Reading Prompt #9 (March 25th)
Barbierie, F. (2005). What is Corpus Linguistics?
Conrad, S. (2000). Will Corpus Linguistics Revolutionize Grammar Teaching in the 21st Century? TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 548-560.
What is Corpus Linguistics? And why are some language teachers so excited about it? What applications can you envision for your current or future classroom?
I think what I understand from Conrad’s “integration of grammar and vocabulary” is that, instead of teaching students what may or may not be grammatically possible (correct or incorrect), it may be much more effective to focus their learning on those lexical and grammatical combinations that have been shown (by corpus linguistics) to be preferable (more natural) to native speakers.
I like the idea that corpus-influenced teaching materials can help streamline the teaching of certain language features, giving students the boiled-down essentials of the high-frequency grammatical patterns that will be the most useful to them in everyday situations.
As far as classroom applications of corpus linguistics-based research, I agree with Conrad that probably the greatest impact will be on making teaching materials more practical and effective.
As for which applications I can see for my own teaching, I think that teachers should take advantage of current corpus-linguistic research to help them use existing materials more effectively.
Also, as more and more classrooms have internet access, it has become fast and easy to check concordances when questions arise regarding particular grammar patterns, collocations, etc.
One thing I would like to know more about is the details of exactly how corpora are assembled, how choices are made on which sources to include (or exclude), and how those choices influence the analyses people make based on these corpora. For example, are sources from ALL users of English (native/ non-native/ all of the various Englishes) going into the same corpus? How does that influence the analyses that are based on that corpora?
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Readings, March 9th
Re. Levy, Chapter 4.
In learning about all of the different forms of CMC interaction, it often occurs to me that it is easy to think of ways in which it can provide learning opportunites for language learners who are already highly-motivated and highly-independent learners. It is a lot harder to think of ways that the forms of CMC discussed in this chapter (synchornous and asynchronous text communication) could actually be used effectively for normal students in normal classroom environments.
If students can be motivated to keep up with it regularly, I think that chat can be a good way to practice for students at any level of proficiency. E-mail can work best for students wanting to improve formal writing skills.
But I think the bigger question is how students can be motivated to actually use these forms of CMC regularly enough to get meaningful practice.
I text-chat in my 3rd language (Mandarin) now and then, but not specifically for the purpose of practicing reading and writing. However, I can definitely see how it could be a very helpful language-learning activity if done regularly enough.
One thing I like about the text-chat format is that it is easy to save a copy of the text for later reference (like checking unfamiliar words or phrases in the dictionary). Also, the usage is much more like spoken language than other things I might try to use for reading practice.
But I think for it to effective and enjoyable in the long-term, one would have to be pretty lucky in finding a language-learner who is at a similar level of proficiency, and who has a similar level of motivation, so that both people are willing to make a regular thing of it.
Re. Sauro, (2009).
This study undertook to find out whether recasting or metalinguistic prompting was the more effective form of corrective feedback given via synchronous text chat (SCMC).
The relative effectiveness of these two forms of corrective feedback on students' production of grammatical writing was evaluated indirectly, by measuring the students’ (receptive) skills on “acceptability judgement” tests.
The article also suggests that corrective feedback given via SCMC is substantially different in a number of ways than feedback given face-to-face, and refers to previous comparison studies involving face-to-face and CMC feedback. Some of the limitations identified with face-to-face feedback are: more time stress, more ambiguity, and more dependence on short-term memory capability. Text chat gives learners more time to consider their response, and even to look back several times at the textual corrective feedback. For these reasons, it is suggested that SCMC feedback can be more effective than face-to-face feedback in terms of “elicted uptake”: "It is these limitations of what are otherwise effective properties of recasts delivered during face-to-face interaction that put SCMC in the form of text chat at an advantage for encoding recats in ways that facilitate cognitive comparison." (page 100)
Re. Implications:
I suppose these findings can have some practical value for designers of CALL software, but I am having trouble envisioning just what sort of interactive activities that might involve.
That’s because in this study, a single student is interacting with a single instructor. And I think we already know that one-on-one tutoring can be an effective means of language learning, whether that is done face-to-face or via CMC.
The study shows that corrective feedback which includes metalinguistic prompts is more effective that recasts, but I don't see what significance that finding might have in conventional ESL/EFL educational settings, beyond the significance for instructors who actually engage in one-on-one syncronous text chat with their students. I don't know, but I doubt that there are very many ESL/EFL instructors who are able to spend much time doing that.
I guess what I don’t see is how this interaction model (and the finding from this particular study) could be adapted to something on a larger scale than just one-on-one.
Could a software program be written to give this kind of feedback automatically, so that a student is interacting with a computer instead of with a real person? Or could one instructor give this kind of feedback to a dozen students simultaneously?
In learning about all of the different forms of CMC interaction, it often occurs to me that it is easy to think of ways in which it can provide learning opportunites for language learners who are already highly-motivated and highly-independent learners. It is a lot harder to think of ways that the forms of CMC discussed in this chapter (synchornous and asynchronous text communication) could actually be used effectively for normal students in normal classroom environments.
If students can be motivated to keep up with it regularly, I think that chat can be a good way to practice for students at any level of proficiency. E-mail can work best for students wanting to improve formal writing skills.
But I think the bigger question is how students can be motivated to actually use these forms of CMC regularly enough to get meaningful practice.
I text-chat in my 3rd language (Mandarin) now and then, but not specifically for the purpose of practicing reading and writing. However, I can definitely see how it could be a very helpful language-learning activity if done regularly enough.
One thing I like about the text-chat format is that it is easy to save a copy of the text for later reference (like checking unfamiliar words or phrases in the dictionary). Also, the usage is much more like spoken language than other things I might try to use for reading practice.
But I think for it to effective and enjoyable in the long-term, one would have to be pretty lucky in finding a language-learner who is at a similar level of proficiency, and who has a similar level of motivation, so that both people are willing to make a regular thing of it.
Re. Sauro, (2009).
This study undertook to find out whether recasting or metalinguistic prompting was the more effective form of corrective feedback given via synchronous text chat (SCMC).
The relative effectiveness of these two forms of corrective feedback on students' production of grammatical writing was evaluated indirectly, by measuring the students’ (receptive) skills on “acceptability judgement” tests.
The article also suggests that corrective feedback given via SCMC is substantially different in a number of ways than feedback given face-to-face, and refers to previous comparison studies involving face-to-face and CMC feedback. Some of the limitations identified with face-to-face feedback are: more time stress, more ambiguity, and more dependence on short-term memory capability. Text chat gives learners more time to consider their response, and even to look back several times at the textual corrective feedback. For these reasons, it is suggested that SCMC feedback can be more effective than face-to-face feedback in terms of “elicted uptake”: "It is these limitations of what are otherwise effective properties of recasts delivered during face-to-face interaction that put SCMC in the form of text chat at an advantage for encoding recats in ways that facilitate cognitive comparison." (page 100)
Re. Implications:
I suppose these findings can have some practical value for designers of CALL software, but I am having trouble envisioning just what sort of interactive activities that might involve.
That’s because in this study, a single student is interacting with a single instructor. And I think we already know that one-on-one tutoring can be an effective means of language learning, whether that is done face-to-face or via CMC.
The study shows that corrective feedback which includes metalinguistic prompts is more effective that recasts, but I don't see what significance that finding might have in conventional ESL/EFL educational settings, beyond the significance for instructors who actually engage in one-on-one syncronous text chat with their students. I don't know, but I doubt that there are very many ESL/EFL instructors who are able to spend much time doing that.
I guess what I don’t see is how this interaction model (and the finding from this particular study) could be adapted to something on a larger scale than just one-on-one.
Could a software program be written to give this kind of feedback automatically, so that a student is interacting with a computer instead of with a real person? Or could one instructor give this kind of feedback to a dozen students simultaneously?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Reading presentation, March 4th
Help Options and Multimedia Listening:
Students' Use of Subtitles and the Transcript
Maja Grgurovic and Volker Hegelheimer
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_Q93EAojk9qYWJjZDc2NGEtMjYzMS00Y2E1LTljNzQtNzZhMjc0YzgyZGM3&hl=en
Help Options and Multimedia Listening:
Students' Use of Subtitles and the Transcript
Maja Grgurovic and Volker Hegelheimer
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_Q93EAojk9qYWJjZDc2NGEtMjYzMS00Y2E1LTljNzQtNzZhMjc0YzgyZGM3&hl=en
Reading #7 (March 4th)
LEVY – Ch. 7 Practice
In the Listening section, I can agree that audio-video-conferencing-activities would seem to have a huge potential in giving students authentic listening (and speaking) practice, but since I have never actually seen it done, I would have to say that I have a difficult time visualizing exactly how such classroom activities it could be structured effectively.
I don’t agree completely with Levy’s ideas about the CMC. He states several times that “asynchronous forms of CMC are potentially better-suited to grammatical development…” (p.186).
Yes, synchronous CMC (chat) dialog is more like spoken communication than formal writing, but I think that the grammatical knowledge that learners build (and internalize) though extensive speaking (or CMC chatting) will reinforce their sense of what grammatical forms are appropriate even in formal writing.
CMC chat can provide immediate feedback, and for learners at early stages, the way they write is more like the way they speak.
Of course, if it is an course for advanced learners specifically focused on academic writing, then synchronous chat will not be the best form of practice.
Grgurović, M. & Hegelheimer, V. (2007). Help
Options and Multimedia Listening: Students' Use of Subtitles and the Transcript. Language Learning & Technology, 11(1), 45-66.
All the while I was reading this study, the question that kept occurring to me is this:
Is the activity that the authors designed specifically for this study actually an effective way to practice and reinforce listening skills?
Or was it designed solely to answer the very narrow question of whether students find using subtitles or transcripts more effective in the case of comprehension breakdown?
If it is the first purpose, then that makes a lot more sense to me. However, if they see it as an effective listening practice for ELLs, then I would have a lot of questions to ask, for example:
If it is supposed to be a listening activity, then why are the comprehension questions given t the students in writing??
If it is supposed to be a listening activity, why are students sent directly to a text-based form of support (if they answer incorrectly) without first giving them some modified form of audio-visual (listening) input to help them comprehend better?
Many ELLs have difficulty in improving their speaking and listening precisely because they are in the habit of relying too heavily on reading. If given the choice, these students may rely 100% on the text-based support, and ignore the audio…which kind of turns a “listening” activity into just another reading activity.
I think if I was designing (or testing) this kind of multimedia activity, I would also like to see at least one more level added to the activity. In the case of a wrong answer to the comprehension question at the end of each segment, instead of sending the user straight to a text-based form of support, I think it would be good to add at least one (and maybe two) steps to the process in the form of audio support. For example, if they answer incorrectly after the first viewing, let them:
1. see the video segment again (without textual support, and without the option
to pause or rewind), and then have them attempt the comprehension
question again. If they still answer incorrectly, then have them…
2. see the video segment once more (again without textual support), but this
time give them the option to pause or replay the segment before
attempting the comprehension question again.
In the Listening section, I can agree that audio-video-conferencing-activities would seem to have a huge potential in giving students authentic listening (and speaking) practice, but since I have never actually seen it done, I would have to say that I have a difficult time visualizing exactly how such classroom activities it could be structured effectively.
I don’t agree completely with Levy’s ideas about the CMC. He states several times that “asynchronous forms of CMC are potentially better-suited to grammatical development…” (p.186).
Yes, synchronous CMC (chat) dialog is more like spoken communication than formal writing, but I think that the grammatical knowledge that learners build (and internalize) though extensive speaking (or CMC chatting) will reinforce their sense of what grammatical forms are appropriate even in formal writing.
CMC chat can provide immediate feedback, and for learners at early stages, the way they write is more like the way they speak.
Of course, if it is an course for advanced learners specifically focused on academic writing, then synchronous chat will not be the best form of practice.
Grgurović, M. & Hegelheimer, V. (2007). Help
Options and Multimedia Listening: Students' Use of Subtitles and the Transcript. Language Learning & Technology, 11(1), 45-66.
All the while I was reading this study, the question that kept occurring to me is this:
Is the activity that the authors designed specifically for this study actually an effective way to practice and reinforce listening skills?
Or was it designed solely to answer the very narrow question of whether students find using subtitles or transcripts more effective in the case of comprehension breakdown?
If it is the first purpose, then that makes a lot more sense to me. However, if they see it as an effective listening practice for ELLs, then I would have a lot of questions to ask, for example:
If it is supposed to be a listening activity, then why are the comprehension questions given t the students in writing??
If it is supposed to be a listening activity, why are students sent directly to a text-based form of support (if they answer incorrectly) without first giving them some modified form of audio-visual (listening) input to help them comprehend better?
Many ELLs have difficulty in improving their speaking and listening precisely because they are in the habit of relying too heavily on reading. If given the choice, these students may rely 100% on the text-based support, and ignore the audio…which kind of turns a “listening” activity into just another reading activity.
I think if I was designing (or testing) this kind of multimedia activity, I would also like to see at least one more level added to the activity. In the case of a wrong answer to the comprehension question at the end of each segment, instead of sending the user straight to a text-based form of support, I think it would be good to add at least one (and maybe two) steps to the process in the form of audio support. For example, if they answer incorrectly after the first viewing, let them:
1. see the video segment again (without textual support, and without the option
to pause or rewind), and then have them attempt the comprehension
question again. If they still answer incorrectly, then have them…
2. see the video segment once more (again without textual support), but this
time give them the option to pause or replay the segment before
attempting the comprehension question again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
