for an adequate guidance during the multimedia sessions because some teachers lack training in using multimedia.
Due to my studies as a systems engineer in the field of computer science, I was appointed as the new language laboratory English teacher hoping to solve both technical problems and unsuitable guidance. To solve technical difficulties is easy because their mechanical and predictable origin. On the other hand, the complexity of teaching and learning is a matter of systematic research. The technical details of the mouse are simple but the teaching principles are complicated; for that reason, we need to consider the effectiveness of learning through multimedia.
Breakthroughs in technology have made possible for students to be in contact with multimedia simulations of the target language. Teachers are introducing multimedia software as a means of exposing their students to native realistic activities of the target language. Students now have the opportunity to interact with simulations of residents of different communities and as a result realistic input takes place. After reviewing the literature and having had some teaching experience, I found that in a Colombian context and more specifically at Gran Colombia University the nature of multimedia interaction has not yet been explored. These were the main reasons which motivated me to start this research about quality interaction more in agreement with the new technology of the world the students are living in and more related to their interests, likes and needs.
To see to what extent the use of multimedia software enhances the communicative behavior of the students and teachers and promotes interaction within the language laboratory so as to enrich and improve the teaching-learning processes when learning a second or foreign language.
- To identify the oral and multiple-level of students' interaction while using multimedia software.
- To establish the role of interaction in EFL multimedia classes.
The role of interaction in foreign language curriculum has grown since its beginnings. Interactivity in learning is "a necessary and fundamental mechanism for knowledge acquisition and the development of both cognitive and physical skills" (Barker, 1994:1). Today, computer technology helps the communicative approach of learning that is concerned with the interaction between the teacher and learner, and in which the teaching strategy is dependent upon students' learning needs and learning styles.
Due to the significant changes in second language teaching and learning (the role of the teacher, the role of the learner, the role of multimedia, and the way the learning process has to occur in the language laboratory settings), interaction has become an increasingly important and relevant area of study in the field of second language acquisition since it reflects what goes on in formal learning and teaching processes.
The role of interaction in the foreign language curriculum is increasing with influential works like the one done by Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998) about software-related research in CALL such as the amount and type of interaction at the computer and attitudes toward computers and CALL. Interaction is intrinsic to success, effective instructional practice as well as individual discovery . The implementation of interactivity can be perceived as an art (Sims 1997) because it requires a comprehensive range of skills, including an understanding of the learner, an appreciation of software engineering capabilities, the importance of rigorous instructional design and the application of appropriate graphical interfaces.
The increased quality interaction is directly translated into increased performance. This expectancy theory of the value of interaction states that a learner’s performance is based upon a quality interaction between the learner’s and a qualitative input. The source of qualitative input ranges from pair, teacher and multimedia. The introduction of multimedia technology into the education process in higher education not only provides an opportunity to reconsider teaching strategies to be adopted but also requires reconsideration. This reconsideration should address the opportunities for promoting the efficiency and effectiveness of learning through the use of this new technology.
We must therefore specify the value of how multimedia can enhance interaction to enhance learning. Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998) state that the type of software and the task teachers set for students had a large effect on the type and quality of student interaction with each other when working in pairs or small groups. English as a foreign language Colombian teachers may want to work on preparing students for meaningful learning, recognizing the role of multimedia, context and interaction in language teaching. With the continuing development of technological advances in the areas of communications, information networks, and multimedia and with each new development, the challenge for foreign language classrooms goes far beyond current knowledge about effective use of technology.
Results from some studies, which I refer in the literature review , show that multimedia interaction opens the doors to different points of view, different ways of behavior, beliefs, linguistic expressions, and styles of communication. With the advent of multimedia computing and the Internet, the role of computers in language instruction has now become an important issue confronting large numbers of language teachers throughout the world.
Interaction and technology are of special interest for the area of applied linguistics since, as it was mentioned before, it is a topic not far from the foreign language classroom, curriculum and programs. For instance, Gran Colombia University is interested in giving ample opportunities for teachers and students to interact with virtual environments. Within this view, the administrative staff of the Language Center promotes the need on behalf of the University, to adapt to these new technologies, and to analyze concepts on education technologies applied to the language development. Furthermore, the third semester exploratory hyper-stories seminar at the Master program in Applied Linguistics at Universidad Distrital has contributed, with high level of impact, to embrace these new technologies in our teaching learning rooms.
The objective of this research is to observe and describe the communicative and social interactional events that take place in the language laboratory in order to understand how learning opportunities are created. It should be an attempt to demonstrate the effects of different types of interactional opportunities on L2 because according to Ellis (1994) few studies have investigated this relationship directly.
To answer the research questions, the theory reviewed in the following pages is relevant to the work with multimedia learning software to promote interaction in an English as a foreign language teaching and learning setting. The literature quotations and references review facilitate the incorporation of technology in education.
The present theoretical framework, which explores the relevant theory that supports this study, is organized as follows. Part one contains the concept of interaction and the notion of interactive in the technological field. Classroom Interaction and its modes of negotiation of meaning, talk taxonomy and input modification devices. Part two presents the theoretical review of multimedia for this study. Part three examines the concepts of collaboration, autonomy, knowledge construction and teacher and learner roles..
Through decades the role of the students have been changing from a receptive agent (Behaviorism) to more active one (Interactionism). This is why cognitive approaches emphasize the importance of what the learner brings to any learning situation as an active meaning-maker and problem-solver. Thus, the learner plays a central role in this model. Examination of humanistic approaches emphasizes also the development of the whole person in educational settings and to suggest that language teaching/learning can and should be seen in this light.
Social interactionism emphasizes the dynamic nature of the interplay between teachers, learners and tasks, and provides a view of learning as arising from interactions with others. Since learning never takes place in isolation, it is also recognized the importance of the learning environment or context within which the learning takes place.
Williams and Burden (1997) have identified four key sets of factors which influence the learning process - Teachers, learners, tasks and contexts. However, none of these factors exists in isolation. They all interact as part of a dynamic, ongoing process.
Teachers choose tasks which reflect their beliefs about teaching and learning. Learners interpret tasks in ways that are meaningful and personal to them as individuals. The task is therefore, the interface between the teacher and the learners. Teachers and learners also interact with each other. Besides that, the context plays an important role here since according to it, the tasks have special characteristics and parameters to be developed.
The way that teachers behave while teaching reflects their values and beliefs and the way in which learners react to teachers will be affected by the individual characteristics of the learners and the feelings that the teacher conveys to them. These three elements : teacher, task and learner are in this way in dynamic equilibrium (Williams and Burden, 1997).
Learning a foreign language, like the learning of anything else, is essentially an individual achievement, and exploitation of the capacities of the brain to make sense of the environment. But typically this private process takes place in the public context of the classroom , the individual is one of a group, a member of the class, and the activities which are to set the process are determined by the teacher. The assumption is that this internal process of learning will come about as a consequence of the external interaction which takes place between the two kinds of participants: the teacher on the one hand and the learners on the other. To be in agreement with the preceding views; subsequently, it is necessary then to talk about different aspects such as: Classroom action, Action and actual reaction, Classroom interaction and Cooperation and conflict.
This aspect refers to the plans teachers have in order to develop their classes, so as to establish what they want to do in their lessons by means of having a clear idea of the aim of the lesson. Therefore a good plan for classroom action is a first step to succeed in the teaching goals.
After having a plan of action, the next step is to put this plan into action, from which the students are expected to evoke some sort of reaction. Teaching is undertaken so that learning can occur. Hence the success of any lesson can be best judged in terms of the learning that results from it and in terms of the kind of interaction learners and teacher have.
The first two above-mentioned aspects do not constitute quality interaction. On the contrary, they need to be implemented in order to have quality interaction. Interaction is more than action followed by reaction, it is acting reciprocally, acting upon each other; that is to say , the teacher acts upon the students, but the class reaction subsequently modifies his next action and so on. The learners’ reaction becomes in itself an action evoking a reaction in the teacher, which influences his/her subsequent action. There is a constant pattern of mutual influence and adjustment (Malamah-Thomas, 1988).
The Collins English Dictionary (New Edition) unlike many other contemporary dictionaries includes the vocabulary of modern technology in its aim to represent its increasing use in contemporary English language. It contains two definitions of interactive. First, allowing or relating to continuous two ways transfer of information between a user and the central point of a communication system, e.g. computer. Second, two or more persons or forces acting upon or in close relation to each other. Even from a superficial glance at these definitions one can see clearly that the first is the technological definition.
As is clear in definition 1, the word interactive in the technological field denotes two-way communication between a computer system and its operators. Its common usage has earned it an entry in the dictionary and it is not difficult to see why this particular word was chosen: it reflects, as previously mentioned, the developments in technological communication systems. The ability to send a signal to access information from the main communication system and have it sent to the user's workstation has demanded a descriptive label versus the linguistic interactive. Out of the applied linguistic community the term interactive could be described as the two-way transfer of information. But, to the language teacher and applied linguist, definition two relates far more closely to their concept, which is more complex and certainly more dynamic.
Ann Malamah-Thomas (1987) expands on its definition: `Interaction is more than this, more than action followed by reaction. Interaction means acting reciprocally, acting upon each other'. In the language classroom, then, interaction does not only denote the presentation of material followed by a programmed reaction from the student. Included in this term are the student’s responses to it and the teacher's pragmatic reaction to that response and so on; each is dependent on a variety of influential factors and capable of producing an infinite number of variations . For instance, oral interaction involves the combining the listening and speaking skills in order to exchange information and to respond to the speech of others.
Sims (1994) has proposed 7 levels of interactivity: Object, Linear, Support, Update, Construct, Reflective and Simulation Interactivity. Object interactivity (proactive inquiry) refers to an application in which objects (buttons, people, things) are activated by using a mouse or other pointing device. Linear interactivity (reactive pacing) refers to applications in which the user is able to move (forwards or backwards) through a predetermined linear sequence of instructional material. About support interactivity One of the essential components of any software application is the facility for the user to receive performance support, which may range from simple help messages to complex tutorial systems.
Update interactivity relates to individual application components or events in which a dialogue is initiated between the learner and computer-generated content . The construct class of interactivity (proactive elaboration) is an extension to update interactivity, and requires the creation of an instructional environment in which the learner is required to manipulate component objects to achieve specific goals. A classic example of this form of interaction is a lesson created for the original PLATO system (0distill) which required the learner to construct distillation apparatus from component parts.
Reflective interactivity records each response entered by users of the application and allows the current user to compare their response to that of other users as well as recognised "experts". Simulation interactivity (which ranges from reactive elaboration to mutual elaboration, depending on its complexity) extends the role of the learner to that of controller or operator, where individual selections determine the training sequence. With hyperlinked interactivity (proactive navigation), the learner has access to a wealth of information, and may "travel " at will through that knowledge base.
The theory relevant to interaction, the input modification devices, talk tanonomy and the different levels of interactivity helped me answer the first subquestion. The aim was to find out about the nature of interaction. The intentions of the participants in producing their oral interaction were critically examined. I hoped to describe the most common students’ interaction patterns while using multimedia software.
Input perspectives on interaction and negotiation in language learning stem at least in part from the theories of Krashen (1981; 1985; 1987), who postulated that language learning is directly related to the amount of comprehensible input a learner receives. While later researchers rejected some of Krashen's other points—for example, the view that acquisition is an unconscious process (the significance of noticing and awareness will be discussed later in this paper)—the notion of comprehensible input has nevertheless inspired an active school of research. Scholars such as Long (1980; 1989; 1991; 1996; Long & Sato, 1984; Long & Porter, 1985), Pica (1983; 1993; 1994; Pica and Doughty, 1985; Pica, Kanady, & Faladun, 1993), Gass (1990; Gass & Varonis, 1994), and Varonis (Varonis and Gass, 1985) have directed their attention to examining what features of linguistic interaction and negotiation seem to make input more comprehensible and facilitate language learning. Proponents of input-processing models make a number of claims about the relationship of interaction and negotiation to language learning. The first claim, related to Krashen's views as well as to research by Long (1980; 1985), is that "comprehension of message meaning is necessary if learners are to internalize L2 forms and structures" (Pica, 1994, p. 500).A second claim is that interactional modifications due to negotiation for meaning facilitate language learning (Long, 1980; 1996). Negotiation is defined by Pica (1994) as "modification and restructuring of interaction that occurs when learners and their interlocutors anticipate, perceive, or experience difficulties in message comprehensibility" (p. 495).
Input modification devices deemed beneficial include repetitions, confirmations, reformulations, comprehension checks, recasts, confirmation checks, and clarification requests (Long, 1996). Research has indicated that these input modifications "are significantly more abundant during negotiation than during the rest of learners' interaction" (Pica, 1994, p. 506); they also occur to a greater degree in NS-NNS speech than in NS-NS speech (1994). There are three possible interpretations as to how these interactions assist language learning: (1) they make input more comprehensible; (2) they draw attention to L2 form (see next claim below); and (3) they help provide negative evidence to learners, that is, information as to the inappropriateness of certain linguistic forms (Long, 1996). A third claim—and one that will be especially important when we later discuss computer-mediated instruction—is that some form of conscious awareness is beneficial if not required for language learning to take place (Long, 1996; 1990; Schmidt, 1993). Schmidt (1990) makes a distinction between input and intake, which he defines as "that part of the input that the learner notices" (p. 139). Schmidt's earlier longitudinal study (1986) of his own experiences learning Portuguese demonstrated a high degree of overlap between the linguistic forms that he noticed in the process of learning the language and those that later appeared in his own speech. A number of researchers have given further attention to the relationship between noticing and learning (see discussion in Long, 1991), and have demonstrated that enhanced input benefits language learning by calling learners attention to certain linguistic forms (Doughty, 1991; Sharwood-Smith, 1993).
Pica T. & Doughty C. (1987). Have establish the following taxonomy. Confirmation checks, Clarification Requests and comprehension Checks. Furthermore, Long (1996) has identified a number of Input modification devices that include Repetitions, Confirmations, Reformulations and Recasts.
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
The interactive perspective
According to the interactive perspective, learning a new language is a function of social and meaningful interaction (Long, 1983); the degree of language learning success depends on the quality and type of interactions between learners and teacher (Long, 1983; Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993). In this view, language learning is enhanced `particularly when they [the learners] negotiate toward mutual comprehension of each other's message meaning' (Pica et al., p. 11).
Long (1983) proposes that during meaningful interaction learners use different communicative strategies, ranging from modifying and adjusting input to using facilitative strategies such as requests for clarification, requests for repetition, and comprehension checks. It is argued that these strategies promote negotiation of meaning and consequently enhance second language acquisition; they make input comprehensible and result in further opportunities for communicating thoughts in a meaningful context (Gass & Varonis, 1984; Pica et al., 1993; Swain, 1985).
‘’¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
One more aspect to be considered when talking about interaction is cooperation and conflict. As is well known, interaction is a two-way process with a positive state, where the interactants feel that something worthwhile is being achieved as a result of the interaction, or with a negative one when the opposite happens. How the situation actually develops depends on the attitudes and the intentions of the people involved and their interpretations of each other’s attitudes and intentions .
As seen, having a plan of action means that the teachers knows what he or she wants to do in the classroom. The teachers have something to communicate to the students, but having something to communicate is not the same thing as actually communicating it. In order to achieve this, the plan of action must be carried out in a context of interaction. The teacher must engage in the sort of interaction with the learners which will enable communication to take place.
Where there is no interaction, but only action-reaction, there can be no communication. Where there is conflict in the interaction, communication breaks down. Only where there is co-operation between both sides involved in the interaction can communication effectively take place, and learning occur.
Knowing what you want to do, what you want to communicate to your students in the classroom, is a good start. Actually doing it, actually achieving communication, requires a lot more effort and expertise ( Malamah-Thomas, 1988).
Tinzmann (1990) affirms that effective communication and collaboration are essential to becoming a successful learner. It is primarily through dialogue and examining different perspectives that students become knowledgeable, strategic, self-determined, and empathetic.
Moreover, involving students in real-world tasks and linking new information to prior knowledge requires effective communication and collaboration among teachers, students, and others. Indeed, it is through dialogue and interaction that curriculum objective come alive. Collaborative learning affords students enormous advantages not available from more traditional instruction because a group--whether it be the whole class or a learning group within the class--can accomplish meaningful learning and solve problems better than any individual can alone.
Vygotsky (1986) has influenced some of the current research of collaboration among students and teachers and on the role of cultural learning and schooling. His principal premise is that human beings are products not only of biology, but also of their human cultures. Intellectual functioning is the product of our social history , and language is the key mode by which we learn our cultures and through which we organize our verbal thinking and regulate our actions. For example, children learn such higher functioning from interacting with the adults and other children around them.
Vygotsky’s work (1986) has also major influence on learner autonomy. His emphasis on social relationships in the development of mental abilities and thus also learning underlines the importance of peer support for any form of learning. Central to his theory is the idea of "the zone of proximal development. It is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers" Vygotsky (1978). The Vygotskian approach, then, emphasises the need for a collaborative learning environment where learners are enabled and encouraged to interact and give each other support with their language learning, a public space characterised by interaction and scaffolding.
The book Dialogic Inquiry by Gordon Wells characterizes a unified picture of knowledge and knowing. This social constructionist model, with an emphasis on the importance in the `co-construction' of knowledge, is presented as an alternative to unstructured discovery learning. A number of specific educational activities and classroom practices can be constructed.
As with many modern investigations of learning, Wells begins with discussions on the meaning of knowledge itself, leading to the spiral metaphor shown in Fig.(1). The projection into the figure characterizes varying modes of knowing, ranging from the `Instrumental' knowledge of basic tools on the part of primitive humans to the development of Theoretical (scientific) knowledge within the last three millennia. While the identification of socio-historical phases in the development of knowledge is clearly interesting, it is the common, spiral model of constructing knowing within each mode that is more important for the present study purpose.
According to the spiral metaphor, knowing is achieved (or, more properly, incremented) in a four step process. First, experience: an individual's social history defines the context within which new stimuli are to be encountered and processed. Second, information: this is, in general, an `interpretation of others' - an expression of meaning as construed and presented by some external, often authoritative, agent. It can come in a number of genres, including speech, written text, physical artifacts, and works of art.
Third, knowledge Building: in order to assimilate externally provided information, the learner must construct, use, and progressively improve various representational artifacts. Ideally, this produces a consistent, coherent `internalization' which is, however, individual and personalized. Fourth, understanding: With time (and recurring use), the internal representations constructed during knowledge building become `second nature', and part of the learner's enhanced experience base. This transformation of `knowledge' into `understanding' is almost holistic.
The cycle then repeats. Beginning from a personal experience base, knowledge building transforms new information into understanding. Understanding, in this sense, is taken to be the real goal of any educational activity. Vygotsky ideas helped me provide answers to the study research questions and Wells model was significant to understand the way participants constructed understanding while working with Discoveries multimedia software.
Littlejohn, A. & Breen M. (2000) established three types of form of negtiation. PERSONAL: A psycho mental process to discriminate, analyze, synthesize, memorize or recall, and so on. INTERACTIVE: spontaneous social events when people use language to share meaning. PROCEDURAL: The discussions between people who seek to reach agreement.
Peter Scrimshaw (1995) has identified three types of talk after the analysis of students interacting around the computer. DISPUTATIONAL: Characterized by disagreement and individualized decision making and it challenges other views. CUMULATIVE: Speakers build positively but uncritically upon what other has said. EXPLORATORY: Partners engage critically but constructively with each others ideas.
"Space age multimedia technology might replace stone age methodology."
Hardisty & Windeatt (1989) establish that CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning) is the term most commonly used by teachers and students to describe the use of computers as part of a language course. According with the English Discoveries teacher’s pedagogical guide interactive multimedia (IMM) is one of the aspects of CALL that is effective in language learning. The word multimedia comes from the latin multus = "many, multiple" and medium = "a channel or system of communication, information, or entertainment.
Multimedia is any combination of text, graphic art, sound, animation and video that is delivered by computer. When you allow the user--the viewer of the project--to control that and when these elements are delivered, it is interactive multimedia. When you provide a structure of linked elements through which the user can navigate, interactive multimedia becomes hypermedia.
At the beginning, during the period before multimedia were used in the language laboratories the term multimedia was used in the field of education to describe the audiovisual tools to teach. The actual version of the word, just differs in what it consists of more equipment such scanners, CD laser units, remote controls , digital picture and video cameras, etc. To use the equipment it is necessary to have the computer programs required to adequately run each device. To the aims of this study multimedia is the integration of: Audio (speech, sounds, music), Video (text, graphics, pictures, animations, movies) and Interactivity (via keyboard, mouse, microphone).
Because multimedia technology, which integrates graphics, sound and text, is someway similar to the relational manner of human thinking, I consider that multimedia software might be effective to language learning. Therefore, it is important to develop pedagogy and methodology related to multimedia learning software. In fact, to engage the learner actively in the knowledge construction process, three main things should be considered. First the multimedia software; second the methodology and third the student's task.
The best technological description of multimedia might be "the integration of two or more media forms on a computer." The possible media forms include text, graphics, animation, video, music and digital audio. But merely defining multimedia in the context of the technology alone does no more justice to the concept than describing books as pages of paper with printed text on them.
The uses of multimedia are even more diverse than the numerous variety of media combinations. Initially, multimedia was no more than a enhanced version of a traditional slide show, but in today’s times multimedia is being used more and more to present information to the masses as information kiosks, interactive manuals and encyclopedias, product demonstrations, and interactive training packages as well as providing entertainment in the form of computer games.
On the conceptual level, the potential of multimedia represents a fundamental change in the way we communicate. Multimedia allows us to use the best combination of media to present compelling information suited to specific situations and allow user-control over how and when that information is accessed. This technology empowers anyone with a message to communicate his or her ideas effectively to others.
One of the constructs of an English program can be to return the control of the learning process to the learners. For example, Soo and Ngeow (1998) worked in a university program study in which one of the constructs was to give control of the learning process to the students through multimedia. Probably, students can construct meaning by interacting with the multimedia listening and speaking segments that includes speakers of the target language in authentic situations. Soo and Ngeow (1998) also found that the creation of the learning environment was crucial to the success of the project and that it would have been made much harder without appropriate software. Their findings make me think about the importance of having a good multimedia program but at the same time how equally important is to have an appropriate methodology.
Discoveries CALL software
English Discoveries is a interactive multimedia computer to learn English as a Foreign or Second language.. It combines high resolution color graphics, animations, videos, text, music, digital voice and a voice recognition function. English Discoveries presents the basic linguistic structures and aproximately 3000 lexical elements. Students do not need previous computer experience to work with English Discoveries. The initial proficiency level of English Discoveries is cero (students do not need previous English knowledge) and the final level is advanced . The complete course covers more than 1500 academic hours of study and it is divided according with the following levels:
· Let's Start (First steps)
· Basic (Beginners)
· Intermediate (Intermediates)
· Advanced (Conversation)
· The Executive (Commercial English)
With English Discoveries, students can chose their own road of learning. Using the mouse they can click on the activity that they are more interested in: a linguistic structure, a structured lesson, a test, or an adventure game . Students can navigate through the modules at their will. The program is always there to help and to orientate students. Some students become addicts to work with the linguistic interface (picture 1) with the many options available, they always have a new learning experience.
Communicative CALL corresponds to cognitive theories which stresses that learning is a process of discovery, expression, and development. Discoveries CALL software includes text reconstruction programs (which allows students working alone or in groups to rearrange words and texts to discover patterns of language and meaning) and simulations (which stimulates discussion and discovery among students working in pairs or groups).
When working with multimedia software the role of the teacher as authority source and expert changes. She or he becomes a mere participant as stated by Warschauer, 1998. Hence, the teacher does not dominate the floor and does not do most of the talking. Besides, he or she does not direct and redirect the development of the topic, pose display questions, nominate students as next speakers, or evaluate individual student's contributions, all of which is the norm in traditional teacher-fronted EFL classrooms. Then again, multimedia provides another light that can be turn on in the students mind. Thanks to multimedia, teachers can explain old ideas in new manners.
As pointed out by (Warschauer, Turbee, & Roberts, 1996), the teacher must learn to become a "guide on the side" rather than a "sage on the stage". A situation which is likely to lead to the kind of atmosphere optimal for language learning. The guide on the side teacher labor does not imply a passive role for teachers. Teachers' contributions in a learner-centered, multimedia-enhanced classroom include coordinating group planning, focusing students' attention on linguistic aspects of computer mediated texts, helping students gain meta-linguistic awareness of genres and discourses, and assisting students in developing appropriate learning strategies.
In the traditional classroom students are more willing to pay attention to the teacher lecture. In contrast, at the laboratory, according with Huang 2000 the student-teacher communication seemed to be blocked to some extent by the layout of the multimedia lab. Physically, the multimedia lab is larger than the traditional classroom. The physical distance enlarged the psychological distance. It has the tendency that the two-way communication between the teacher and the students turned to be the one-way teacher to student communication.
The role of the teachers and the learners are influenced by interpersonal factors and task-related factors:
Interpersonal Factors:
Status and Position
Teachers and learners are accorded a social status depending on what we value in their performances. The relative positions are usually fixed, although types of teaching and learning situations differ a great deal.
A power relationship exists between teachers and learners in which power is not shared equally. This fact, combined with perceptions of status, gives rise to social distance.
Attitudes, beliefs
While teachers have a set of professional attitudes, personal attitudes and beliefs are likely to differ considerably between teachers and learners. The attitudes may be towards teaching and learning, the ‘content’ of learning, or each other as people.
Personality
All individuals bring their personalities into social encounters. Indeed, social life is a major factor in shaping personality. In the intimacy of the teaching/learning situation, it is extremely likely that personalities will be modified. An additional complication arises in the situation where learners are trying to cope with a foreign language. The internalization of the new language may bring about changes in the personality of the learner.
So far, we have pointed out the various factors which influence the way teachers interpret their roles in the classroom. Our aim in this section is to find out what teachers and learners actually do in the classroom; our focus is on the teacher and learner role behavior.
Essentially, teachers have two major roles in the classroom:
1 To create the conditions under which learning can take place: the social side of teaching.
2 To impart, by a variety of means, knowledge to their learners: the task-oriented side of teaching.
The first is termed the ‘enabling’ or management function and the second the instructional function. They complement each other ; the latter would be more or less impossible without the former. In practice, it is very difficult to separate the two and often one act in the classroom can perform both functions simultaneously.
In relation to the instructional role of the teacher, it can be scrutinized from three broad perspectives:
1 Modes of instruction
2 Instructional material and resources
3 The management of the knowledge
- Modes of Instruction
A teacher can persue his/her instructional goal in a variety of modes. It is rare for a classroom language teacher to stick to only one mode during the course of a lesson. Based on this, some possible instructional modes can be found, like :
Lecture
The teacher expounds at length on a topic. Learners listen and may take notes. The lecture can be interrupted by questions from the learners, but these normally occur at the end of the lecture.
A ‘mini-lecture’ is also used quite frequently, to explain what appears to be a misunderstood concept, for example, ‘explaining’ is often a form of mini-lecture.
Elicitation
Teachers probe learners through close questioning in order to bring previously acquired knowledge to the surface. In this way teachers either clarify that knowledge or get learners to say or do something with the knowledge as a prelude to embarking on new knowledge.
Evaluation
The means by which teachers assess what the learners already know or have learnt as a result of the new language having been presented through question and answer routines.
Demonstration
It is the most relevant to this study. The means by which teachers introduce the fundamentals of a multimedia software program. The teacher expounds at length on a navigation system. Learners listen and may take notes. The demonstration can be interrupted by questions from the learners, but these normally occur at the end of the demonstration.
Lockstep Activities
The teacher leads the class through a tightly controlled sequence of activities centered on a new language point. All the learners work at the same pace under the direction of the teacher.
Learners Role
The social climate of the classroom depends, to a great extent, on the strength of each individual’s contributions. It is how, the role of the learner in the context of a group activity will be dynamic or receptive depending on role teacher takes whereas the roles these learners -looking at them as individual subjects- will be determined by their personalities.
Personality
Four main types of learners are distinguished in this analysis. Individuals could can differ according to the degree of the tendency towards being of any one type, the types are as follows:
1 The enthusiast : This type of learner has the teacher as the point of reference but at the same time is concerned with the goals of the learning group.
2 The oracula: Once again this learner centers on the teacher ; however, s/he is much more oriented towards the satisfaction of personal learning goals.
3 The participator: Focuses attention both on group goals and on group solidarity.
4 The rebel: Leans towards the learning group for his or her point of reference but is mainly concerned with the satisfaction of his own goals. (Wright, 1991).
The above mentioned kinds of learners are taken into account when analyzing the roles of the learners during the laboratory classroom interaction.
There are multiple orientations for doing research. There is not simply a finite number of these orientations, nor is there a simple dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Indeed, there is an off-cited division in the SLA field between those researchers who favor qualitative methodologies and those who prefer quantitative ones. The prototypical qualitative methodology is an ethnographical study in which the researchers do not set out to test hypotheses, but rather to observe what is present concerning their focus, and consequently, the data are free to vary during the course of observation.
The ethnographic methods which characterize qualitative research were initially developed by social anthropologists to study the cultures of different social groups, they have been used since the late 19th century, and have become increasingly popular amongst educational researchers during the last quarter of the 20th century. Qualitative research methods have been describe by a number of authors such as Patton (1980).
This research thesis is presented as a qualitative case study. A qualitative research is a study that serves as a foundation for the understanding of the participants worlds and the meaning of shared experiences between the participants in a given social context. Because the subjects will be observed behaving in a natural manner at their computer laboratory setting, then this study has a qualitative orientation.
The qualitative research gives an important role to participants, it allows researchers to listen to their ideas, and to incorporate them into the research, it has a strong commitment towards the values of the fieldwork. Merriam (1988) states that a qualitative case study is "an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single instance, phenomenon, or social unit" (p-9). Following Merriam statement, the objective of this research is to qualitatively examine the nature of the oral interaction within the laboratory setting in relation to the teaching-learning processes.
The following questions were used to guide this research
What type of interaction happens when students construct understanding using multimedia learning software in an English as foreign language setting?
Sub-questions
What are the most common interaction arrangements between students, teacher and computers while using multimedia software? Distribution
What type of interaction appears at the lab from the allocation of students, teacher and computers’ while using multimedia software?
What is the most common oral interaction that takes place while using multimedia software?
What are the most common roles learners and teachers assume in a multimedia class?
The instruments to observe the classes and see to what extent the communication within the computer laboratory fosters oral interaction are an observation scheme, transcripts done by means of video taping the classes and questionnaires during ten classes. Also, a semi-structured interview was carried out with the same group of students. A technique such as transcribing classes by means of videotaping them was used in order to gather data in relation to laboratory class interaction since these transcripts are the closest or the truest probes of every single situation that actually will occur during the class sessions.
This case study was carried out in one specific context - at Gran Colombia University Languages Center a private university located in Bogotá. The present study was conducted in the first semester and second semester of 2002. The study took place in the setting of the students "Mutimedia Practice" laboratory. All the subjects that participated in the research are students from Gran Colombia University Languages Center which offers fifteen different English courses. The aim of the courses during first and second semester was to further expand students' English oral skills to a more communicative competence. The teacher and students met for one 1 hour session every week. Most of the students graduated from secondary school. Eighth subjects for the study were randomly chosen for the research aim.
Students were familiar with the basic operation of computers such as saving and retrieving files because most of them took a required computer introductory course at secondary school and meanwhile were taking an optional basic computer science course. The instructor did not instruct and guide the English conversation practice in a classroom merely equipped with only desks, chairs, and a large blackboard. Instead, the course was carried out in a multimedia computer language laboratory.
There are sixty Pentium class personal computers in the lab. They are all networked. Two computers are set for instructor use only. The multimedia lab shares some features with the traditional audio-lingual language lab. The teacher can broadcast the teaching materials by playing audio tapes, video-tapes, or CDs. Students practice with each other in pairs by themselves.
The multimedia lab has some features that traditional language lab cannot compete. First, a traditional language lab does not have the function of video on demand. Students can choose an English teaching program they are interested in and learn on their pace of learning. The English learning program will just serve the student's desired goal of learning. In one sense, students easily get the individual attention from the computer. Second, the function of a multimedia lab is multiple. It can not only assume the role of a traditional language lab, but also offer teachers more powerful teaching tools with the aid of modern computer technology. For instance, the Internet projects and electronic hyperstories can be created y designed.
The participants for this project were a group of 8 English students of the extension program of English with Emphasis on Teaching English as a Foreign Language. They ranged in age from about 14 to 40 years old. Six students were female and 2 were male. Students received 10 hours of English per week. From these 10 hours, students met for 1 hour in the multimedia laboratory, which had installed the Discoveries network version. This group of students was selected at random from a group of 20 students. These criteria were pertinent in order to be coherent with the characteristics of the project.
The abovementioned criteria, as well as the requirements are shown in the following section: the instructional design. Since I was the 1 hour multimedia English instructor for this group of students, I had the possibility to implement the research project at the laboratory. All of the points mentioned above were logically connected with the dynamics and the intended results of the multimedia interaction project.
The information collected for this study was obtained from various sources: teacher journal, videotaped classes, students’ questionnaire and observations made by the teacher during the laboratory sessions. Also, a semi-structured interview was carried out with the same group of students. Patton as cited in Merriam (1988) states that "qualitative data consist of detail descriptions of situations, events, people, interactions and observed behaviors, experiences, attitudes, beliefs, and thoughts; and excerpts or entire passages from documents, correspondence, records, and case histories" (p-23).
During 10 months, in agreement with the proposed methodology, data was collected and presented in a qualitative form. A student’s questionnaire was administered and classes were videotaped to collect data. Annex No. 1 is a copy of the questionnaire. The ultimate purpose of the questionnaire was to understand how students feel and communicate their experiences at the level of language behavior in the computer lab. Transcripts excerpts illustrate the interpretations and have been chosen as representative episodes.
During the two semesters (40 weeks), we had 40 sessions in the laboratory. The students had their first multimedia session on February, and the project was formally completed on the last week of November. During that period I wrote down the teacher journal entries, videotaped the classes and conducted both the questionnaire and the interview. During all the laboratory sessions, students had the opportunity to interact and comment with their teacher about the activity at hand. This interaction allowed me to observe the whole machine, multimedia software and interlocutors project process very closely.
Piloting the instruments and collecting data, I realized that it was important to conduct an interview with the students in order to confirm some assumptions that were not explicit in the data. During two sessions, I interviewed the students who participated in the multimedia project. The interview was audio taped to facilitate the classification of the information.
To guarantee the validity of this study, a triangulation process was carried out for the data analysis. It was based on the confirmation of the categories through an in depth analysis of the information gathered by different instruments for data collection. The teacher’s journal, videotaped records, students’ questionnaire and the transcription of the interview provided the information in order to illustrate the reflections of students in the nature of pair interaction, oral devices, roles and their social role at the laboratory.
I videotaped students to observe their oral interaction and body language as well. The information was qualitative because they behaved naturally as usual; I videotaped as many classes as possible avoiding that they would have changed their behavior because the feeling of being observed. The information was gathered from students, teacher, and the computer. For the reason that the setting is an EFL and the institutional educative goal, the focus was more on, listening and speaking students' needs. I looked for patterns and commonalties that match the student’s styles; for example, I looked at who was working alone and who was speaking to collaborate and to work in a team.
At the Gran Colombia University computer laboratory, students and teachers use the Discoveries multimedia teaching–learning software. During a typical multimedia session in the computer lab, each student sits (or two students) in front of a computer terminal to work with multimedia programs. I believe that to use interactivity effectively I must provide a variety of learning activities. First, I should augment group activities. Second, individual learning activities including readings, net explorations etc. which can be done as home assignments. Third, I must create a meaningful structure for interactive learning, which includes topic, timeline, and clear expectations. Finally, it is necessary to set clearly defined roles for each participant and an evaluation format resources for effective facilitation of the lab activities.
The discussion that follows is limited to the interactions of the participant’s with the Discoveries Multimedia Program. To start and familiarizing my students with the program, I gave them a demonstration of it. By doing so, students started becoming acquainted with the English computer terminology (mouse, click, microphone, etc) in English and at the same time I introduced the program itself. After the students had seen the demonstration, I allowed them to explore the program to enable them to become familiarize with many of the program’s icons and main content areas.
To work with English Discoveries I have developed the following guide that matches learners proficiency with the different modules found in the English Discoveries software. It was designed considering also the contents, aims and objectives of the University teaching program’s textbook guide "Enterprise" and the corresponding simulations and contents accessible from the English Discoveries multimedia program as shown in the following table:
| University English Program | Discoveries Discs |
| Levels 1 to 5. Módulo Básico | Basic1, Basic2 and Basic3 |
| Levels 6 to 10. Módulo Intermedio | Intermediate1, Intermediate2 and Intermediate3 |
| Levels 11 to 15. Módulo Avanzado | Advanced1, Advanced2 and Advanced3 |
For each lab class and according to the students’ level of proficiency there are four suggested activities (two for listening and two for speaking). Before students explore the computer activities, there are five minutes pre-listening and pre-speaking activities, which mainly are student predictions about the content of the activities. Just before the end of the class, there are fifteen minutes post-listening and post-speaking activities, where mainly students act out or role playing using the contents that they have just explored through the activities adapting the content to their personal contexts and to their inner perception of their social and cultural world.
Because, listening and speaking skills are one of the Language Center students weaknesses, I have developed a supplementary teacher’s guide to explore and practice the various listening and speaking simulations that can be accessed from the Discoveries multimedia program. (annex 2) For each lab class and according to the student level, there are four suggested activities (two for listening and two for speaking). The teacher can require students to explore and practice the activities and the last fifteen minutes of class ask them to contextualize the simulations and ask students to socialize their learnings from the multimedia program. Teachers can invite , at least two students, to work in front of a computer screen ; by doing so, that way there is student to student collaborative interaction and probably learning happens.
For instance to a group of students of level 1, Unit 1; I request them to explore, practice, solve the game and take the test of each one of the following Discoveries simulated activities:
| No | CD | Skill | Option | Simulated activity |
| 1 | Basic 1 | Listening | TV | Adventure: Two men waiting at a bust stop. |
| 2 | Basic 1 | Listening | TV | Mystery: Three people. Mike, Susan, and Mr. Montenegro, are at a |
| 3 | Basic 1 | Speaking | Office Scene | Couple One: A black woman speaking to a white woman. |
| 4 | Basic 1 | Speaking | Office Scene | Couple Two: A red-haired boy speaking to a woman. |
In addition to the previous listening and speaking directed guide, to work with the English language skills, I have also developed a grammar oriented guide about the Enterprise textbook versus Discoveries match content. (annex 3) Enterprise is the textbook adopted by the English Program. In the next pages, you can take a look to the guide.
During the multimedia sessions, I adviced students to work in groups; at least two or three students interact and collaborate with each other, in front of the computer screen, during the learning activities. This methodology was better than to let them work individually (human-machine) in a computer because between machine and user the interaction is limited to an action reaction process of the task at hand.
It is important to mention that this fact was noticed by looking at the very beginning of the computer laboratory classes. I observed that when just one student was working in a computer then there was less chance for him to interact with his or her classmates and the teacher. For instance, there are two main types of questions that the computer cannot answer; one group of questions in reference to technical handling of the computer and its peripherals and a second group of questions in reference to the computer’s screen language input. Advanced students became more skillful to solve technical and language questions. In fact, students need to collaborate with each other or with the teacher to solve their questions.
The analysis that follows shows the combination of my observations and consequent examination of the data collected. While reading and analyzing during data collection, I noticed that some categories emerged. Those emerging categories were further refined by means of the theory reviewed for this project. Based on Merrian (1988). I found recurring regularities in the data, and I noticed that some of the data were similar or homogeneous.
In order to develop the categories for this study I took into account Guba and Lincon’s guidelines. These authors suggest four guidelines for developing categories: first the number of people who mention something or the frequency with which something arises in the data indicates an important dimension, second, one’s audience may determine what is important, third, some categories stand out because of their uniqueness and should be retained, and finally, certain categories may reveal areas of inquiry not otherwise recognized or provide a unique influence on an otherwise common problem (as mentioned in Merriam,1988:135).
From the preceding guidelines I applied the first and third ones. I categorized the data by the number of people who raised a particular issue in the different data sources and some categories stand out because of their distinctiveness and should be maintained. In spite of this, there were specific features that helped me to differentiate among the categories I had already identified. A recurrent issue in the students’ interactions, students’ questionnaire, my observations, and the interviewed conducted served to construct a more solid holistic dimension for the analysis and categorization.
This qualitative study is a descriptive one, the focus on identifying categories that describe the roles and the social, oral interaction that takes place at the computer lab. The following analysis is based on the interpretation of the data collected. I present here the categories developed for this study. These categories act in response to the main question and sub questions of this study which deals with the analysis of the nature of interaction and the participant roles while working with multimedia EFL software. In the following pages I describe the categories.
- This category describes two main aspects. The first one is formed for three multiple-level interactions and the second is an individual versus pair work inquiry. Warschauer (1998) declared that one of the main benefits of using CALL is the interaction at the computer: between student and student, student and teacher, and student and the computer. Due to the nature of the setting, at the lab there are some interaction opportunities; as a consequence, students can be allocated in groups or individually in front of the computer while the teacher is available to interact with them.
During the multimedia sessions, I exploit the instructional guides that I designed, I do make suggestions and I frequently encourage my students to employ new strategies to promote multiple-level interaction in the lab. We have moved toward interaction taking place between the learner and the Discoveries content, the learner and the instructor, and between learners. From the analysis of the data three main interaction patterns were found. First, student-computer; second, student-student-computer and third students-teacher-computer. On the next pages there are descriptions of each one of them.
5.1.1 Student- computer interaction
Student-computer interaction is characterized by individual work in front of a computer; it is the opposite of pair work in front of a computer. For a number of reasons, some students like to interact individually at the computer. For instance, students do not feel anxiety working with the computer because if they do mistakes then the computer does not make fun of them. According with their personality, some students also feel better doing things by themselves; they do not like to work with others. Some students also like to manipulate the mouse by themselves; they do not want somebody else to do it for them. The following journal entries indicate human-computer interactions:
"I Suggested s5 to work with s6 at computer three but she preferred to work unaccompanied at computer seven. She told me that she felt relaxed working with the computer because if she make a mistake then it does not make fun of her""
"Shecame to the lab andsat down at computer number nine but it did not work. Then she tried at computer number six. She is the only one from her class who came to do extra discoveries work at the lab."
"Teacher I want to work solo in this computer because I like to operate the mouse."
Some students also prefer to compete individually against others to solve a problem. They like to work at a separate computers. The following journal entry shows students individually competing one against the other to determine which one isgoing to be the first to find the answer of a problem solving game proposed to them by the multimedia software:
"S1 and s8 are sitting each one at a different computer; they are into intermediate 3 solving the game adventure. They want to know which one is going to be the first to find the answer asked by the game"
In the laboratory there are enough computers; in consequence, students can work individually at a separate computer. It isup to them to work individually or in pairs. Working individually in front of the computer results in computer dominant interaction; in contrast, pairs working in front of the computer, diminishes the dominant feature of the computer because the two students become interlocutors reducing some domination from the computer. The following interaction subcategory describes the pair work situation.
5.1.2 Student-student-computer interaction
Brown 2001 acknowledged that pair and group work provide opportunities for learners to use and improve language in an individual manner as well as to increase motivation. In this study, student-student-machine interaction is characterized by pair work in front of a computer; it is collaborative group or team work. The following journal entries, and video transcript indicate Student-student-computer Interactions:
"They started to work in basic 2, they sat down in pairs to work in the listening and others are working in the speaking modules."
"I observed that s3 and s4 are working in a listening activity they are having fun because the laugh a lot."
"S1 is manipulating the mouse while s3 is paying careful attention to the computer screen. Sometimes s3 indicates whit his finger touching the computer screen to request to his partner (s1) to make click on thecross road icon."
"both s3 and s4 are working as a team at computereleven ; they are solving the game adventure at intermediate 2 level."
The following video transcripts also indicate student-student-computer Interactions:
"S5: ay! está mal la de arriba.
S6: si, él nos dijo. Ponga doesn’t she
S5no se puede
S6ella tiene
S5 does she…si. who teach story…who teach…teach..no..teach…ja..ja..
S5 teach…"
"S1 food explore
S2: escuha.
S1 ya terminaste..oh . No repeat porque no escuché nada… este es un buenrestaurante de comida.
S1: internacional.. caféinternacional .
S2 comida china.. comida americana…comer de esos perros. Será? Ladireccion es tal. Ja! Ja!"
Students working in pairs at a separate computer seems to be a better learning option because they can tutor each other. Huang 2000 discovered that when the computer isused for instructional purposes; it becomes dominant and the interaction between student and computer is unbalanced because a feature of the teaching software is to tell the learner what to do or where to go. However in this study, it was observed a noticeable amount of student-student in front of the computer which diminishes the usually dominant computer control that multimedia software exerts over learners. The following table shows the results of one hour tallied of individual and pair interactions. There is evidence that during one hour of work two students in front of a computer interacted each other 23 times and one student, during the same period of time, in front of a computer interacted with his partners just 3 times.
This fact evidences that by nature pair work in front of the computer promotes student-student interaction while by nature individual work in front of the computer does not promote student-student interaction because the student does not have a partner next to him to comment about the computer activities; therefore, the student just follows the computer navigationTime (60 minutes)IndividualPairStudent-student interactions
323map . In contrast, when he or she has a partner next to him there are times when he or she stops the navigation route to comment with his or her partner about any aspect of the computer activities. When they stop the interaction with the computer and begin to interact among them to comment there is a group negotiation of meaning and a group construction of knowledge based on collaborative interaction.
In the collaborative process of construction of knowledge there is another interlocutor. The teacher is also an important interlocutor at the laboratory; he is the laboratory teacher and by nature of his job he interacts with both pairs or individual students working at the computer. The description of the teacherexchange is shown in the following interaction subcategory.
5.1.3 Students-Teacher-Computer
At the language laboratory working in pairs or individually by their own at one computer, students call the teacher for a number of things; they range from technical problems to the explanations and understanding of the activities that the students are working with. According with Brown 2001 the teacher is on the move checking over shoulders, asking questions and teaching mini lessons However, as it is shown in table 4 the frequency is low; from 200 interactions, students just interacted with the teacher only 10 times. The following journal entries indicate students-teacher-computer Interactions about technical problems:
"S3 asked me the following: Jairo porque no puedo ingresar a (Jairo: why I can not have access to) intermediate 3· Which one is the password?"
"S8 called me: Teacher no puedo (I can not) my partner says that it is la the arriba, no se, no entiendo (the one on thetop I do not know, I do not understand). I told her that try the restore button and she clicked on it and it solved their navigation difficulty"
"Teacher Jairo, the microphone does not work, I speak but it does not record by voice."
"Teacher I can not continue, I clicked on the dictionary and now it does not move."
From the previous interactions it can be concluded that at the laboratory students have to face diverse technical problems. The main technical difficulties are dealing with the password, link buttons, microphone and navigation obstacles. An important teacher job is to help them to solve the technical and the English learning activities. The following journal entry indicates students-teacher-computer Interaction about understanding of one of the English learning activities:
"Teacher, I do not understand why in the question: Today isn’t your birthday, is it? the answer is: No, it isn’t. I explained the student the following: Ok! Let me see! In this particular sentence the answer is No, it isn’t because it is a yes/no question when a certain answer is already expected. In this case a no is expected because it is a negative question followed by two words tag which is formed by verb to be + subject."
The following video transcript also indicates students-teacher-computer Interaction about understanding of one of the English learning activities:
"T: What word are you looking in the dictionary?
S1: huge
T: look for it in the context
S1: yes but that word is not in the conversation
T: do you thing that huge is big or small? Huge is something that is enormous. For example an elephant is huge while a mouse is not huge.
S1: Ok I now I know; it is something gigantic, like a mammoth."
The previous teacher interactions evidence that there are times when students need to interact with the teacher to help them solve technical barriers and explain those computer activities that they do not understand. In both situations the teacher does a collaborative work to help students construct understanding when they work around the computer. It is important to the interlocutors to gain knowledge from their interactions and probably there is a link between knowledge gain and the frequency of their interactions. Doing pair work they interact more between each other and perhaps they gain more knowledge and if they don’t interact enough then their chance to learn might be poor. The previous aspects are examined in the next section.
- Students, teacher and computer multiple-level Interactions emerged at the lab generating an individual versus pair work analysis.
- Individual versus pair work analysis
The previous scrutiny of the multiple-levels of interactivity demands an individual versus pair work analysis because student-computer matches up to individual work and student-student-computer exchange is compatible with pair work and it is important to check which one is more effective to promote language and knowledge gain. To reach this aim perhaps it is necessary to observe the frequency between student-student interactions and the frequency between student-computer interactions
To explore in more detail the link between frequency of interaction and knowledge gain; form the data I collected, I counted 200 interactions. 100 student-student-teacher-computer interactions plus 100 student-teacher-computer interactions. About every 5 seconds, I tallied the interactions; the results are shown in the following table:
| Interactions | Student-student-computer | Student-computer | Students-Teacher-computer | total |
| Pairs | 39 | 57 | 4 | |
| Individual | 3 | 91 | 6 |
The table information shows that both students interacted 39 times among them, 57 times with the computer and 4 times with the professor. This fact evidences that pair work promotes a more balanced kind of interaction. In contrast, the student working individually interacted 91 times with the computer, 6 times with the professor and hardly 3 times with its classmates. This reality shows that individual work facilitates computer dominant interaction. He just in 3 occasions asked questions to the student next to him who was working in a different computer and only in 6 occasions he interacted with the laboratory teacher.
As it is conclude by Huang, Shih-Jen. (2000) interactivity between multimedia games and users is more balanced than the interactivity between instructional multimedia and students; in this study there is evidence that student-student-computer is more balanced than student-computer. Therefore, student-computer-interaction by nature is more impersonal, cold and distant. The following student reflections during the semi-interview supports this fact:
"t: how do you feel during pair work around the computer?... S2: well during pair work one is more in equilibrium than during individual work because you can talk, discuss, agree or disagree with your partner but working individually with the computer I feel like the computer is in control ; it becomes the dominant part and the communication is cold and impersonal."
To explore a possible link between the multiple-level interaction and test performance; I collected data about students’ performance taking the test individually versus in pairs during different lab sessions. The test scores where taken from the multimedia Discoveries results of the testing section at the time students took it just after they worked with the explore, practice and tic tact game sections of the task at hand. Each Discoveries task has the following 4 sequential sections: explore, practice, tic tact game and test. The individual versus pair test performance was then analyzed. Analyzing the test scores there is tendency to relate performance with language gain and knowledge acquisition. Students who work in pairs are more successful. Pairs scores were higher than individual scores; the results are shown in the following graph.
In the next page there is also a "two better than one" graph which is my metaphor that group work enhances both interaction and the use of the language. There is also an example of a excel spreadsheet form that I designed to collect data. In the next page there is a statistical graph that evidences a tendency to superior pair test performance. I have found that in pairs students score higher when they take the test of the activities done in the Discoveries Multimedia Program. The individual versus pair performance graph evidences that when students work individually their scores aren’t as good as when they work in groups.
Pool (1999) established that a growing number of research indicates that group work is an efficient model. At the laboratory, pair work seems to be more effective in terms of language gain because test performance is higher at pair work than to test performance at individual basis. This result to be similar to the traditional classroom where theory informs that most of the time pair work performance is higher than individual one.
Warschauer (1998) invites teachers assigning students to work in pairs or groups, both in and out of the lab, so that they can provide assistance to each other. This project evidences the fact that computer pair work interaction enhances test performance. In this research, there is evidence that students learn better when they cooperate with others students that when they work alone by their own way. In the following excerpt from the semi-interview there is evidence that students construct knowledge in pairs:
"T: do you like to work in groups. S2: Yes, I like to work in pairs because I can compare my knowledge with the knowledge of my partner; if I am wrong he can correct my mistake and the opposite is true ; if I know that he is wrong then I can correct his mistake."
Working with Discoveries multimedia software many, but not all, activities are suitable for group or pair work. When one student works individually with one computer there is a category of human-computer interaction; in this case, social interaction is almost absent. When a group of two or more students work at one computer there are both human-computer and social interaction. In one excerpt from the video S1 who was working with S2 at computer No. 12 said: "para mi la segunda: a dog" in fact, S1 was socially interacting with S2. Both S1 and S2 were collaborating with each other to answer a problem solving activity that was proposed by the frozen computer drills .
Discoveries is an interactive software to teach and to learn English but according with the results of this study it would seem, then, that a genuinely interactive exchange is only possible between two people, which must be of some comfort to those teachers who fear that technology could replace them. Ultimately, interaction - in the linguistic sense, at least - is an incontrovertibly human activity; yet this does not diminish the fact that multimedia can play an important role in facilitating interactive language teaching when used in conjunction with pair work.
The pair work in the computerized classroom also helps to foster interpersonal skills. For instance, students learn to work in teams; they learn how to teach to others. In sum, with conviction, they learn to negotiate and to work with other persons and it will be beneficial in a future time when they might need to interact with people from other cultures. The interpersonal contact and its oral interaction is explored in the next sub-category.
According with Ellis 1994 the interaction hypothesis is the name given to the claim that the interactional modifications resulting from the negotiation of meaning facilitate acquisition. Many authors like Pica 1987 also affirm that input modifications have the objective to obtain comprehensible input which in turn facilitates the acquisition of the target language. Krashen 1981 too postulates that language learning is directly related to the amount of comprehensible input a learner receives.
Oral interaction and negotiation seem to make input more comprehensible and facilitate language learning. Negotiation is defined by Pica (1994) as "modification and restructuring of interaction that occurs when learners and their interlocutors anticipate, perceive, or experience difficulties in message comprehensibility. Comprehension of message meaning is necessary if learners are to internalize target language. Interactional modifications due to negotiation for meaning facilitate language learning.
During the semi-structured interview participants confirmed that the main purpose to use the input modification devices was to reach understanding and it is indicated in the following excerpt from the interview:
"T: What is the purpose of your talking with your partner while working in front of the computer? I talk with my partner to arrive a point where I can understand. Sometimes he does not understand then I explain to him but sometimes I also don’t understand the computer conversations then he explains the meaning to me or he explains to me the actions that the computer is requesting us to do."
Some students also reach understanding working with multimedia about aspects that they have not understood in the traditional classroom. This fact is confirmed by the following video transcript:
"s3: you see I did not understand in class about passive voice but now I understand the computer explanations are clear and the examples helped me to comprehend the difference between active and passive voice.
S4: What happens is that in class the teacher does an explanation and he uses good examples which we can expand with the computer explanations"
At the lab students use a lot of input modification devices such as clarification requests, interactive negotiations, procedural negotiations, disputational talk and exploratory talk that permits to enhance the quality of the input and to reach understanding. Subsequent to the following video transcript there is a line by line analysis about input modifications.
1 S1: ay! está mal la de arriba.
2 S2: si, él nos dijo. Ponga doesn’t she
3 S1: no se puede
4 S2: ella tiene
5 S1: does she…si. who teach story…who teach…teach..no..teach…ja..ja..
6 S2: teach…
7 S1: ay! Pero porque?
8 S2: si ve lo que usted dijo está mal.
9 S1: entonces diga usted.
10 S2: haber él es un dancer
11 S1:[él es un dancer] what is my doing…she dances… what is my doing
13 S2: [what is my doing] dancing
14 S1: [dancing] dancing…. pero porque? She danc.. Uf!
15 S2: [uf] ja! ja!
16 S1: what are you sheila…going tonigth…going … going tonigth
17 S2: [going] what are .. you and sheila…
18 S1: no going tonight…we’re going tonight… entoces we’re going to a dance club… we’re… we go
19 S2: ellos fueron
20 S1: nosotros vamos…
21 S2: a un dance club..
22 S1: [un teatro] eh eh eh! Do sheila? Do sheila dance? Yes she/?/ ai! ya! do sheila going tonight…goes…no is going…eh…
23 S2: ank! ank!
24 S1: eh!…is going… going…pero ayude a una porque tambien
25 S2: yo le digo y usted no me pone cuidado y despues /????????/
26 S1: ay! Tan linda…ja! Ja! Ja!
In lines 1, 2, 3 S1 and S2 (student 1 and student 2) are spontaneously interacting to share meaning; according with Littlejohn (2000) it is an interactive form of negotiation of meaning. The input modification devices and the speaker interaction moves promote the use of language.
In lines 7, 8, 24 and 25 there is an evidence of what Scrimshaaw (1995) calls disputational talk, characterized by disagreement and individualized decision making and it challenges other views. I lines 5,6,17, 18 students interact each other in front of the screen seeking to reach agreement, this type of oral intercourse is called procedural negotiation by Littlejohn (2000).
Because S1 dominates the oral interaction she evidences a dominant oral behavior while S2 shows submissive oral behavior; however, dominant oral behavior doesn’t mean higher solving problem capacity. In this video transcript there is also an evidence that the teacher is a passive actor because the students did not interact with him during their computer based problem-solving task at hand.
Students engage In the `co-construction' of knowledge, and the discovery of learnings. Problem solving involves learners being in control of their learning and having freedom within clearly defined parameters. Oral discourse is enhanced when two or more interlocutors construct understanding in front of a computer screen. This study has indicated that these input modifications "are significantly more abundant during negotiation than during the rest of learners' interaction.
In this study, the interactions analyzed can be summarized considering Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998) taxonomy. They established two possible interpretations as to how these interactions assist language learning at the laboratory: (1) they make input more comprehensible and (2) they draw attention to target language form (e.g passive voice). After the examination of the multi-level interactions and input modifications devices, the next category to be analyzed in the next section is the one related with teachers and students’ roles in the multimedia laboratory.
Teacher and learner roles
This category is an analysis of the role of the laboratory teacher and the role of the students which are observable in the laboratory while they work with Discoveries. The distinct roles in the laboratory are compared and differentiated from the roles assumed in the traditional classroom. So far, in the previous categories I have pointed out the various factors which influence the way students, the teacher and the computers interact and interpret their roles in the laboratory. My aim in this section is to find out what the teacher and learners actually do in the laboratory; my focus is on the teacher and learner roles behavior.
Warschauer, 1998 says that when multimedia is used the role of the teacher as authority source and expert changes. Hence, the teacher does not dominate the floor and does not do most of the talking. Besides, he or she does not direct and redirect the development of the topic, pose display questions, nominate students as next speakers, or evaluate individual student's contributions, all of which is the norm in traditional teacher-fronted EFL classrooms.
There are several aspects that determine the role of the students in the multimedia laboratory. Between them, but the important ones that I can mention are the following: the setting, the tools (the computers), the personality of the students, and the way in which the teacher establishes the teaching learning activities as well as the way that he or she interacts with them. These aspects are interrelated each other and in the next section they are expanded.
In the traditional classroom students are more willing to pay attention to the teacher lecture. In contrast, at the laboratory, according with Huang 2000 the student-teacher communication seemed to be blocked to some extent by the layout of the multimedia lab. Physically, the multimedia lab is larger than the traditional classroom. The physical distance enlarged the psychological distance. It has the tendency that the two-way communication between the teacher and the students turned to be the one-way teacher to student communication.
During the development if this research and from time to time I encourage my students to interact with each other. I constantly ask myself the way to combine more interaction into my laboratory learning activities more often than I do. To enrich the interaction, I try and determine what strategies will work and how to do it. Therefore, using the instructional guides that I have designed, I do make suggestions and I frequently encourage my students to employ new strategies to promote multiple-level interaction in the lab. We have moved toward interaction taking place between the learner and the content, the learner and the instructor, and between learners.
Traditional classroom roles are considerably changed. There are two main types of roles that appear at the lab. On the one hand, by the nature of the setting there are a number of roles which emerge and come into sight. On the other hand there are also a number of roles that learners begin to have. In the computerized classroom there are some roles that emerge which are very different from the traditional classroom. For instance, high interactive computer programs have the power to catch student attentions; sometimes, this power that multimedia technology induces over learners is so high till the point that at times students got so concentrated in the multimedia proposed activities that they ignore the teacher’s instructions.
The role of the teacher changes from source of knowledge to instigator, promoter, coach, helper, model, and guide of knowledge construction. It is not easy to change the teacher traditional role of simply showing students how to do things and providing then with the answers they seek. It would be much better to require students to engage in activities that make them be critical thinkers using multimedia as a learner partner. There are evidences, presented in this document, both in the "Row Data Collected to identify participants aspects such as pair versus individual performance" and in the "example of video transcripts" that the teacher intervention is almost absent. The teacher absence of interaction in both examples is in line with theory that suggests that the role of the teacher in the computer lab is not the source of knowledge fact which is mentioned various times in this paper.
5.3.1 Learners Roles
The following journal entry shows a student as an active learner with multimedia software:
"S7 is very quit during activities in the traditional classroom. In contrast, in the language laboratory he is very loquacious; he is interacting with the computer activities, he is also speaking with his partner about the listening activity offered by the computer."
As active participants in the process of interacting with multimedia, students became responsible for their learnings. The following journal entry indicates that the student has an autonomous learning style:
"S2 told me that he finds the program very good and that he would like to get the Discoveries program to study at home. He also told me that he is disciplined y responsible to study by himself because he took a distance accounting course with Memphis School and that it was great because he is now working as an accountant assistant."
Students become problem solvers at the laboratory when they have to find the answer to questions posted to them by the discoveries computer software. In the following journal entry students are collaborating with each other to solve a problem:
"S3 and s4 are working in basic 3. They are playing the game adventure. S3 is reading the game hints. S4 tells s3 that they are going to read carefully the different options and then it will be easy for them to find the object. They discuss to agree which one is going to be the navigation route. Because all the instructions are given in English they first try to understand the meaning and second they decide where to go."
In the following journal sample there is an evidence of autonomous responsible for her own learning behavior attitude of one of the subjects of this study. "S1= (student number 1). She came by herself, individually, is the only one form her class. She did not ask me nothing; she just walked into the lab, to star working, she tried at computer number 9 but for technical problems she moved on to computer 6. I observed that she clicked in Advance disk and started working with speaking-restaurant-activity."
Discoveries multimedia learning software can increase students' motivation. The following journal entry indicates that the student is motivated by the multimedia activities:
"S5 is really stimulated to work with the multimedia activities. She is exploring the different activities. She likes to play the Discoveries computer adventure games. At times, she laughs and she told me teacher I really like to learn with computers because they are fast and you can work what you really like it; she affirms that she gets stimulated by the Discoveries animated pictures. After their classmates finished their activities they left; however, she continued working with other discoveries activities doing extra work"
Some students find the animated images very attractive ; during the sem-interview most of the students answered that they like because images give life to activities transforming the pictures into realistic interlocutors. They also believe that using and learning computer skills is essential to their future success.
Students use Discoveries to help them become learners by doing. The following journal entry indicates that the learn by doing:
"I told the students to open word and power point before they start using Discoveries. They learned that they can open more than one program simultaneously at the same time; I told them how to switch from word to Discoveries. I word, they created memos, faxes and letters using the Discoveries models. They also created hyperstories using Discoveries as a vocabulary and dictionary tool."
In addition, during the semi-interview s4 manifested that she feels motivated to work with Discoveries because she has the chance to interact with authentic texts and materials. S3 also manifested that he feels motivated because he finds a match between the classroom materials and Discoveries realistic activities.
5.3.2 Teacher Roles
The following video transcripts shows the teacher as a helper and as a guider of knowledge construction.
"s8: jairo is it time to change to another activity? t: yes make clic on listening family icon and do the same go to explore, pre-listen to it at least twice by clicking on play. When you have finished listening to it I want you to speak about what you have just understood. Next, make click in the flag icon to see the scripts. Did you understand."
The following journal transcripts indicate that the teacher is an instigator, promoter, and coach:
"S2 teacher we are listening to it one more time.
T: it is good that you listen to it again from the beginning."
The following video transcript show the teacher as a troubleshooter solving technical problems:
"teacher the mouse does not work. I clicked on the icon but it does not move. T: let me see. Oh I see it is the mouse ball it is dirty let me clean it and it will be ready to work."
The teacher’ journal indicates that he is a circulator and participant at the lab:
"Today, I moved around the laboratory checking over my student shoulders their job at the computers. I participated in a problem solving activity by providing the student a suggestion to solve the activity at hand."
The teacher’ journal indicates that he is a monitor and an observer at the lab:
"During the students’ interactions I spent most of my time checking and observing their work; I noticed that they were really focus at the activity suggested."
The teacher’ journal indicates that he is an encourager and a motivator at the lab:
"I gave confidence to the students to do the listening and speaking sections, I told them about the potential benefits of the activities and the way other students had learned a lot by exploring, practicing and solving the problems. I also stimulated students about the richness of having sounds, videos, images and text integrated in a program and available to facilitate their learnings. All of them paid attention to me and started working with enthusiasm."
The teacher’ journal indicates that the teacher is a demonstrator at the lab:
"Students came the first time at the lab. At the instructional computer, I demonstrated to them the basic navigation map. I clicked on basic 1 and I showed to them how to move through the different sections of the program. Most of them knew how to operate computers so it was easy for them to start using the program"
Before students start using the program, If the teacher does not teach students to navigate the program then students lose interest and motivation and they get discouraged. It is crucial to demonstrate they how to start with it. However, during next sessions students become computer literate then the teacher is present but at times he is a virtual teacher because in the lab during his mediator role between the program and the students there are a few need of teacher’ explanations.
In the next page, I have compared and contrasted the student versus teacher roles. Of course, those roles emerge in a dynamic way and they change in accordance with the task at hand and in accordance with the student’s ethnographic, human and social distinct characteristics, The age, learning style and needs of the participant also influence the learning role adopted by him or her. During multimedia classes, the minimum intervention of the teacher at the Gran Colombia University language laboratory, presented in the samples of data collected, is an evidence that multimedia earner role is framed inside the principle of the student centered approach.
The students’ questionnaires evidences the following inconsistency in subjects' thinking and action; to the question: Do you think that as student you can interrupt the teacher to ask him questions? All four subjects answered: 'Yes'; however, from the video and the teacher journal there is no evidence that during the sessions they called for guidance from the teacher.
In section B and C of the students' questionnaire the subjects’ answers evidences intrinsic motivation, derived from their personal interests and their inner needs to learn, and extrinsic motivation derived from external sources such as the Discovery software. All subjects strongly agree in their answers to the statements 11 and 18: "The listening and speaking sessions make me want to use my knowledge of English to express my ideas and I want to continue using the computer multimedia program in my English Classes."
However, there is also another kind of evidence looking through my journal notes an after having a class conference with S4 said: "so far the activities are important and I do not get bored… why I don’t know is because I like to work with computers and can go to different activities like adventure, etc." Students affirm that they want to continue using the computer multimedia program. Students feel free navigating and they can do so by moving at will through the various sections of the program.
When students walk into the lab to take their multimedia classes, they perceive it as a place where they claim and defend their societal roles that has been given by the social institutions which they have been previously exposed to. McLuhan 1989 has indicated that "The medium is the message." The students of the new technological society are going to work for a different environment than the one of their preceding generations. The technological transformation is going to influence the culture that embraces it. The students who belong to that culture are the ones who will in a higher degree to experience the acculturation process. A teacher obligation is to have an open attitude towards the changing word of our students and if we are capable to incorporate those changes to our lives it is even more beneficial.
Trough participants interaction social aspects as social role negotiation in the forms of social exchanges, groupthink, role confusion, and vagueness are analysed to fulfil the aim of this study. Students’ answers to question 1 "In your opinion as student, what is your role in the computer laboratory" from the student’s questionnaire (annex 1) range from "to participate with interest and responsibility," "practice listening and speaking," "work with the computers," etc.
Students’ answers do not evidence critical thinking and commitment for hard work to learn the target language. Their role seems to be passive. The Colombian social difficulties that they face may have an influence in their passivity to face the language learning task. Aspects like young students social exclusion, difficulties to find a job and poverty also contribute to lessen their commitment.
Finally, there are group and classroom judgmental social norms, which seemed to have emerged as functional within the group of students taking the multimedia classes. I observed that students applied polite norms to computers because students behave nice with the computers. For instance, students praise the software when affirm that the program is very good. According with Jonassen (1995) it is better to work with multimedia software as an intellectual partners that enhances the learner ability to think. Students cooperate with the computer programs and it constitutes a social positive attitude to work with an electronic partner.
It is important to have an idea of the social concepts of conflict, affiliation, and ideology. Conflict is a state of disturbance or tension resulting from opposing motives, drives, needs, or goals. Indeed, conflicts are actions by groups or individuals that are perceived by others in the social interaction as having negative effects on their important interests. Affiliation is the desire to have close friendly relationships with others. We all would like to be members of social groups of our personal concern; there is process we have to go through to be accepted or to be rejected. In this research, there is evidence of negotiation of conflict, and affiliation among the participants in the laboratory and how they socialize.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To question 8 of the students’ qustionnaire (When you have to do a group task, how do you solve a conflict with one of your partners?) S1, S3, and S4 answered: "with dialogue". However, S2 responded to the same question by saying: "No, we are very friendly". S2 answer might mean that he is trying to avoid conflict; indeed, he might not know the social skills to solve conflict; however, sometimes conflict is unavoidable and the outcome after solving it might be an opportunity for language development.
This educational Discoveries software program supports the communicative language teaching approach in an interactive environment, under the cognitive development theory of structuring and processing teaching and the active learner. Whatever one's linguistic theory, we all yearn for more learner opportunities to interact with the target language. Linguistic accuracy is maintained throughout the program. The principles of behavioral learning theory - contiguity, repetition, feedback and reinforcement - are also evident in the activities. So, too, is cognitive learning theory in recognizing that learning is built upon prior knowledge and recall, as each previous structure and/or area of communication is embedded in the successive one(s). Adolescent and adult learners can reasonably be expected to increase comprehension and second language acquisition through exploitation of the facilitative translation tools which are provided.
The program works best with individual users, but pair work would also be possible. Use in the classroom situation would be dependent upon the availability of computers. The video clips could be listened to by the class as a whole, with the instructor exploiting the authentic and contextual language situations and/or preparing the learners for further practice. Ideally, this software would be used in a language or computer lab.
Accurate socio-cultural representation is one of the main features of Real English Interactive. Each area of communication is presented in multiple video clips with variations for listening comprehension which is a high motivation factor in itself. The program provides for incidental learning with background notes about the dialect and/or style of speech. ( See Figure 2) The content is free of ethnic or gender bias: "The varieties of cultures, accents, walks of life, and their different combinations, seem to be endless."
As it is conclude by Huang, Shih-Jen. (2000) interactivity between multimedia games and users is more balanced than the interactivity between instructional multimedia and students; from this study an important conclusion would be that student-student-computer is more balanced than student-computer. Therefore, student-computer-interaction is impersonal, unfriendly, cool and distant. Some facts support the previous conclusion. First, higher pair test performance which is related to student-student-computer interaction. Second, during the student-student-computer interaction the multimedia program is less dominant than during student-computer interaction because the number of pair-computer interactions with the computer is less than the number of individual-computer interactions with the computer. Therefore it was demonstrated that interactions are more balanced during pair computer work than during individual computer work; for the duration of the later contact the computer is extremely dominant.
From the present study, I can conclude that in relation to the laboratory classroom interaction, teachers appeared no to be at the center of the teaching learning processes. Fact that is akin with recent theories such as Social Constructivist Model which addresses the learner as the center of this process. However, thanks to multimedia, teachers can explain old ideas by new manners. Furthermore, this interaction is not what Malamah (1988) called a mere action-reaction process where there is a teacher action upon the class and a student reaction towards this act with its subsequent teachers action. So far, all the results obtained in this study highlight the fact that theory and practice are still parallel lines.
In relation to the roles assumed by teachers and learners, I can affirm that the most common role -the teachers of this study demonstrated – is not the dominant one evident through a variety of instructional lab sessions. The study show evidences that interactivity promotes the learner’s active participation in navigation and opportunities provided for creative involvement. The importance of multimedia in the improvement of oral production deals with intonation and rhythm. The first recordings showed students producing slow broken sentences, a pause after each word with an even intonation. The last recordings showed the same students attempting to produce native-like sentences at a normal speed. In most cases the pauses are present according to meaningful chunks of language.
Multimedia allows us to use the best combination of media to present compelling information suited to specific situations and allow user-control over how and when that information is accessed. This technology empowers anyone with a message to communicate his or her ideas effectively to others. Students can construct meaning by interacting with the multimedia listening and speaking segments that includes speakers of the target language in authentic situations.
This is a preliminary analysis; however, a pedagogical implication could be that teachers should take action to challenge the social belief that some students might bring to the computer lab setting of perceiving the teacher as an authoritarian source of knowledge who can not be interrupted. Indeed, teachers should be ready to allow students ask questions at any time during the class sessions. This dynamics may foster students’ collaboration and cooperation learning styles.
In the case that teachers identify that students do not know how to collaborate and how to cooperate then they can teach these skills as purposefully and precisely as other academic and social skills. Besides, they can teach leadership and group dynamics skills if they realize that their students are not equipped with the social skills needed to be a leader, to solve conflict, or to work in group.
I have found that multimedia learning software can be a useful English language tool that raises students' motivation by increasing their confidence, encouraging them to work in group, and broadening their listening and oral skills. Since sometimes students get bored working at it, using a learning software once a week, rather than as the main all-purpose tool for language teaching may prove to be more pedagogically useful.
Many teachers who are new to multimedia software are anxious about how will cope with the technology and unsure of how it will affect their role in the classroom. However, it is my experience after, my first, ten months of working with multimedia at the Gran Colombia University language laboratory is an invaluable experience in terms of my professional development. I began to read the related literature, I make contacts, I developed technical and various other interpersonal skills; in short, I have learnt a great deal about multimedia teaching and learning software.
I did not need to be an expert on multimedia before I introduced it to my students. In fact, exploring the programs together with my students was a tremendously valuable experience. The natural interaction that it required helped the development of both my teacher-student relationship and my students’ English language learning. Multimedia is a great treasure for teachers and students because it has exactly what you need, whether it is for an activity in class, and activity out of class, to practice a specific skill, or to develop a specific language topic. The key element is our responsibility in finding, analyzing and adequating the task bearing in mind our students’ needs.
In implementing the programs, I, the teacher, became a facilitator and resource person. I have been able to work with my students one-on-one individualized tutoring, while the majority of the class is using the programs. Sometimes, I take a more active role, going around the room and giving suggestions to students and making sure they are on task. The choice of how to use multimedia rests with the teacher.
My job became harder for a while, but as I became more familiar and more competent with both the technology and the program’s content, I found that both my students and me were more motivated to learn. As I become a multimedia expert, I am a role model not only for my students, but also for other teacher at the Gran Colombia University.
Multimedia collaborative learning affords students enormous advantages not available from more traditional instruction because a group--whether it be the whole lab class or a learning group within the lab class--can accomplish meaningful learning and solve problems better than any individual can alone.
In the computer lab it is confirmed that human beings are products not only of biology, but also of their cultures. Intellectual functioning is the product of our social history , and language is the key mode by which we learn the social principles of our cultures and through which we organize our verbal thinking and regulate our actions. In the lab the students’ social relationships promotes their mental abilities development and language learning and it underlines the importance of peer support for any form of learning.
The teacher must to be present during first sessions to assist students in their technical and computer operation needs. However, for the period of subsequent sessions, there are times when the teacher becomes a virtual teacher because students do not call him for technical assistance and Discoveries is dominant with thousands of inputs that catch their and that they find good and they rarely need to call the teacher for assistance.
Multimedia software in the lab appears to provide a context in which opportunities for language development are enhanced, since students are motivated to extend their linguistic resources in order to meet the demands of real communication in a social context. It also entails meaningful use of the target language and demands teachers and students to treat language as a medium of communication.
Multimedia shows as an effective tool for language learning and teaching. Although mutimedia is more affordable and available today than ever before, unfortunately and despite the incredible advances and advantages, not very many English as a foreign language students and teachers benefit from its potential. Computers have a meaningful application in the area of foreign language teaching and learning. The incorporation of multimedia into the curriculum and language programs is important but there is a need to integrate it into the course goals, based on research practices. In addition, this may provide opportunities for authentic language practice.
Learners interact a their own pace and according to their learning styles; consequently, they tend to perceive the computer activities as less threatening and inhibiting than traditional classroom oral interactions. Furthermore, students share the floor more often and they are expose to a substantial amount of comprehensible input.
For teachers, it is critical to understand what makes an application interactive, instructional and effective. The creation of the learning environment is crucial to the success of any project and it is much harder without appropriate software. Teachers should also keep in mind that it is important to develop pedagogy and methodology related to multimedia learning software.
In conclusion, using multimedia in the language laboratory is advantageous for both learners and teachers. Nevertheless, its incorporation needs considering the changing of goals of language education programs as well as teacher attitudes. By using multimedia and related technologies we prepare the students for the requirements of this new millennium for a motivational and effective academic and personal life.
In the contemporary educational environments, it is a pity, that there are some schools that despite the fact of having a computer room which is privilege, there is not a full possible exploitation of that source of knowledge. Many people and some teachers feel uncomfortable with technology even there are times when they get scare of it; in that case, the best way to overcome this fear is facing it by solving as many multimedia exercises as possible.
Teacher’s computer literacy is important. A feeling of satisfaction is received and accomplished when teachers and students discover that multimedia provides another way to acquire knowledge. It enhances motivation and promotes interaction. An important implication of this study is to foster the use of computer multimedia environments neglecting the mystery that covers up the uses of new technologies.
In traditional classrooms, interaction has been limited because of minimal physical possibilities or because of teachers’ lack of training in using technology. Working with multimedia there is a joint of motivational elements that makes the students’ participation more free and spontaneous. It is frequent that students bring English music compact discs to the laboratory. Those elements also promote interaction and new roles for both students and teachers. Therefore, students have more responsibility, risk taking, interaction and self-evaluation criteria towards the autonomous learning.
The multimedia software should take individual differences in preferences, and ability into account. For example, interactivity is limited when there is only one way of navigating the software, and the materials are presented in a rigid manner. There are more ways of navigating the software, and many different possible topics to explore. Students can select different activities to read and study. Different aspects of every day life and people work are listed to account for individual differences in ability, and preferences. There are a number stories to cater to different preferences, and a number of different ways to navigate the software.
I expect further research to be developed in the area, and that this study will become a possible starting point for those interested in multimedia classroom interaction issues, so as to contribute to the improvement and enrichment of not only the Applied Linguistics field but also to language teaching practices and teacher training purposes. Hypertext, hypermedia and artificial intelligent environments for language learning present an important area for research.
Situating the computer: how to do it in practice. It is important to research the distributions of the computers in the lab to check ways to promote interaction and language development. There is a situation very easy to deal with. The teacher and the student use one machine and the teacher is on hand to help and comment as and when necessary. There are more ideal circumstances, where the students all have their own terminals and then get back together in the middle of the room. Hhowever, the computers are situated to facilitate communication and are not placed in long rows as in traditional language labs. There is another ideal situation. All the students are able to see the one main screen and control it by remote control and a wireless keyboard. At the same time are free to do both pair work and group work.
Software for Language education, multimedia teaching-learning materials development, software evaluation, and testing and evaluation software could be areas of CALL which present questions for further research. The use of the Internet and a variety of forms of communication networks are prone to be research as tools to promote second language acquisition. In a language lab aspects like age, gender, social and cultural issues can also be the matter of research.
Anderson, T. 1999. At: http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/articles/disted/interact_options.cfm
Barker, P. 1994. Designing Interactive Learning, in T. de Jong & L. Sarti (Eds), Design and Production of Multimedia and Simulation-based Learning Material. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Brett, PA. 1998. Integrating multimedia applications into the Business English. Curriculum ESP Journal; Brett, PA, & Nash, M. Multimedia Language Learning
Brown I. 2001. Muddled Methodology – CALL in the classroom is not always communicative but it can be. Available at: http://www.acl.edu.au
English Discoveries Teacher’s Pedagogical Guide. Version 2.0. Edusoft.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heath, Joanne. 2002. The Language Centre, University College London. Retrieved October 21, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ilt.ac.uk/public/cti/ActiveLearning/issue3/heath/index.html
Huang, Shih-Jen. 2000. Communicative Language Teaching in a Multimedia Language Lab. The Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Huang-CompLab.htm.
Jonassen. D. 1995. Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. New Jersey. Prentince Hall.
Hatch, E. 1978. 'Discourse analysis and second language acquisition' in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Hardisty, D. & Windeatt, S. (1989). CALL. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition. Vol. 2: Second language acquisition. (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Malamah-Thomas, A. 1987. Classroom interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maley, Alan. Cited in English Discoveries teacher’s pedagogical guide. Version 2.0. Edusoft.
McLuhan, M. & Bruce R. 1989. The Global Village: Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st Century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Merriam, S. (1988) Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Ortega, L. 2002. Processes and outcomes in multimedia classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for EFL computer-assisted classroom interaction. Language Learning & Technology.
Patton, M.Q. 1980. Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pica T. & Doughty C. 1987. The Inpact of Interaction on Comprehension Interactional Modifications.
Pool, B. 1999. Education for an Information Age. Teaching in the Computerixed Classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Scrimshaw. P. 1995. Oral Discourse and Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education Volume 3. Kluwer Academic Publications, Boston
Sims, R. 1994. Seven levels of interactivity: implications for the development of multimedia education and training, in (Ed) M. Ryan, Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Information Technology in Training and Education (APITITE) Conference, Volume 3. Brisbane, Qld: APITITE.
Sims, Roderick. 1997. Interactivity: A Forgotten Art?. [Online] Available http://intro.base.org/docs/interact/, January 27, 1997
Soo, K. & Ngeow y. 1998. Effective English as a Second Language (ESL). In: Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. Vol. 7 Number 1. 1998.
Tinzmann, J. 1990. What Is the Collaborative Classroom?. In: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/rpl_esys/collab.htm
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1986. Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.
Website: http://www.bbcworldwide.com/talk/whyextra.htm#The benefits of interaction in language learning.
Williams and Burden (1997). Psychology For Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, T. (1991). Roles of Teachers and Learners. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
CALL: Computer Assistance Language Learning
Click: to point to an item and then quickly press and release the main mouse button once.
Constructivism: An education philosophy based on the premise that students learn better when they are active participants and control their own education, in such a way that they construct in an individual way the foundations of knowledge acquisition.
Computer: An electronic machine that stores and processes data.
Collaborative learning: A learning environment where students work together to expand their knowledge and their education experience. At computer laboratories students can use multimedia to foster collaborative learning.
Hypermedia: A structure of interactive multimedia of linked elements through which the user can navigate.
Interactivity: A necessary and fundamental mechanism for knowledge acquisition and the development of both cognitive and physical skills.
Interface: The main menu from which learners can link to what they want to explore, practice and learn.
Medium: A participant organism, an instrument or mechanism, by which something is transmitted or by which something is accomplished. Intervening substance producing an effect.
Media: The plural form of Medium. Media is a plural noun. There is an increasing tendency to use it also as a singular noun because of the ambiguous senses of medium.
Multiple-level Interaction in the Lab: The interaction that takes place between the learner and the Multimedia Software content, the learner and the instructor, and between learners.
Nature of interaction: The interlocutors’ intentions and the makeup of their interaction as well.
Quality interaction: The significant interaction which promotes EFL learning.
Record: To register (sound or images) in permanent form by mechanical or electrical means for reproduction.
Role: The characteristic and expected social behavior of an individual.
Software: Written or printed data, such as programs, routines, and symbolic languages, essential to the operation of computers.
Troubleshooter: A worker whose job is to locate and eliminate sources of trouble, as in mechanical operations.
Jairo Agustin López Forero
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar