376
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
CALICO Journal, 27(2), p-p 376-392. © 2010 CALICO Journal
When They Talk About CALL:
Discourse in a Required CALL Class
Greg Kessler
Ohio University
ABSTRACT
This study investigates preservice teachers’ discourse about CALL in a required CALL class which combines theory and practice. Thirty-three students in a Linguistics MA program CALL course were observed over a 10-week quarter. For all of these students, it was their first formal exposure to CALL as a discipline. Communication in the class consisted of student-led in-class discussions, web-based wiki, chat, and discussion fora. All communication during the course was recorded for the purpose of investigating teachers’ emerging perceptions of CALL and the role it plays in language teaching and learning. All the preservice teachers were new to CALL and consequently had a lack of awareness of the breadth of the topic. They were initially apprehensive about the notion of CALL. A lack of awareness of the potential for CALL and negative experiences with poorly designed technology accounted for much of this apprehension. There was also an overwhelming sense that CALL threatened the teacher in myriad ways. Competent with technology for personal purposes, these teachers did not easily transfer skills to CALL contexts. When faced with the opportunity to discuss CALL in depth they began to appreciate the potential for technology use in language teaching. However, they expressed sustained concern over a potential loss of control over the teaching environment and students. Suggestions for cultivating a student-centered CALL classroom address these concerns.
KEYWORDS
Teacher Preparation, Classroom Discourse, Teacher Attitude, First Generation of CALL Teachers
INTRODUCTION
CALL teacher preparation is an area of increasing interest. Recent edited collections have addressed CALL teacher preparation through insights gained from CALL professionals, administrators, teachers confident with CALL use, and educators who prepare CALL teachers (Hubbard & Levy, 2006; Kassen, Lavine, Murphy-Judy, & Peters, 2007). These collections offer a foundation upon which further research into CALL teacher preparation can be constructed. They suggest that there is an overall lack of CALL teacher preparation (Kessler, 2006; Oxford & Jung, 2007), an insufficient breadth of CALL preparation (Peters, 2006), and limited contextualization (Egbert, 2006). Much of this research is based upon the perceptions and practice of graduates of masters level language teacher preparation programs who are reflecting upon both their learning and teaching experience.
The current study examines the perceptions of Linguistics students throughout a required CALL course. An entire 40-hour quarter long course was recorded to examine student discourse. As they explored CALL theory, principles, and practices, they shared their thoughts through in-class discussions, question and answer sessions, various forms of CMC, and a collaborative CALL wiki. The manner of participation and language used in these tasks reflect
377
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
students’ preconceptions, evolving attitudes, and cumulative thoughts about CALL and its role in language learning. Contextualized details about what students found most useful and rewarding as well as what they found challenging, unanticipated, or unnecessarily complicated are identified and discussed. The collaborative construction of their CALL understanding is explored and provides valuable insight into how we might better conduct CALL teacher preparation. The evolution of their CALL-oriented thinking helps illuminate the most salient aspects of their CALL preparation.
CALL TEACHER PREPARATION
While it has recently been noted that CALL teacher preparation is often perceived as lacking in both quantity and quality, there appears to be an increased focus on CALL preparation in recent years (Kessler, 2006). This increased attention may result partly from previous studies that have proposed approaches to enhance CALL teacher preparation. Many of these studies have relied on surveying and interviewing teachers about their ongoing CALL preparation, subsequent use of CALL in the language classroom, and perceived needs for further CALL preparation. The recent growth in this area has resulted in varied programmatic descriptions. Hubbard (2008) provides an overview of approaches to CALL teacher preparation, including breadth-first, depth-first, online, and programmatically integrated orientation to CALL. The various processes involved in CALL preparation include autonomous self-directed learning (Robb, 2006), communities of practice (Hanson-Smith, 2006), situated learning (Egbert, 2006) and mentoring (Meskill, Anthony, Hilliker-VanStrander, Tseng, & You, 2006).
Hubbard and Levy (2006) present a diversity of approaches to CALL teacher preparation. Of particular interest are the institutional and functional roles, including CALL specialists, CALL professionals, CALL practitioners and classroom teachers. They suggest that language teachers who use CALL not be referred to as CALL teachers since CALL is likely only one aspect of their overall role, albeit an important one that may involve promoting, managing, or assessing students’ learning. Hubbard and Levy suggest that these teachers simply be called classroom teachers, suggesting that all language teachers need a fundamental set of CALL competencies.
Much of the focus in CALL-related teacher preparation is derived in a top-down manner. CALL trainers have reflected upon their own use of CALL, their observations of CALL practice, and the anticipated needs of practitioners in the future. For the purposes of this study the intention was to familiarize teachers with the background in CALL materials, practice, and thought. In the conventions established by Hubbard and Levy (2006), these teachers should be expected to be capable of functioning as classroom teachers by the end of the course. Those who desire to be CALL specialists, CALL professionals or CALL practitioners will require additional professional development such as that available in the follow-up elective courses offered in our program and others.
Graduate students in a CALL teacher preparation program are likely to fall into each of the four categories of classroom teacher, CALL specialist, CALL professional, and CALL practitioner. In fact, they may shift from one category to another throughout the course of their careers. It may be easy to identify those who will be CALL specialists and professionals through the language that they use to describe CALL as they are first exposed to the field. It is less obvious which teachers will be competent CALL users since some may appear to be less interested or even reluctant in this new and unfamiliar arena.
378
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
Teachers’ Perception of CALL Preparation
Kessler (2007) found that teachers who had graduated from MA language teacher preparation programs felt there was a dearth of attention to CALL teacher preparation. He further found that teachers perceived their informal CALL preparation to be more beneficial than formal preparation to their development of CALL. This seems to be the result of a general dissatisfaction with the type of training they are receiving. Slaouti and Motteram (2006) recognized a number of characteristics important to teachers engaged in CALL teacher preparation. The teachers they worked with talked about the value of skills and knowledge as well as the importance of context. These teachers also expressed their appreciation for a solid theoretical foundation upon which they could build CALL practice. Further, the teachers expressed an increased awareness of their teaching abilities in relation to CALL along with a willingness to try new technology-related teaching tasks.
Egbert (2006) noted that required asynchronous discussion in a CALL course allowed teachers to share their own teaching experience in a context where they felt knowledgeable and valued. Hegelheimer (2006) surveyed students in a required CALL course and found that as teacher educators become aware of the expectations of a CALL course they are likely to prepare their instruction in a manner that presumes familiarity with certain skills and knowledge. He also suggests CALL training has resulted in increased confidence and use of technology in peripheral teacher preparation and language classes within an institution and also in disappointment when technology was not effectively integrated. In the general realm of TESOL teacher preparation, some have noted that the addition of a required CALL component has enhanced teachers’ “instructional repertoire in the ESL classroom” (Snow, 2005, p. 266) as well as improving their job prospects.
The ability to utilize, create, and manage CALL environments for integrated language skill development is a critical foundation upon which CALL teacher autonomy rests. Further, it is important that teachers utilize the potential that technology offers rather than mimic activities from paper-based texts. However, it seems that teachers may be ill prepared for this progression. Kessler (2007) found that teachers felt less confident working with audio and video than any other type of technology-based media. Teachers were not confident using digital audio and video materials in the classroom, but they were even less confident creating such materials for their students. The use of audio and video in a language learning context may be considered critical for successful CALL integration.
RESEARCHING CLASSROOM DISCOURSE
Early investigation into university classroom discourse focused on the discourse of lectures (Flowerdew, 1994), listener expectations (Tauroza & Allison, 1994), note taking (Chaudron, Loschky, & Cook, 1994), signaling cues (Dunkel & Davis, 1994), and lecture variation across disciplines (Dudley-Evans, 1994). In recent years, linguists have begun to investigate various forms of communication that occur in the university classroom, including reflexivity (Mauranen, 2001), linguistics variation (Csomay, 2005), and the use of discourse markers (Swales & Malczewski, 2001). Research in this area has typically focused on either specific lexical items or grammatical features (Csomay, 2005).
Observing the discourse of the university classroom is inherently difficult. Buzzelli and Johnston (2001) identify the complex nature of classroom discourse, concluding that the authority of the teacher often dominates the nature of discourse and subsequent perspectives of students. Further, it may be difficult to target the most valuable exchanges in the classroom. Bannink and van Dam (2006) suggest that much of what is potentially most interest379
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
ing in classroom discourse is often left unstudied. They focus upon the whispers, muttering, body language, and other discreet aspects of communication. Thus far there has been no discourse-based investigation in the CALL teacher preparation classroom.
CURRENT STUDY
Research Questions
1. What does discourse about CALL in a required CALL course reveal about language teachers’ and preservice teachers’ understanding of CALL?
2. As teachers learn more about CALL, does their discourse reflect a shift in their understanding?
3. How can teachers’ emerging discourse about CALL inform teacher preparation?
Methodology
By focusing on the perspective of teachers in training, we have learned a great deal about the needs for this type of preparation. However, previous studies have relied upon surveys or interviews with students either engaged in CALL preparation or as a follow-up debriefing. This study utilizes the body of language produced by the students in a required CALL course as the data. Thus, we are able to observe perceptions not only at the very beginning and end of the first course exposing teachers to CALL thought, but also throughout the process of their learning about CALL. Extending Chapelle’s (1990) proposal for discourse analysis of student and computer interaction, this study relies upon extensive documentation of all spoken and written interaction among preservice teachers in a required CALL course. Focus was placed upon discourse that revealed assumptions, attitudes, or expectations about CALL and connected aspects of methodology and second language acquisition (SLA). Each class meeting involved a 30-minute discussion around a CALL-related article intended to serve as an introduction to various topics in CALL (see reading and discussion list in Appendix A). By allowing students to lead class discussions and guide the initial coverage of these topics themselves, teacher bias was reduced. During these discussions, all students participated. Much of the discourse that was observed functioned as a guiding force for the focus of class discussions, allowing opportunities for discussion that would otherwise be impossible to anticipate. The discourse that followed the anticipated, intended, or guided course of instruction was not included in this analysis.
The Course
The course in which this study was conducted is required for all Linguistics MA students. The course is divided equally among three areas: general computer skills and knowledge, CALL oriented skills and knowledge, and introductory CALL and related SLA theory. Each day of the course combines foci on these aspects. Throughout the course CALL is presented in a manner that recognizes the caution that should be exercised when considering its use; the instructor does not promote CALL universally or as an off the shelf solution. Students are responsive to this thoughtful treatment, which may contribute to the overall acceptance of CALL’s usefulness. Further, the mere fact that this degree program requires a CALL course may provide enough endorsement for some students.
380
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
The course is built around a project-based breadth approach. Students are introduced to CALL theory and practices as they also learn various skills relevant to the use of CALL. Fotos and Browne (2004) serves as the central text for the course, but additional readings from various CALL journals and edited volumes are used to supplement the central text. Each meeting involves a student-led discussion centered around one of the readings for the course. These discussions resulted in a large portion of the data for this study. Additional data were garnered from discussion fora from the Moodle-based CMS that supported the course.
While the course is intended to prepare what Hubbard and Levy (2006) describe as classroom teachers, 71% of the students who have completed this course have taken at least one of the four elective CALL courses that comprise our CALL sequence. Many continue to use, and expand upon, the skills and knowledge gained from these classes by using CALL in their own language classes. However, this positive response is not indicative of all students who take the course. While some students who enter the course are skeptical about the potential of CALL develop a great appreciation for CALL, others avoid any further exposure to CALL. This study is intended to develop a better understanding of this divide.
The Students
The 33 participants in this study were from three different groups: 19 graduate students in the second quarter of a first-year Linguistics MA TESOL program from a variety of cultural and educational backgrounds, 10 American undergraduate students from a variety of disciplines with interest in language teaching, and 4 doctoral students from the College of Education with background and interest in language teaching. The MA Linguistics students were concurrently enrolled in a course in syntax and a course in methods and had all taken a linguistics survey course as well as a course in SLA prior to this course. All of the students in the study can be described as ‘first generation CALL teachers:’ those who are using or intend to use CALL as teachers despite the fact that they did not use it as students. They may have had some exposure to instructional technology as students, but no previous exposure to CALL as language teachers or learners. In general the students considered CALL to be limited to broadly distributed self-study commercial offerings such as Rosetta Stone or Berlitz.
Data Collection and Analysis
In this study the entirety of classroom discourse was videotaped in order to capture the central points of discussions as well as the discreet asides and subtleties of communication identified by Bannink and van Dam (2006). The students interacted in varied ways. Student-led in-class discussions, a wiki, discussion fora, and spontaneous in-class communication were all recorded over the course of 10 weeks. This collection was organized and coded as themes emerged. Per the guidelines of Bogdan and Biklen (2003), the data were organized, broken into smaller units, synthesized, and then generalized out to larger concepts. Coding began with a preliminary coding scheme that included X codes based on the students’ communication, leading to a refined coding scheme including Y codes. While other codes were found in addition to the ones included in this article, the codes chosen for deeper analysis were those that indicated a change in students’ attitudes/perceptions of CALL. Primary focus was placed upon discourse that reflected initial perceptions, any change in perception between the beginning and end of the quarter, and final perceptions. Themes were also organized by student and week in order to observe individual and group characteristics.
381
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
FINDINGS
Initial Understanding of CALL
During the first week of the course, there were numerous indications that many did not choose to be in this class. As two students commented, “I only use computers when I need to” and “I don’t think we will ever have computers in the classroom in my country.”
At the beginning of the course, students were asked to assess their own technology-related skills (see technology self-assessment in Appendix B). Students in the course tended to identify themselves as either very strong or very weak in this regard with few ranking their abilities in the middle. These skills seemed to directly reflect their disposition toward CALL.
However, previous research has suggested that mere technology proficiency may not be the best predictor of innovative or integrated CALL instruction (Kessler & Plakans, 2008). Even the most technology proficient students had never explored the potential of using computers to teach language beyond the use of self-study CD-ROMs for their own language study. The majority of students recognized some benefit of self-access autonomous CALL use for extensive exposure to tasks such as grammar correction. Four students began the class with a positive attitude toward CALL within language teaching outside of the realm of self-access drill-and-practice material.
The most obvious initial observation involved awareness of CALL as an area of investigation. Nearly all of the students expressed a lack of awareness of anything related to CALL. It is interesting that this was not a reflection of students’ previous technology knowledge or experience. In fact, it was those students who claimed to be most comfortable with technology in general who expressed the most surprise that CALL itself existed as an area of investigation.
Despite this dearth of awareness, a few of the students began with a perspective of the inevitability of an increase in CALL in the language teaching environment. As Jenna1 stated early in the class, “The next generation of teachers should not only know what to teach, but also how to use technology to teach effectively. They don’t have to be computer freaks, but they have to understand technology at some basic level.” This quote was the inspiration for the notion of ‘first generation CALL teachers.’
Apprehension
An overwhelming sense of apprehension dominated the class at the beginning of the quarter. In many cases it was deemed a threat to the teacher’s status or ability to manage the delivery of content. A statement by George reflected this concept, “We need to keep them under control … the more the students use the computers the less control I have over the classroom, and it seems that there are some students who use a lot of internet resources to learn language and they watch videos on youTube and then they are ahead of the other students and they complain.”
To some extent this apprehension may have been a reflection of perpetuating the teaching style of one’s favorite language teacher. Numerous in-class statements suggested that this reverence may influence a language teacher’s behavior more than their explicit study of methodology. As Jenna said at the end of the first week, “I never used any computer in my classes and I learned Spanish well. I think my students can do the same.”
382
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
Apprehension presented itself as a threat to the role of teachers as well. At the beginning of the course a number of students identified CALL as a replacement for teachers. This was evident in the forum posting of Hiromi, “Since teachers are not teaching in class but computers, teachers do not have to lead class, rather their roles are more like ‘Engineer people’.”
There was also evidence that students of all ages were reluctant to use CALL as teachers. As a 25-year-old native English speaking Caucasian male student shared, “I’ve only used computers when I absolutely have to.”
Very early on, some students revealed an understanding of the importance of having control over all aspects of the CALL environment (in fact, before the term ‘CALL environment’ was introduced). This is evident in Jenifer’s forum posting, “Teachers need to pay attention to the needs of the students. They also need to make time to pay attention to difficulties that students may have. They need to make the learning environment fun and inclusive for all of the students.” These students were often overwhelmed by the current potential of CALL and consequently uninterested and even confused about the evolution of CALL materials: “I really don’t get what a MOO is from this article, but it sounds like Second Life without the virtual reality.”
However, student-generated discussions about teacher control and apprehension led to students’ recognition of the inevitability of the use of online language material. Jeremy concluded, “There is so much material available on the internet that our students are going to use it, we should learn how to help them make the most of these things.”
Change in Understanding of CALL
The students in the course generally demonstrated an increased appreciation for CALL as well as recognition of the inevitable role that it will play in language teaching in their future careers. However, students demonstrated a shift in their attitude toward CALL throughout this course in some unanticipated ways. While it was anticipated that students who felt threatened by CALL would likely leave the class with more appreciation for the field as a whole, it seems that some who began the class with more advanced skills did not benefit as much from the pedagogical contextualization. These individuals showed little reflection on the pedagogical implications of CALL. Rather, their comments focused on the technological functions. As Randy said in a discussion about interactive online activity creation, “I can’t imagine why anyone would not use cascading style sheets.” While his attention to technological aspects of the creation of an activity was impressive, he demonstrated little awareness of the linguistic context or needs of the target students. However, even these highly technology proficient individuals expressed appreciation for exposure to the field. As Steve said at the end of week two, “Even though I have a BA in IT, this stuff is all new to me.”
The majority of altered perspectives seemed to result from student interaction during in-class discussions and hands-on activities. In-class discussions often resulted in students discussing their own teaching contexts (or anticipated future contexts) as they explored the potential for CALL. Evidence from turn taking in these discussions indicated that it was not the predisposed individuals who had the greatest influence, but rather the students who initially felt that CALL was a threat to their profession. When these students began to question their own preconceptions in the public context of discussions, other students took notice.
383
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
Topics Reflecting Change
The methodology of this course presumes that an integrated presentation of skills and topics will benefit teachers in their developing understanding of CALL. We have seen that teachers in the course developed a greater appreciation for CALL over the 10-week period. The following section presents the topics and discussions that contributed to this shift.
Control
Control over all aspects of the learning process was a major concern among the preservice teachers in this course. While there was an overwhelming sense of a loss of control in many regards in the initial observations, numerous signs showed that teachers developed a greater appreciation for CALL as they developed a greater appreciation for student-centered learning. This acceptance of a contextualized sense of control was recognized by Shelly, who early in the quarter expressed anxiety over students getting lost in the vastness of the internet. In week eight she commented, “Today’s teacher should not fear the technological advancements but rather embrace them to the fullest extent. In using CALL as a classroom tool, the instructor can really take control of the types of information that the students will focus on; as well as providing an organized space for the students to work with. She does not need to control everything.”
Also early in the class, Jessica shared her overwhelmingly negative experience participating in poorly managed and unorganized CMS-based discussions: her sole previous exposure to instructional technology. During the final week as discussion returned to issues of control, Jessica responded, “Just because we are using computers does not mean we let the students do whatever they want.” Further discussion revealed that most of the students felt that if they introduced CALL into their classrooms, particularly internet-based activities, they would lose even a modicum of control over the classroom.
Repurposing resources
One of the major foci of this course is on the potential of extant technologies and content and how these may be repurposed for language learning. While the more tech savvy students generally demonstrated an understanding and appreciation for the potential language learning contribution of CMC technologies, interactive web activities, and resources and communities of learners, they tended to view this entire domain as a self-access zone. Unless software was specifically designed and distributed in a manner that suggested a role of centrality to a course (e.g., traditional courseware packages), these students did not recognize the potential such resources had for a teacher to effectively integrate and manage. This recognition of the potential for repurposing materials and technologies was evident in many discussion, but two particular situations provide a clear illustration.
Sharon had defined CALL early in the class as, “Software that people buy to teach themselves a language, like Rosetta Stone.” During week seven she expressed her excitement about using authentic materials via YouTube and constructing mash-ups with Google maps, “I can see how I might build an entire class around my students making and collecting videos and mapping them together.”
Tomo suggested during the first week that the only useful computer resources for language teaching were dictionaries or translating tools for individual use. After learning how to collect, archive, and organize digital images into a searchable database, Tomo’s perspective
384
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
shifted. As she shared a vocabulary-focused activity organized around such a collection of images, she said, “I can imagine that we can use all kinds of things that are on the internet in these same ways. I can use videos, pictures and even news to help my students.”
In some cases this repurposing extended into areas that the students considered to be potentially threatening or socially inappropriate. Many avid users of social networking sites were disturbed by the suggestion that such sites might serve as extensions of enhancements to the language classroom. In response to a program alumnus (Dave Laurence, Chubu University) conferencing with us about his use of Facebook as a CMS, Gerald’s comment summarized the feelings of this group with, “Facebook is for students, not teachers.”
Teacher developer
Class discussions reinforced the preparation of teacher as developer. If teachers are going to effectively utilize CALL, they need to be as comfortable with the creation of CALL activities as they are with creating traditional activities. An appreciation of this need was reflected in a number of comments. Jenna began a discussion, “It seems that if the teacher doesn’t create materials for her own class, then she will always kind of be an outsider.” Erin expanded on this idea as she guided the discussion to courseware, “If we are going to design our own courseware, we would need to have training and support. We would need to have some software that allowed us to create materials in a way that didn’t require coding. I think we would also need ongoing training.” John introduced issues of context, “The class levels and needs are always different among students so it depends upon the teacher to address these needs. Of course your point of view of the students’ needs is totally different form the one who made the textbook.” Finally, Mandy summarized the topic, “It is important for us to be able to make materials to meet our particular students’ needs.”
Potential of CMC
The students in this course recognized the value of CALL as beginning language teachers. In particular they identified with the extensive exploration of CMC within the literature. Nearly all of them were familiar with various forms of CMC for personal purposes. Some initial comments that addressed the potential of CMC for language teaching include Crystal’s comment, “The ability to communicate with people all over the world in any language is very valuable. I have used it myself, but have never had a teacher tell me to use it.” However, students had an overwhelming sense that CMC is underused or ineffectively used in instruction. Nearly all of the students had some experience using CMC, primarily discussion fora as students, but not for learning language. Some recognized the potential for discussion boards, as noted by Jessica, “A lot of teachers could set up more interactive communication with their students as well as between students for understanding materials,” but they generally felt that fora had either been used inappropriately or too little in their experience. Ying suggested that, “few of them function that well. On one hand, it is hard to manage and collaborate. On the other hand, students seldom find it motivating.” Mandy added, “In my limited experience, the classes I’m taking don’t really use them. Like I said in another post, I sort of find discussion boards boring! I would prefer a real conversation.” Jenna added, “I feel that they are somewhat boring and I usually just try to complete them as quickly as possible so maybe it is not being used to its full advantage because I don’t read others’ responses most of the time.”
Reflecting on their experience using CMC as students, we were able to identify ways that such communication could be used more effectively for the language classroom. As
385
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
Mandy stated, in defense of being accused of being a technophobe, “I’m totally down with making my students use discussion boards. I just don’t want to bore them.” Others began to recognize less obvious benefits of forms of CMC. John said, “At first, I never thought of the assortment of advantages pertaining to the discussion boards. I have always thought that they were just used to answer a question that someone posted. Discussion boards or other forms of communication can be used within a class, outside of class or as a way of extending access to native speakers in an EFL setting.”
Materials design
In response to a discussion about the topic of student feedback in materials design, guided by Kessler and Plakans (2001), many students expressed interest in involving target students to a greater degree into the materials design process. Henry wrote, “It is important to have other viewpoints of how to approach certain learning tasks so it would be easier for the CALL material developers.” Students liked the idea of the think aloud protocol employed by the authors. Mandy wrote, “I like the idea of TAP [Think Aloud Protocol] because it’s so easy for the students providing the feedback—they just say exactly what they’re thinking as they are going through the program.”
Others shared a similar appreciation for reflection on CALL materials and their use. Susan said, “Of course it is important to observe and ask students about how they interact with technology, or even any materials for that matter.” John added, “We need to remember that our point of view may be different from the students, particularly when we use something like software or are working in our native language.” Another shared, “Sometimes teachers don’t even know how the materials work. Sometimes the students are more confident with technology than the teacher.”
Finally, these students began to demonstrate an understanding of the importance of instructional design. As Jenna remarked in a surprised tone, “I’m really beginning to see that the problems I have had using the internet for learning in the past have not been my fault.”
Creation, use, and management of CALL environments
The course presents the creation, use, and management of CALL environments as areas of importance for teachers. The students in the class had many things to share about this topic. Initially, many of these comments reflected teacher control, but as the class progressed they shifted toward more opportunity for student practice and feedback. Stacy, during the first week of class, said, “If we use CD-ROMS instead of internet-based materials we can have more teacher control.” Toward the end of the quarter, Stacy said, “I think it may be more important for us to develop our own materials that allow students to work collaboratively.”
The notion of developing CALL environments rather than seeing CALL as simply collections of isolated tasks was reflected in the evolution of student thought. We heard early on from Mike, “I like the idea of using CALL to replace the drill and kill work that takes up so much classroom time.” Toward the end of the course he said, “We need to get away from pattern drills to allow CALL to focus on more communicative experiences.”
386
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
Influence on Other Units
As Hegelheimer (2006) observed, CALL teacher preparation can have profound influence upon other units within an institution. In this study there were many situations in which language teachers began to integrate CALL into their own classes and peripheral language programs. One example illustrates the potential of this kind of diffusion of technology into other units. One of the members of the class was concurrently enrolled in a course in Wolof (a language spoken in Senegal, Gambia, and Mauritania) with a TA from outside the Linguistics department. Upon hearing the instructor’s complicated instructions for an out-of-class speech-recording assignment, the student came up with a solution: he offered to create a web-based voice board for the class using Gong (a Java-based technology used to facilitate discussions in our class). This particular student had expressed frustration with the Gong software during week three, “I wish it could be less difficult to use,” but faced with a less elegant solution his appreciation became evident. After creating this solution for his Wolof class, this individual was determined to continue using it for student recordings in the future.
DISCUSSION
Initial Understanding of CALL
While the discourse observed in this course reveals a noticeable positive shift in perception of CALL during this class, at the end of the course it was still generally conceived of as supplementary and potentially threatening. In fact some students who chose to enroll in the subsequent elective courses did so precisely in response to feeling threatened. The predominant theme throughout the student-generated discourse revolved around attention to issues of control over the learning process, the environment, and their students. The students discussed concern for a general lack of control over their own students as those students progress in language learning. This sense of a lack of control, along with a general sense of apprehension about the use of CALL, dominated much of the discussion throughout the course.
Students seemed inclined to gravitate toward teaching practices and materials similar to those they utilized as language students. CALL does not fall into this realm and may consequently raise apprehension. This increased apprehension is magnified by limited, but generally negative, previous experience with ineffective (and often incidental) integration of CALL, a problem which reinforces the need for formal CALL teacher preparation.
Shift in Understanding of CALL
The majority of altered perspectives seem to result from student interaction during in-class discussions and hands-on activities. In-class discussions often drifted toward discussing individual teaching contexts (or anticipated future contexts) as they explored the potential for CALL. Again, evidence from turn taking in these discussions indicates that it was not the predisposed students who had the greatest influence, but rather the students who initially felt that CALL was a threat to their profession. When these students begin to question their own preconceptions in the public context of discussions, other students take notice.
Pedagogical Implications
Discussions of control over the learning environment dominated the course. Despite having both SLA and methodology courses prior to this course, students still seem to require an ori387
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
entation to student-centered learning in a CALL context. Primarily intended to assuage concerns over a potential lack of control, this orientation can also help to raise awareness of design and usability. The students in the course recognized that student-centered constructivist practices could be assisted through the informed use of CALL solutions. It may be beneficial to have students engage in CALL-based constructivist activities that help them to recognize the unanticipated roles they may assume as well as the potential for language practice.
The students in the class tended to think of CALL as a collection of supplemental or peripheral resources rather than an organized environment instrumental to language teaching. Students who demonstrated critical exploration of linguistic-oriented topics did not transfer these critical skills to the CALL domain. In many cases it seemed as though technology itself threatened the students’ confidence; as though they were so overwhelmed by the technical skills that they lost interest in critical analysis. Without the ability to critically evaluate CALL within SLA, teachers are likely to adhere to their technology-oriented preconceptions rather than pedagogically sound practices that happen to benefit from technological enhancement. CALL teacher preparation should be grounded on sound pedagogical practices rather than specific forms of technology.
The shift in understanding of CALL among the students reflected thoughtfulness about the pedagogical implications of CALL solutions. Participants recognized the benefits of exploiting universal and transferable technology skills. They also demonstrated an appreciation for addressing specific issues within various CALL contexts. These skills required explicit discussion and contextualized practice. Preparing teachers to identify the available resources and apply them to their self-defined contexts provided the students with exposure to learning opportunities that the instructor had not been able to anticipate. Such context specific practice may be further enhanced by collaborative internships in real-world settings.
CONCLUSION
Teachers who are less confident with technology feel threatened by CALL, in spite of some recognizing it as an effective means of instruction. Initially, this threat is largely based upon the fact that these students are all first generation CALL teachers. The threat that CALL presents may manifest itself in the form of a computer that teaches students directly (eliminating the need for teachers), a student who is more adept with technology than the teacher, or a sense that technology moves too rapidly for a bystander to keep pace. As a consequence, they share a general lack of awareness of the potential of CALL, but they are interested in the potential once they are exposed to the field.
First generation CALL teachers who are confident using technology in their personal lives tend to recognize the potential for CALL, but they tend to overlook very simple or obvious solutions or contexts in which extant technology may enhance language learning. Even those with extensive technology skills may not easily transfer these skills to CALL contexts, or any teaching purposes for that matter. Those who are generally uncomfortable with technology may focus more attention on the development of skills to develop a sound foundational understanding of the field. Focusing instruction on a student-centered, constructivist environment helped all students to recognize the contributions that CALL can make to teaching.
Further investigation into the needs and expectations of all language teachers needs to be conducted. As novice teachers develop increased familiarity with a broader range of CALL-related skills, their needs will shift. It is important that this development be studied in order to design teacher preparation programs that are relevant and meaningful for these teachers.
388
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
NOTE
1 The names of the students are pseudonyms.
REFERENCES
Bannink, A., & van Dam, J. (2006). A dynamic approach to classroom research. Linguistics and Education, 17, 283-301.
Bauer-Ramazani, C. (2006). Training CALL teachers online. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 183-202). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Group.
Buzzelli, C., & Johnston, B. (2001). Authority, power, and morality in classroom discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 873-884.
Chapelle, C. (1990). The discourse of computer-assisted language learning: Toward a context for descriptive research. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 199-225.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chaudron, C., Loschky, L., & Cook, J. (1994). Second language listening comprehension and lecture note-taking. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 75-92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csomay, E. (2005). Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus based perspective. Linguistics and Education, 15, 243-274.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and their pedagogical implications. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 146-158). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dunkel, P. A., & Davis, J. N. (1994). The effects of rhetorical signaling cues on the recall of English lecture information by speakers of English as a native or second language. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 55-74). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Egbert, J. (2006). Learning in context: Situating language teacher learning in CALL. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 167-181). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Flowerdew, J. (1994). Research of relevance to second language lecture comprehension: An overview. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 7-29). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fotos, S., & Browne, C. M. (Eds.). (2004). New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hanson-Smith, E. (2006). Communities of practice for pre- and in-service teacher education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 301-315). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hegelheimer, V. (2006). When the technology course is required. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 117-133). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO Journal, 25, 175-188. Retrieved October 11, 2009, from https://calico.org/page.php?id=5
Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2006). The scope of CALL education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 3-20). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
389
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
Kassen, M. A., Lavine, R. Z., Murphy-Judy, K., & Peters, M. (2007). Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers. San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could we do better? In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 23-42). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kessler, G. (2007). Formal and informal CALL preparation and teacher attitude toward technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 173-188.
Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2001). Incorporating ESOL learners’ feedback and usability testing into instructor-developed materials. TESOL Journal, 10, 15-20.
Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2008). Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 269-282.
Mauranen, A. (2001). Reflexive academic talk: Observations from MICASE. In R. C. Simpson & J. M. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America (pp. 165-178). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Meskill, C., Mossop, J., DiAngelo, S., & Pasquale, R. K. (2002). Expert and novice teachers talking technology: Precepts, concepts, and misconcepts. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 46-57. Retrieved October 11, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/meskill
Meskill, C., Anthony, N., Hilliker-VanStrander, S., Tseng, C. H., & You, J. (2006). Expert-novice teacher mentoring in language learning technology. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 283-291). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Milbrath, Y., & Kinzie, M. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 373–396.
Oxford, R., & Jung, S. H. (2007). National guidelines for technology integration in TESOL programs: Factors affecting (non)implementation. In M. A. Kassen, R. Z. Lavine, K. Murphy-Judy, & M. Peters, M. (Eds.), Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers (pp. 23-48). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Peters, M. (2006). Developing computer competencies for pre-service language teachers: Is one course enough? In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 153-165). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Robb, T. (2006). Helping teachers to help themselves. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 335-347). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Slaouti, D., & Motteram, G. (2006). Reconstructing practice: Language teacher education and ICT. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 81-97). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Snow, M. A. (2005). Key themes in TESOL MA teacher education. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Second language teacher education: International perspectives (pp. 261-272). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swales, J., & Malczewski, B. (2001). Discourse management and new-episode flags in MICASE. In R. Simpson & J. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America (pp. 145-164). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Tauroza, S., & Allison, D. (1994). Expectation-driven understanding in information systems lecture comprehension. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 35-54). New York: Cambridge University Press.
390
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
APPENDIX A
Reading and Discussion List
(Note: “Chapter” Readings are from Fotos S. and Browne, C.M. (2004). New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.)
Week One
• Levy, M. and Hubbard, P. (2005) Why call CALL “CALL’’? CALL Journal 18(3), 143-149.
• Chapter 1 The development of CALL and Current Options
Week Two
• Chapter 3 The New language Centers and the Role of Technology: New Mandates, New Horizons
• Chapter 4 Learner training for Effective Use of CALL
Week Three
• Monday (Holiday –no Class)
• Chapter 8 Teaching WELL and Loving IT.
Week Four
• Chapter 14 Evaluation of ESL/EFL instructional web sites
• Kessler, G & Plakans, L. (2001). Incorporating ESOL Learners’ Feedback and Usability Testing Into Instructor-Developed CALL Materials, Spring 2001, TESOL Journal, 15-20. Alexandria: VA
Week Five
• Chapter 10 Setting up and Maintaining a CALL Laboratory
• Chapter 11 Implementing Multimedia in a University EFL Program: A Case Study in CALL
Week Six
• Chapter 7 Writing as Talking: E-mail Exchange for Promoting Proficiency and Motivation in the Foreign Language Classroom.
• Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer-Assisted Language Learning. In C. Chapelle (ed.), Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press: NY.
Week Seven
• Chapter 9 Creating Course–Specific CD-ROMS for Interactive Language Learning
• Bikowski, D. & Kessler, G. (2002). Making the most of discussion boards in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Journal, 11(3) 27-30
Week Eight
• Chapter 13 Toward a Theory of E/valuation for Second Language Learning Media
• Chapter 5 Electronic Media in Second Language Writing: An Overview of Tools and Research Findings
Week Nine
• Chapter 12 A Collaborative Model for Online Instruction in the Teaching of Language and Culture
• Chapter 2 Technological Change and the Future of CALL
Week Ten
• Chapter 15 The Language Teacher in the 21st Century
391
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
APPENDIX B
Technology self-assessment Name
1. How often do you use a computer?
2. For what do you primarily use a computer?
For each of the following, select 0-3 according to this scale:
0 = I don’t know anything about this
1 = I have heard of this, what is it exactly?
2 = I do this occasionally
3 = I do this very often
Skill
Using Microsoft PowerPoint
Using Microsoft Word
Using multimedia
Using Email
Using Course Management Systems (Blackboard, WebCT, Moodle)
Using Internet browsers (Explorer, Netscape)
Finding Internet resources (search engine)
Saving Internet URLs on disk
Making web pages (using DreamWeaver, Netscape Composer, etc.)
Making web pages (html or other code)
Making instructional materials for the web
Burning a CD or DVD
Using a digital camera
Editing digital pictures
Scanning photographs and text
Recording sound or video
Using a digital video camera
Editing video on a computer
Converting audio/ video from analog to digital
Collecting online images
Collecting text from the internet
Collecting audio files
Collecting video files
Training others to use technology
Overseeing instructional technology use
Diagnosing software problems
Diagnosing hardware problems
392
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
AUTHOR’S BIODATA
Greg Kessler is an assistant professor of CALL and director of the Language Resource Center at Ohio University. His research interests include CALL teacher preparation, CALL use in innovative pedagogical contexts, and student and teacher autonomy in CALL contexts.
AUTHOR’S ADDRESS
Greg Kessler
155 Gordy Hall
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701
Phone: 740 593 4321
Email: Kessler@ohio.edu
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
CALICO Journal, 27(2), p-p 376-392. © 2010 CALICO Journal
When They Talk About CALL:
Discourse in a Required CALL Class
Greg Kessler
Ohio University
ABSTRACT
This study investigates preservice teachers’ discourse about CALL in a required CALL class which combines theory and practice. Thirty-three students in a Linguistics MA program CALL course were observed over a 10-week quarter. For all of these students, it was their first formal exposure to CALL as a discipline. Communication in the class consisted of student-led in-class discussions, web-based wiki, chat, and discussion fora. All communication during the course was recorded for the purpose of investigating teachers’ emerging perceptions of CALL and the role it plays in language teaching and learning. All the preservice teachers were new to CALL and consequently had a lack of awareness of the breadth of the topic. They were initially apprehensive about the notion of CALL. A lack of awareness of the potential for CALL and negative experiences with poorly designed technology accounted for much of this apprehension. There was also an overwhelming sense that CALL threatened the teacher in myriad ways. Competent with technology for personal purposes, these teachers did not easily transfer skills to CALL contexts. When faced with the opportunity to discuss CALL in depth they began to appreciate the potential for technology use in language teaching. However, they expressed sustained concern over a potential loss of control over the teaching environment and students. Suggestions for cultivating a student-centered CALL classroom address these concerns.
KEYWORDS
Teacher Preparation, Classroom Discourse, Teacher Attitude, First Generation of CALL Teachers
INTRODUCTION
CALL teacher preparation is an area of increasing interest. Recent edited collections have addressed CALL teacher preparation through insights gained from CALL professionals, administrators, teachers confident with CALL use, and educators who prepare CALL teachers (Hubbard & Levy, 2006; Kassen, Lavine, Murphy-Judy, & Peters, 2007). These collections offer a foundation upon which further research into CALL teacher preparation can be constructed. They suggest that there is an overall lack of CALL teacher preparation (Kessler, 2006; Oxford & Jung, 2007), an insufficient breadth of CALL preparation (Peters, 2006), and limited contextualization (Egbert, 2006). Much of this research is based upon the perceptions and practice of graduates of masters level language teacher preparation programs who are reflecting upon both their learning and teaching experience.
The current study examines the perceptions of Linguistics students throughout a required CALL course. An entire 40-hour quarter long course was recorded to examine student discourse. As they explored CALL theory, principles, and practices, they shared their thoughts through in-class discussions, question and answer sessions, various forms of CMC, and a collaborative CALL wiki. The manner of participation and language used in these tasks reflect
377
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
students’ preconceptions, evolving attitudes, and cumulative thoughts about CALL and its role in language learning. Contextualized details about what students found most useful and rewarding as well as what they found challenging, unanticipated, or unnecessarily complicated are identified and discussed. The collaborative construction of their CALL understanding is explored and provides valuable insight into how we might better conduct CALL teacher preparation. The evolution of their CALL-oriented thinking helps illuminate the most salient aspects of their CALL preparation.
CALL TEACHER PREPARATION
While it has recently been noted that CALL teacher preparation is often perceived as lacking in both quantity and quality, there appears to be an increased focus on CALL preparation in recent years (Kessler, 2006). This increased attention may result partly from previous studies that have proposed approaches to enhance CALL teacher preparation. Many of these studies have relied on surveying and interviewing teachers about their ongoing CALL preparation, subsequent use of CALL in the language classroom, and perceived needs for further CALL preparation. The recent growth in this area has resulted in varied programmatic descriptions. Hubbard (2008) provides an overview of approaches to CALL teacher preparation, including breadth-first, depth-first, online, and programmatically integrated orientation to CALL. The various processes involved in CALL preparation include autonomous self-directed learning (Robb, 2006), communities of practice (Hanson-Smith, 2006), situated learning (Egbert, 2006) and mentoring (Meskill, Anthony, Hilliker-VanStrander, Tseng, & You, 2006).
Hubbard and Levy (2006) present a diversity of approaches to CALL teacher preparation. Of particular interest are the institutional and functional roles, including CALL specialists, CALL professionals, CALL practitioners and classroom teachers. They suggest that language teachers who use CALL not be referred to as CALL teachers since CALL is likely only one aspect of their overall role, albeit an important one that may involve promoting, managing, or assessing students’ learning. Hubbard and Levy suggest that these teachers simply be called classroom teachers, suggesting that all language teachers need a fundamental set of CALL competencies.
Much of the focus in CALL-related teacher preparation is derived in a top-down manner. CALL trainers have reflected upon their own use of CALL, their observations of CALL practice, and the anticipated needs of practitioners in the future. For the purposes of this study the intention was to familiarize teachers with the background in CALL materials, practice, and thought. In the conventions established by Hubbard and Levy (2006), these teachers should be expected to be capable of functioning as classroom teachers by the end of the course. Those who desire to be CALL specialists, CALL professionals or CALL practitioners will require additional professional development such as that available in the follow-up elective courses offered in our program and others.
Graduate students in a CALL teacher preparation program are likely to fall into each of the four categories of classroom teacher, CALL specialist, CALL professional, and CALL practitioner. In fact, they may shift from one category to another throughout the course of their careers. It may be easy to identify those who will be CALL specialists and professionals through the language that they use to describe CALL as they are first exposed to the field. It is less obvious which teachers will be competent CALL users since some may appear to be less interested or even reluctant in this new and unfamiliar arena.
378
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
Teachers’ Perception of CALL Preparation
Kessler (2007) found that teachers who had graduated from MA language teacher preparation programs felt there was a dearth of attention to CALL teacher preparation. He further found that teachers perceived their informal CALL preparation to be more beneficial than formal preparation to their development of CALL. This seems to be the result of a general dissatisfaction with the type of training they are receiving. Slaouti and Motteram (2006) recognized a number of characteristics important to teachers engaged in CALL teacher preparation. The teachers they worked with talked about the value of skills and knowledge as well as the importance of context. These teachers also expressed their appreciation for a solid theoretical foundation upon which they could build CALL practice. Further, the teachers expressed an increased awareness of their teaching abilities in relation to CALL along with a willingness to try new technology-related teaching tasks.
Egbert (2006) noted that required asynchronous discussion in a CALL course allowed teachers to share their own teaching experience in a context where they felt knowledgeable and valued. Hegelheimer (2006) surveyed students in a required CALL course and found that as teacher educators become aware of the expectations of a CALL course they are likely to prepare their instruction in a manner that presumes familiarity with certain skills and knowledge. He also suggests CALL training has resulted in increased confidence and use of technology in peripheral teacher preparation and language classes within an institution and also in disappointment when technology was not effectively integrated. In the general realm of TESOL teacher preparation, some have noted that the addition of a required CALL component has enhanced teachers’ “instructional repertoire in the ESL classroom” (Snow, 2005, p. 266) as well as improving their job prospects.
The ability to utilize, create, and manage CALL environments for integrated language skill development is a critical foundation upon which CALL teacher autonomy rests. Further, it is important that teachers utilize the potential that technology offers rather than mimic activities from paper-based texts. However, it seems that teachers may be ill prepared for this progression. Kessler (2007) found that teachers felt less confident working with audio and video than any other type of technology-based media. Teachers were not confident using digital audio and video materials in the classroom, but they were even less confident creating such materials for their students. The use of audio and video in a language learning context may be considered critical for successful CALL integration.
RESEARCHING CLASSROOM DISCOURSE
Early investigation into university classroom discourse focused on the discourse of lectures (Flowerdew, 1994), listener expectations (Tauroza & Allison, 1994), note taking (Chaudron, Loschky, & Cook, 1994), signaling cues (Dunkel & Davis, 1994), and lecture variation across disciplines (Dudley-Evans, 1994). In recent years, linguists have begun to investigate various forms of communication that occur in the university classroom, including reflexivity (Mauranen, 2001), linguistics variation (Csomay, 2005), and the use of discourse markers (Swales & Malczewski, 2001). Research in this area has typically focused on either specific lexical items or grammatical features (Csomay, 2005).
Observing the discourse of the university classroom is inherently difficult. Buzzelli and Johnston (2001) identify the complex nature of classroom discourse, concluding that the authority of the teacher often dominates the nature of discourse and subsequent perspectives of students. Further, it may be difficult to target the most valuable exchanges in the classroom. Bannink and van Dam (2006) suggest that much of what is potentially most interest379
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
ing in classroom discourse is often left unstudied. They focus upon the whispers, muttering, body language, and other discreet aspects of communication. Thus far there has been no discourse-based investigation in the CALL teacher preparation classroom.
CURRENT STUDY
Research Questions
1. What does discourse about CALL in a required CALL course reveal about language teachers’ and preservice teachers’ understanding of CALL?
2. As teachers learn more about CALL, does their discourse reflect a shift in their understanding?
3. How can teachers’ emerging discourse about CALL inform teacher preparation?
Methodology
By focusing on the perspective of teachers in training, we have learned a great deal about the needs for this type of preparation. However, previous studies have relied upon surveys or interviews with students either engaged in CALL preparation or as a follow-up debriefing. This study utilizes the body of language produced by the students in a required CALL course as the data. Thus, we are able to observe perceptions not only at the very beginning and end of the first course exposing teachers to CALL thought, but also throughout the process of their learning about CALL. Extending Chapelle’s (1990) proposal for discourse analysis of student and computer interaction, this study relies upon extensive documentation of all spoken and written interaction among preservice teachers in a required CALL course. Focus was placed upon discourse that revealed assumptions, attitudes, or expectations about CALL and connected aspects of methodology and second language acquisition (SLA). Each class meeting involved a 30-minute discussion around a CALL-related article intended to serve as an introduction to various topics in CALL (see reading and discussion list in Appendix A). By allowing students to lead class discussions and guide the initial coverage of these topics themselves, teacher bias was reduced. During these discussions, all students participated. Much of the discourse that was observed functioned as a guiding force for the focus of class discussions, allowing opportunities for discussion that would otherwise be impossible to anticipate. The discourse that followed the anticipated, intended, or guided course of instruction was not included in this analysis.
The Course
The course in which this study was conducted is required for all Linguistics MA students. The course is divided equally among three areas: general computer skills and knowledge, CALL oriented skills and knowledge, and introductory CALL and related SLA theory. Each day of the course combines foci on these aspects. Throughout the course CALL is presented in a manner that recognizes the caution that should be exercised when considering its use; the instructor does not promote CALL universally or as an off the shelf solution. Students are responsive to this thoughtful treatment, which may contribute to the overall acceptance of CALL’s usefulness. Further, the mere fact that this degree program requires a CALL course may provide enough endorsement for some students.
380
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
The course is built around a project-based breadth approach. Students are introduced to CALL theory and practices as they also learn various skills relevant to the use of CALL. Fotos and Browne (2004) serves as the central text for the course, but additional readings from various CALL journals and edited volumes are used to supplement the central text. Each meeting involves a student-led discussion centered around one of the readings for the course. These discussions resulted in a large portion of the data for this study. Additional data were garnered from discussion fora from the Moodle-based CMS that supported the course.
While the course is intended to prepare what Hubbard and Levy (2006) describe as classroom teachers, 71% of the students who have completed this course have taken at least one of the four elective CALL courses that comprise our CALL sequence. Many continue to use, and expand upon, the skills and knowledge gained from these classes by using CALL in their own language classes. However, this positive response is not indicative of all students who take the course. While some students who enter the course are skeptical about the potential of CALL develop a great appreciation for CALL, others avoid any further exposure to CALL. This study is intended to develop a better understanding of this divide.
The Students
The 33 participants in this study were from three different groups: 19 graduate students in the second quarter of a first-year Linguistics MA TESOL program from a variety of cultural and educational backgrounds, 10 American undergraduate students from a variety of disciplines with interest in language teaching, and 4 doctoral students from the College of Education with background and interest in language teaching. The MA Linguistics students were concurrently enrolled in a course in syntax and a course in methods and had all taken a linguistics survey course as well as a course in SLA prior to this course. All of the students in the study can be described as ‘first generation CALL teachers:’ those who are using or intend to use CALL as teachers despite the fact that they did not use it as students. They may have had some exposure to instructional technology as students, but no previous exposure to CALL as language teachers or learners. In general the students considered CALL to be limited to broadly distributed self-study commercial offerings such as Rosetta Stone or Berlitz.
Data Collection and Analysis
In this study the entirety of classroom discourse was videotaped in order to capture the central points of discussions as well as the discreet asides and subtleties of communication identified by Bannink and van Dam (2006). The students interacted in varied ways. Student-led in-class discussions, a wiki, discussion fora, and spontaneous in-class communication were all recorded over the course of 10 weeks. This collection was organized and coded as themes emerged. Per the guidelines of Bogdan and Biklen (2003), the data were organized, broken into smaller units, synthesized, and then generalized out to larger concepts. Coding began with a preliminary coding scheme that included X codes based on the students’ communication, leading to a refined coding scheme including Y codes. While other codes were found in addition to the ones included in this article, the codes chosen for deeper analysis were those that indicated a change in students’ attitudes/perceptions of CALL. Primary focus was placed upon discourse that reflected initial perceptions, any change in perception between the beginning and end of the quarter, and final perceptions. Themes were also organized by student and week in order to observe individual and group characteristics.
381
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
FINDINGS
Initial Understanding of CALL
During the first week of the course, there were numerous indications that many did not choose to be in this class. As two students commented, “I only use computers when I need to” and “I don’t think we will ever have computers in the classroom in my country.”
At the beginning of the course, students were asked to assess their own technology-related skills (see technology self-assessment in Appendix B). Students in the course tended to identify themselves as either very strong or very weak in this regard with few ranking their abilities in the middle. These skills seemed to directly reflect their disposition toward CALL.
However, previous research has suggested that mere technology proficiency may not be the best predictor of innovative or integrated CALL instruction (Kessler & Plakans, 2008). Even the most technology proficient students had never explored the potential of using computers to teach language beyond the use of self-study CD-ROMs for their own language study. The majority of students recognized some benefit of self-access autonomous CALL use for extensive exposure to tasks such as grammar correction. Four students began the class with a positive attitude toward CALL within language teaching outside of the realm of self-access drill-and-practice material.
The most obvious initial observation involved awareness of CALL as an area of investigation. Nearly all of the students expressed a lack of awareness of anything related to CALL. It is interesting that this was not a reflection of students’ previous technology knowledge or experience. In fact, it was those students who claimed to be most comfortable with technology in general who expressed the most surprise that CALL itself existed as an area of investigation.
Despite this dearth of awareness, a few of the students began with a perspective of the inevitability of an increase in CALL in the language teaching environment. As Jenna1 stated early in the class, “The next generation of teachers should not only know what to teach, but also how to use technology to teach effectively. They don’t have to be computer freaks, but they have to understand technology at some basic level.” This quote was the inspiration for the notion of ‘first generation CALL teachers.’
Apprehension
An overwhelming sense of apprehension dominated the class at the beginning of the quarter. In many cases it was deemed a threat to the teacher’s status or ability to manage the delivery of content. A statement by George reflected this concept, “We need to keep them under control … the more the students use the computers the less control I have over the classroom, and it seems that there are some students who use a lot of internet resources to learn language and they watch videos on youTube and then they are ahead of the other students and they complain.”
To some extent this apprehension may have been a reflection of perpetuating the teaching style of one’s favorite language teacher. Numerous in-class statements suggested that this reverence may influence a language teacher’s behavior more than their explicit study of methodology. As Jenna said at the end of the first week, “I never used any computer in my classes and I learned Spanish well. I think my students can do the same.”
382
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
Apprehension presented itself as a threat to the role of teachers as well. At the beginning of the course a number of students identified CALL as a replacement for teachers. This was evident in the forum posting of Hiromi, “Since teachers are not teaching in class but computers, teachers do not have to lead class, rather their roles are more like ‘Engineer people’.”
There was also evidence that students of all ages were reluctant to use CALL as teachers. As a 25-year-old native English speaking Caucasian male student shared, “I’ve only used computers when I absolutely have to.”
Very early on, some students revealed an understanding of the importance of having control over all aspects of the CALL environment (in fact, before the term ‘CALL environment’ was introduced). This is evident in Jenifer’s forum posting, “Teachers need to pay attention to the needs of the students. They also need to make time to pay attention to difficulties that students may have. They need to make the learning environment fun and inclusive for all of the students.” These students were often overwhelmed by the current potential of CALL and consequently uninterested and even confused about the evolution of CALL materials: “I really don’t get what a MOO is from this article, but it sounds like Second Life without the virtual reality.”
However, student-generated discussions about teacher control and apprehension led to students’ recognition of the inevitability of the use of online language material. Jeremy concluded, “There is so much material available on the internet that our students are going to use it, we should learn how to help them make the most of these things.”
Change in Understanding of CALL
The students in the course generally demonstrated an increased appreciation for CALL as well as recognition of the inevitable role that it will play in language teaching in their future careers. However, students demonstrated a shift in their attitude toward CALL throughout this course in some unanticipated ways. While it was anticipated that students who felt threatened by CALL would likely leave the class with more appreciation for the field as a whole, it seems that some who began the class with more advanced skills did not benefit as much from the pedagogical contextualization. These individuals showed little reflection on the pedagogical implications of CALL. Rather, their comments focused on the technological functions. As Randy said in a discussion about interactive online activity creation, “I can’t imagine why anyone would not use cascading style sheets.” While his attention to technological aspects of the creation of an activity was impressive, he demonstrated little awareness of the linguistic context or needs of the target students. However, even these highly technology proficient individuals expressed appreciation for exposure to the field. As Steve said at the end of week two, “Even though I have a BA in IT, this stuff is all new to me.”
The majority of altered perspectives seemed to result from student interaction during in-class discussions and hands-on activities. In-class discussions often resulted in students discussing their own teaching contexts (or anticipated future contexts) as they explored the potential for CALL. Evidence from turn taking in these discussions indicated that it was not the predisposed individuals who had the greatest influence, but rather the students who initially felt that CALL was a threat to their profession. When these students began to question their own preconceptions in the public context of discussions, other students took notice.
383
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
Topics Reflecting Change
The methodology of this course presumes that an integrated presentation of skills and topics will benefit teachers in their developing understanding of CALL. We have seen that teachers in the course developed a greater appreciation for CALL over the 10-week period. The following section presents the topics and discussions that contributed to this shift.
Control
Control over all aspects of the learning process was a major concern among the preservice teachers in this course. While there was an overwhelming sense of a loss of control in many regards in the initial observations, numerous signs showed that teachers developed a greater appreciation for CALL as they developed a greater appreciation for student-centered learning. This acceptance of a contextualized sense of control was recognized by Shelly, who early in the quarter expressed anxiety over students getting lost in the vastness of the internet. In week eight she commented, “Today’s teacher should not fear the technological advancements but rather embrace them to the fullest extent. In using CALL as a classroom tool, the instructor can really take control of the types of information that the students will focus on; as well as providing an organized space for the students to work with. She does not need to control everything.”
Also early in the class, Jessica shared her overwhelmingly negative experience participating in poorly managed and unorganized CMS-based discussions: her sole previous exposure to instructional technology. During the final week as discussion returned to issues of control, Jessica responded, “Just because we are using computers does not mean we let the students do whatever they want.” Further discussion revealed that most of the students felt that if they introduced CALL into their classrooms, particularly internet-based activities, they would lose even a modicum of control over the classroom.
Repurposing resources
One of the major foci of this course is on the potential of extant technologies and content and how these may be repurposed for language learning. While the more tech savvy students generally demonstrated an understanding and appreciation for the potential language learning contribution of CMC technologies, interactive web activities, and resources and communities of learners, they tended to view this entire domain as a self-access zone. Unless software was specifically designed and distributed in a manner that suggested a role of centrality to a course (e.g., traditional courseware packages), these students did not recognize the potential such resources had for a teacher to effectively integrate and manage. This recognition of the potential for repurposing materials and technologies was evident in many discussion, but two particular situations provide a clear illustration.
Sharon had defined CALL early in the class as, “Software that people buy to teach themselves a language, like Rosetta Stone.” During week seven she expressed her excitement about using authentic materials via YouTube and constructing mash-ups with Google maps, “I can see how I might build an entire class around my students making and collecting videos and mapping them together.”
Tomo suggested during the first week that the only useful computer resources for language teaching were dictionaries or translating tools for individual use. After learning how to collect, archive, and organize digital images into a searchable database, Tomo’s perspective
384
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
shifted. As she shared a vocabulary-focused activity organized around such a collection of images, she said, “I can imagine that we can use all kinds of things that are on the internet in these same ways. I can use videos, pictures and even news to help my students.”
In some cases this repurposing extended into areas that the students considered to be potentially threatening or socially inappropriate. Many avid users of social networking sites were disturbed by the suggestion that such sites might serve as extensions of enhancements to the language classroom. In response to a program alumnus (Dave Laurence, Chubu University) conferencing with us about his use of Facebook as a CMS, Gerald’s comment summarized the feelings of this group with, “Facebook is for students, not teachers.”
Teacher developer
Class discussions reinforced the preparation of teacher as developer. If teachers are going to effectively utilize CALL, they need to be as comfortable with the creation of CALL activities as they are with creating traditional activities. An appreciation of this need was reflected in a number of comments. Jenna began a discussion, “It seems that if the teacher doesn’t create materials for her own class, then she will always kind of be an outsider.” Erin expanded on this idea as she guided the discussion to courseware, “If we are going to design our own courseware, we would need to have training and support. We would need to have some software that allowed us to create materials in a way that didn’t require coding. I think we would also need ongoing training.” John introduced issues of context, “The class levels and needs are always different among students so it depends upon the teacher to address these needs. Of course your point of view of the students’ needs is totally different form the one who made the textbook.” Finally, Mandy summarized the topic, “It is important for us to be able to make materials to meet our particular students’ needs.”
Potential of CMC
The students in this course recognized the value of CALL as beginning language teachers. In particular they identified with the extensive exploration of CMC within the literature. Nearly all of them were familiar with various forms of CMC for personal purposes. Some initial comments that addressed the potential of CMC for language teaching include Crystal’s comment, “The ability to communicate with people all over the world in any language is very valuable. I have used it myself, but have never had a teacher tell me to use it.” However, students had an overwhelming sense that CMC is underused or ineffectively used in instruction. Nearly all of the students had some experience using CMC, primarily discussion fora as students, but not for learning language. Some recognized the potential for discussion boards, as noted by Jessica, “A lot of teachers could set up more interactive communication with their students as well as between students for understanding materials,” but they generally felt that fora had either been used inappropriately or too little in their experience. Ying suggested that, “few of them function that well. On one hand, it is hard to manage and collaborate. On the other hand, students seldom find it motivating.” Mandy added, “In my limited experience, the classes I’m taking don’t really use them. Like I said in another post, I sort of find discussion boards boring! I would prefer a real conversation.” Jenna added, “I feel that they are somewhat boring and I usually just try to complete them as quickly as possible so maybe it is not being used to its full advantage because I don’t read others’ responses most of the time.”
Reflecting on their experience using CMC as students, we were able to identify ways that such communication could be used more effectively for the language classroom. As
385
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
Mandy stated, in defense of being accused of being a technophobe, “I’m totally down with making my students use discussion boards. I just don’t want to bore them.” Others began to recognize less obvious benefits of forms of CMC. John said, “At first, I never thought of the assortment of advantages pertaining to the discussion boards. I have always thought that they were just used to answer a question that someone posted. Discussion boards or other forms of communication can be used within a class, outside of class or as a way of extending access to native speakers in an EFL setting.”
Materials design
In response to a discussion about the topic of student feedback in materials design, guided by Kessler and Plakans (2001), many students expressed interest in involving target students to a greater degree into the materials design process. Henry wrote, “It is important to have other viewpoints of how to approach certain learning tasks so it would be easier for the CALL material developers.” Students liked the idea of the think aloud protocol employed by the authors. Mandy wrote, “I like the idea of TAP [Think Aloud Protocol] because it’s so easy for the students providing the feedback—they just say exactly what they’re thinking as they are going through the program.”
Others shared a similar appreciation for reflection on CALL materials and their use. Susan said, “Of course it is important to observe and ask students about how they interact with technology, or even any materials for that matter.” John added, “We need to remember that our point of view may be different from the students, particularly when we use something like software or are working in our native language.” Another shared, “Sometimes teachers don’t even know how the materials work. Sometimes the students are more confident with technology than the teacher.”
Finally, these students began to demonstrate an understanding of the importance of instructional design. As Jenna remarked in a surprised tone, “I’m really beginning to see that the problems I have had using the internet for learning in the past have not been my fault.”
Creation, use, and management of CALL environments
The course presents the creation, use, and management of CALL environments as areas of importance for teachers. The students in the class had many things to share about this topic. Initially, many of these comments reflected teacher control, but as the class progressed they shifted toward more opportunity for student practice and feedback. Stacy, during the first week of class, said, “If we use CD-ROMS instead of internet-based materials we can have more teacher control.” Toward the end of the quarter, Stacy said, “I think it may be more important for us to develop our own materials that allow students to work collaboratively.”
The notion of developing CALL environments rather than seeing CALL as simply collections of isolated tasks was reflected in the evolution of student thought. We heard early on from Mike, “I like the idea of using CALL to replace the drill and kill work that takes up so much classroom time.” Toward the end of the course he said, “We need to get away from pattern drills to allow CALL to focus on more communicative experiences.”
386
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
Influence on Other Units
As Hegelheimer (2006) observed, CALL teacher preparation can have profound influence upon other units within an institution. In this study there were many situations in which language teachers began to integrate CALL into their own classes and peripheral language programs. One example illustrates the potential of this kind of diffusion of technology into other units. One of the members of the class was concurrently enrolled in a course in Wolof (a language spoken in Senegal, Gambia, and Mauritania) with a TA from outside the Linguistics department. Upon hearing the instructor’s complicated instructions for an out-of-class speech-recording assignment, the student came up with a solution: he offered to create a web-based voice board for the class using Gong (a Java-based technology used to facilitate discussions in our class). This particular student had expressed frustration with the Gong software during week three, “I wish it could be less difficult to use,” but faced with a less elegant solution his appreciation became evident. After creating this solution for his Wolof class, this individual was determined to continue using it for student recordings in the future.
DISCUSSION
Initial Understanding of CALL
While the discourse observed in this course reveals a noticeable positive shift in perception of CALL during this class, at the end of the course it was still generally conceived of as supplementary and potentially threatening. In fact some students who chose to enroll in the subsequent elective courses did so precisely in response to feeling threatened. The predominant theme throughout the student-generated discourse revolved around attention to issues of control over the learning process, the environment, and their students. The students discussed concern for a general lack of control over their own students as those students progress in language learning. This sense of a lack of control, along with a general sense of apprehension about the use of CALL, dominated much of the discussion throughout the course.
Students seemed inclined to gravitate toward teaching practices and materials similar to those they utilized as language students. CALL does not fall into this realm and may consequently raise apprehension. This increased apprehension is magnified by limited, but generally negative, previous experience with ineffective (and often incidental) integration of CALL, a problem which reinforces the need for formal CALL teacher preparation.
Shift in Understanding of CALL
The majority of altered perspectives seem to result from student interaction during in-class discussions and hands-on activities. In-class discussions often drifted toward discussing individual teaching contexts (or anticipated future contexts) as they explored the potential for CALL. Again, evidence from turn taking in these discussions indicates that it was not the predisposed students who had the greatest influence, but rather the students who initially felt that CALL was a threat to their profession. When these students begin to question their own preconceptions in the public context of discussions, other students take notice.
Pedagogical Implications
Discussions of control over the learning environment dominated the course. Despite having both SLA and methodology courses prior to this course, students still seem to require an ori387
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
entation to student-centered learning in a CALL context. Primarily intended to assuage concerns over a potential lack of control, this orientation can also help to raise awareness of design and usability. The students in the course recognized that student-centered constructivist practices could be assisted through the informed use of CALL solutions. It may be beneficial to have students engage in CALL-based constructivist activities that help them to recognize the unanticipated roles they may assume as well as the potential for language practice.
The students in the class tended to think of CALL as a collection of supplemental or peripheral resources rather than an organized environment instrumental to language teaching. Students who demonstrated critical exploration of linguistic-oriented topics did not transfer these critical skills to the CALL domain. In many cases it seemed as though technology itself threatened the students’ confidence; as though they were so overwhelmed by the technical skills that they lost interest in critical analysis. Without the ability to critically evaluate CALL within SLA, teachers are likely to adhere to their technology-oriented preconceptions rather than pedagogically sound practices that happen to benefit from technological enhancement. CALL teacher preparation should be grounded on sound pedagogical practices rather than specific forms of technology.
The shift in understanding of CALL among the students reflected thoughtfulness about the pedagogical implications of CALL solutions. Participants recognized the benefits of exploiting universal and transferable technology skills. They also demonstrated an appreciation for addressing specific issues within various CALL contexts. These skills required explicit discussion and contextualized practice. Preparing teachers to identify the available resources and apply them to their self-defined contexts provided the students with exposure to learning opportunities that the instructor had not been able to anticipate. Such context specific practice may be further enhanced by collaborative internships in real-world settings.
CONCLUSION
Teachers who are less confident with technology feel threatened by CALL, in spite of some recognizing it as an effective means of instruction. Initially, this threat is largely based upon the fact that these students are all first generation CALL teachers. The threat that CALL presents may manifest itself in the form of a computer that teaches students directly (eliminating the need for teachers), a student who is more adept with technology than the teacher, or a sense that technology moves too rapidly for a bystander to keep pace. As a consequence, they share a general lack of awareness of the potential of CALL, but they are interested in the potential once they are exposed to the field.
First generation CALL teachers who are confident using technology in their personal lives tend to recognize the potential for CALL, but they tend to overlook very simple or obvious solutions or contexts in which extant technology may enhance language learning. Even those with extensive technology skills may not easily transfer these skills to CALL contexts, or any teaching purposes for that matter. Those who are generally uncomfortable with technology may focus more attention on the development of skills to develop a sound foundational understanding of the field. Focusing instruction on a student-centered, constructivist environment helped all students to recognize the contributions that CALL can make to teaching.
Further investigation into the needs and expectations of all language teachers needs to be conducted. As novice teachers develop increased familiarity with a broader range of CALL-related skills, their needs will shift. It is important that this development be studied in order to design teacher preparation programs that are relevant and meaningful for these teachers.
388
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
NOTE
1 The names of the students are pseudonyms.
REFERENCES
Bannink, A., & van Dam, J. (2006). A dynamic approach to classroom research. Linguistics and Education, 17, 283-301.
Bauer-Ramazani, C. (2006). Training CALL teachers online. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 183-202). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Group.
Buzzelli, C., & Johnston, B. (2001). Authority, power, and morality in classroom discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 873-884.
Chapelle, C. (1990). The discourse of computer-assisted language learning: Toward a context for descriptive research. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 199-225.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chaudron, C., Loschky, L., & Cook, J. (1994). Second language listening comprehension and lecture note-taking. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 75-92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csomay, E. (2005). Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus based perspective. Linguistics and Education, 15, 243-274.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and their pedagogical implications. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 146-158). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dunkel, P. A., & Davis, J. N. (1994). The effects of rhetorical signaling cues on the recall of English lecture information by speakers of English as a native or second language. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 55-74). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Egbert, J. (2006). Learning in context: Situating language teacher learning in CALL. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 167-181). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Flowerdew, J. (1994). Research of relevance to second language lecture comprehension: An overview. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 7-29). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fotos, S., & Browne, C. M. (Eds.). (2004). New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hanson-Smith, E. (2006). Communities of practice for pre- and in-service teacher education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 301-315). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hegelheimer, V. (2006). When the technology course is required. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 117-133). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO Journal, 25, 175-188. Retrieved October 11, 2009, from https://calico.org/page.php?id=5
Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2006). The scope of CALL education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 3-20). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
389
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
Kassen, M. A., Lavine, R. Z., Murphy-Judy, K., & Peters, M. (2007). Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers. San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could we do better? In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 23-42). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kessler, G. (2007). Formal and informal CALL preparation and teacher attitude toward technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 173-188.
Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2001). Incorporating ESOL learners’ feedback and usability testing into instructor-developed materials. TESOL Journal, 10, 15-20.
Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2008). Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 269-282.
Mauranen, A. (2001). Reflexive academic talk: Observations from MICASE. In R. C. Simpson & J. M. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America (pp. 165-178). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Meskill, C., Mossop, J., DiAngelo, S., & Pasquale, R. K. (2002). Expert and novice teachers talking technology: Precepts, concepts, and misconcepts. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 46-57. Retrieved October 11, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/meskill
Meskill, C., Anthony, N., Hilliker-VanStrander, S., Tseng, C. H., & You, J. (2006). Expert-novice teacher mentoring in language learning technology. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 283-291). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Milbrath, Y., & Kinzie, M. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 373–396.
Oxford, R., & Jung, S. H. (2007). National guidelines for technology integration in TESOL programs: Factors affecting (non)implementation. In M. A. Kassen, R. Z. Lavine, K. Murphy-Judy, & M. Peters, M. (Eds.), Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers (pp. 23-48). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Peters, M. (2006). Developing computer competencies for pre-service language teachers: Is one course enough? In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 153-165). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Robb, T. (2006). Helping teachers to help themselves. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 335-347). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Slaouti, D., & Motteram, G. (2006). Reconstructing practice: Language teacher education and ICT. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 81-97). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Snow, M. A. (2005). Key themes in TESOL MA teacher education. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Second language teacher education: International perspectives (pp. 261-272). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swales, J., & Malczewski, B. (2001). Discourse management and new-episode flags in MICASE. In R. Simpson & J. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America (pp. 145-164). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Tauroza, S., & Allison, D. (1994). Expectation-driven understanding in information systems lecture comprehension. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 35-54). New York: Cambridge University Press.
390
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
APPENDIX A
Reading and Discussion List
(Note: “Chapter” Readings are from Fotos S. and Browne, C.M. (2004). New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.)
Week One
• Levy, M. and Hubbard, P. (2005) Why call CALL “CALL’’? CALL Journal 18(3), 143-149.
• Chapter 1 The development of CALL and Current Options
Week Two
• Chapter 3 The New language Centers and the Role of Technology: New Mandates, New Horizons
• Chapter 4 Learner training for Effective Use of CALL
Week Three
• Monday (Holiday –no Class)
• Chapter 8 Teaching WELL and Loving IT.
Week Four
• Chapter 14 Evaluation of ESL/EFL instructional web sites
• Kessler, G & Plakans, L. (2001). Incorporating ESOL Learners’ Feedback and Usability Testing Into Instructor-Developed CALL Materials, Spring 2001, TESOL Journal, 15-20. Alexandria: VA
Week Five
• Chapter 10 Setting up and Maintaining a CALL Laboratory
• Chapter 11 Implementing Multimedia in a University EFL Program: A Case Study in CALL
Week Six
• Chapter 7 Writing as Talking: E-mail Exchange for Promoting Proficiency and Motivation in the Foreign Language Classroom.
• Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer-Assisted Language Learning. In C. Chapelle (ed.), Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press: NY.
Week Seven
• Chapter 9 Creating Course–Specific CD-ROMS for Interactive Language Learning
• Bikowski, D. & Kessler, G. (2002). Making the most of discussion boards in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Journal, 11(3) 27-30
Week Eight
• Chapter 13 Toward a Theory of E/valuation for Second Language Learning Media
• Chapter 5 Electronic Media in Second Language Writing: An Overview of Tools and Research Findings
Week Nine
• Chapter 12 A Collaborative Model for Online Instruction in the Teaching of Language and Culture
• Chapter 2 Technological Change and the Future of CALL
Week Ten
• Chapter 15 The Language Teacher in the 21st Century
391
CALICO Journal, 27(2) Greg Kessler
APPENDIX B
Technology self-assessment Name
1. How often do you use a computer?
2. For what do you primarily use a computer?
For each of the following, select 0-3 according to this scale:
0 = I don’t know anything about this
1 = I have heard of this, what is it exactly?
2 = I do this occasionally
3 = I do this very often
Skill
Using Microsoft PowerPoint
Using Microsoft Word
Using multimedia
Using Email
Using Course Management Systems (Blackboard, WebCT, Moodle)
Using Internet browsers (Explorer, Netscape)
Finding Internet resources (search engine)
Saving Internet URLs on disk
Making web pages (using DreamWeaver, Netscape Composer, etc.)
Making web pages (html or other code)
Making instructional materials for the web
Burning a CD or DVD
Using a digital camera
Editing digital pictures
Scanning photographs and text
Recording sound or video
Using a digital video camera
Editing video on a computer
Converting audio/ video from analog to digital
Collecting online images
Collecting text from the internet
Collecting audio files
Collecting video files
Training others to use technology
Overseeing instructional technology use
Diagnosing software problems
Diagnosing hardware problems
392
CALICO Journal, 27(2) When They Talk about CALL: Discourse in a Required CALL Class
AUTHOR’S BIODATA
Greg Kessler is an assistant professor of CALL and director of the Language Resource Center at Ohio University. His research interests include CALL teacher preparation, CALL use in innovative pedagogical contexts, and student and teacher autonomy in CALL contexts.
AUTHOR’S ADDRESS
Greg Kessler
155 Gordy Hall
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701
Phone: 740 593 4321
Email: Kessler@ohio.edu
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar