Vol 6 Num 3

Search LLT:
Volume 6, Number 3 September 2002
Columns
From the Editors News From LLT by Mark Warschauer, Dorothy Chun, & Pamela DaGrossa pp. 1 From the Special Issue Editors Introducing This Issue by Seppo Tella and Yong Zhao pp. 2-5 On the Net Foreign Language Teacher Resources by Jean W. LeLoup & Robert Ponterio pp. 6-9 Emerging Technologies Technology for Prospective Language Teachers by Bob Godwin-Jones pp. 10-14 Announcements News from Sponsoring Organizations pp. 15-20
Technology and Teacher Education Feature Articles

Expert and Novice Teachers Talking Technology: Precepts, Concepts, and Misconcepts Carla Meskill, Jonathan Mossop, Stephen DiAngelo, & Rosalie K. Pasquale University at Albany, State University of New York pp. 46-57 Realizing Constructivist Objectives Through Collaborative Technologies: Threaded Discussions Donald Weasenforth The George Washington University Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas American University Christine Meloni The George Washington University pp. 58-86 The Integration of Internet-Based Reading Materials into the Foreign Language Curriculum: From Teacher- to Student-Centered Approaches Klaus Brandl University of Washington pp. 87-107 The Impact of CALL Instruction on Classroom Computer Use: A Foundation for Rethinking CALL Teacher Education? Joy Egbert Washington State University Trena M. Paulus Indiana University Yoko Nakamichi Indiana University pp. 108-126
Reviews
Edited by Jennifer Leeman E-Moderating -- The Key to Teaching and Learning Online Gilly Salmon Reviewed by N. A. J. Moore pp. 21-24 Culture, Difference, and Power, Interactive Video CD Christine E. Sleeter Reviewed by Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas pp. 25-31 Teachers Understanding Teaching: A Multimedia Hypertext Tool Karen Johnson & Glenn Johnson Reviewed by Suzanne Scott pp. 32-36
Contact: Editors or Managing Editor Copyright 2002 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501. Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.
The Mouton Interactive Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology (Jrgen Handke) & Phonetics: An Interactive Introduction (Nicholas Reid with Helen Fraser) Reviewed by D. Eric Holt pp. 37-45
Preservice English Teachers Acquiring Literacy Practices Through Technology Tools Aaron Doering & Richard Beach University of Minnesota pp. 127-146
Contact: Editors or Managing Editor Copyright 2002 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501. Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.
About Language Learning & Technology
Language Learning & Technology is a refereed journal which began publication in July 1997. The journal seeks to disseminate research to foreign and second language educators in the US and around the world on issues related to technology and language education. Language Learning & Technology is sponsored and funded by the University of Hawai'i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) and the Michigan State University Center for Language Education And Research (CLEAR), and is co-sponsored by Apprentissage des Langues et Systmes d'Information et de Communication (ALSIC), the Australian Technology Enhanced Language Learning Consortium (ATELL), the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), the Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO), the European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning (EUROCALL), the International Association for Language Learning Technology (IALLT), and the University of Minnesota Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA). Language Learning & Technology is a fully-refereed journal with an editorial board of scholars in the fields of second language acquisition and computer-assisted language learning. The focus of the publication is not technology per se, but rather issues related to language learning and language teaching, and how they are affected or enhanced by the use of technologies. Language Learning & Technology is published exclusively on the World Wide Web. In this way, the journal seeks to (a) reach a broad audience in a timely manner, (b) provide a multimedia format which can more fully illustrate the technologies under discussion, and (c) provide hypermedia links to related background information. Language Learning & Technology is currently published three times per year (January, May, September).
Sponsors, Board, Editors, and Designers

Volume 6, Number 3
Sponsoring Organizations
Sponsors University of Hawaiì National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR) Co-Sponsors Apprentissage des Langues et Systmes d'Information et de Communication (ALSIC) Australian Technology Enhanced Language Learning Consortium (ATELL) Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota (CARLA) Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC (CAL) Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO) European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning (EUROCALL) International Association for Language Learning Technology (IALLT)
Advisory and Editorial Boards

Advisory Board Susan Gass Richard Schmidt Editorial Board James D. Brown Anna Uhl Chamot Thierry Chanier Carol Chapelle Graham Crookes Martha E. Crosby Graham Davies Robert Debski Robert Godwin-Jones Lucinda Hart-Gonzlez Joan Jamieson Batia Laufer Jennifer Leeman Allan Luke Mary Ann Lyman-Hager Alison Mackey Carla Meskill Denise Murray Noriko Nagata University of Hawaiì at Manoa The George Washington Univ. Universit de Franche-Comte Iowa State University University of Hawaiì at Manoa University of Hawaiì at Manoa Thames Valley University University of Melbourne Virginia Commonwealth Univ. Univ. of MD, University College Northern Arizona University University of Haifa George Mason University University of Queensland San Diego State University Georgetown University SUNY-Albany San Jose State University University of San Francisco brownj@hawaii.edu auchamot@gwu.edu thierry.chanier@univ-fcomte.fr carolc@iastate.edu crookes@hawaii.edu crosby@ics.hawaii.edu grahamdavies1@compuserve.com robert@genesis.language.unimelb.edu.au rgjones@atlas.vcu.edu lhart@umuc.edu joan.jamieson@nau.edu batialau@research.haifa.ac.il jleeman@gmu.edu a.luke@mailbox.uq.edu.au mlymanha@mail.sdsu.edu mackeya@gusun.georgetown.edu cmeskill@uamail.albany.edu denise.murray@mq.edu.au nagatan@usfca.edu Michigan State University University of Hawaiì gass@msu.edu schmidt@hawaii.edu
David G. Novick Patricia Paulsell Jill Pellettieri Joy Kreeft Peyton Jenise Rowekamp Larry Selinker Maggie Sokolik Seppo Tella Leo van Lier Yong Zhao
University of Texas at El Paso Michigan State University CA State Univ., San Marcos Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC University of Minnesota University of London University of Cal., Berkeley University of Helsinki Monterey Institute of International Studies Michigan State University
novick@cs.utep.edu paulsell@msu.edu pjill@csusm.edu joy@cal.org rowek001@tc.umn.edu l.selinker@app-ling.book.ac.uk sokolik@socrates.berkeley.edu seppo.tella@helsinki.fi lvanlier@miis.edu zhaoyo@msu.edu
Editorial Staff
Editors Mark Warschauer Dorothy Chun Irene Thompson Richard Kern Pamela DaGrossa Dennie Hoopingarner Rafael Salaberry Jean W. LeLoup Robert Ponterio Robert Godwin-Jones Scott Armstrong Rene Tony Donnes Jan McNeil Scott Petersen John Rylander Anthony Silva University of CA, Irvine University of CA, Santa Barbara The George Washington University (Emerita) Univ. of CA, Berkeley University of Hawaiì Michigan State University Rice University SUNY at Cortland SUNY at Cortland Virginia Commonwealth University Harvard University University of HawaiÌ National University of Singapore Meitoku Junior College University of Hawaiì Chaminade University markw@uci.edu dchun@gss.ucsb.edu IrnThomp@aol.com kern@socrates.berkeley.edu dagrossa@hawaii.edu hooping4@msu.edu salaberry@rice.edu leloupj@cortland.edu ponterior@cortland.edu rgjones@atlas.vcu.edu scott@scottarmstrong.info donnes@hawaii.edu janamerican@yahoo.com rv5s-ptrs@asahi-net.or.jp rylander@hawaii.edu a.silva@att.net
Associate Editors
Managing Editor Web Production Editor Book & Software Review Editor On the Net Editors Emerging Technologies Editor Copyeditors
Copyright 2002 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501. The contents of this publication were developed under a grant from the Department of Education (CFDA 84.229, P229A60012-96 and P229A6007). However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and one should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
Information for Contributors
Language Learning & Technology is seeking submissions of previously unpublished manuscripts on any topic related to the area of language learning and technology. Articles should be written so that they are accessible to a broad audience of language educators, including those individuals who may not be familiar with the particular subject matter addressed in the article. General guidelines are available for reporting on both quantitative and qualitative research. Manuscripts are being solicited in the following categories: Articles | Commentaries | Reviews
Articles Articles should report on original research or present an original framework that links previous research, educational theory, and teaching practices. Full-length articles should be no more than 8,500 words in length and should include an abstract of no more than 200 words. We encourage articles that take advantage of the electronic format by including hypermedia links to multimedia material both within and outside the article. All article manuscripts submitted to Language Learning & Technology go through a two-step review process. Step 1: Internal Review. The editors of the journal first review each manuscript to see if it meets the basic requirements for articles published in the journal (i.e., that it reports on original research or presents an original framework linking previous research, educational theory, and teaching practices), and that it is of sufficient quality to merit external review. Manuscripts which do not meet these requirements or are principally descriptions of classroom practices or software are not sent out for further review, and authors of these manuscripts are encouraged to submit their work elsewhere. This internal review takes about 1-2 weeks. Following the internal review, authors are notified by e-mail as to whether their manuscript has been sent out for external review or, if not, why. Step 2: External Review. Submissions which meet the basic requirements are then sent out for blind peer review from 2-3 experts in the field, either from the journal's editorial board or from our larger list of reviewers. This second review process takes 2-3 months. Following the external review, the authors are sent copies of the external reviewers' comments and are notified as to the decision (accept as is, accept pending changes, revise and resubmit, or reject. Titles should be concise (preferably fewer than 10 words) and adequately descriptive of the content of the article. Some good examples are Social Dimensions of Telecollaborative Foreign Language Study "Reflective Conversation" in the Virtual Language Classroom Teaching German Modal Particles: A Corpus-Based Approach
Commentaries Commentaries are short articles, usually no more than 2,000 words, discussing material previously published in Language Learning & Technology or otherwise offering interesting opinions on theoretical
and research issues related to language learning and technology. Commentaries which comment on previous articles should do so in a constructive fashion. Hypermedia links to additional information may be included. Commentaries go through the same two-step review process as for articles described above. Submission Guidelines for Articles and Commentaries Please list the names, institutions, e-mail addresses, and if applicable, World Wide Web addresses (URLs), of all authors. Also include a brief biographical statement (maximum 50 words, in sentence format) for each author. (This information will be temporarily removed when the articles are distributed for blind review.) Articles and commentaries can be transmitted in either of the following ways: 1. By electronic mail, send the main document and any accompanying files (images, etc.) to llt-editors@hawaii.edu 2. By mail, send the material on a Macintosh or IBM diskette to LLT NFLRC University of Hawai'i at Manoa 1859 East-West Road, #106 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Please check the General Policies below for additional guidelines.
Reviews Language Learning & Technology publishes reviews of professional books, classroom texts, and technological resources related to the use of technology in language learning, teaching, and testing. Reviews should normally include references to published theory and research in SLA, CALL, pedagogy, or other relevant disciplines. Reviewers are encouraged to incorporate images (e.g., screen shots or book covers) and hypermedia links that provide additional information, as well as specific ideas for classroom or research-oriented implementations. Reviews of individual books or software are generally 1,200-1,600 words long, while comparative reviews of multiple products may be 2,000 words or longer. They can be submitted in ASCII, Rich Text Format, Word, or HTML. Accompanying images should be sent separately as jpeg or gif files. Reviews should include the name, institutional affiliation, e-mail address, URL (if applicable), and a short biographical statement (maximum 50 words) of the reviewer(s). In addition, the following information should be included in a table at the beginning of the review: Books Author(s) Title Series (if applicable) Publisher City and country Year of publication Number of pages Price ISBN Software Title (including previous titles, if applicable) and version number Platform Minimum hardware requirements Publisher (with contact information) Support offered Target language Target audience (type of user, level, etc.) Price ISBN (if applicable)
LLT does not accept unsolicited reviews. Contact Rafael Salaberry if you are interested in having material reviewed or in serving as a reviewer (salaberry@rice.edu). Rafael Salaberry Hispanic Studies MS-34 Rice University 6100 Main St. Houston, TX 77251-1892
General Policies The following policies apply to all articles, reviews, and commentaries: All submissions should conform to the requirements of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4th edition). Authors are responsible for the accuracy of references and citations, which must be in APA format. Manuscripts that have already been published elsewhere or are being considered for publication elsewhere are not eligible to be considered for publication in Language Learning & Technology. It is the responsibility of the author to inform the editor of any similar work that is already published or under consideration for publication elsewhere. Authors of accepted manuscripts will assign to Language Learning & Technology the permanent right to electronically distribute their article, but authors will retain copyright and, after the article has appeared in Language Learning & Technology, authors may republish their text (in print and/or electronic form) as long as they clearly acknowledge Language Learning & Technology as the original publisher. The editors of Language Learning & Technology reserve the right to make editorial changes in any manuscript accepted for publication for the sake of style or clarity. Authors will be consulted only if the changes are major. Authors of published articles, commentaries, and reviews will receive 10 free hard-copy offprints of their articles upon publication. Articles and reviews may be submitted in the following formats: HTML files Microsoft Word documents RTF documents ASCII text If a different format is required in order to better handle foreign language fonts, please consult with the editors.
Copyright 2002 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501. Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.
Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/editors.html
May 2002, Volume 6, Number 3 pp. 1
FROM THE EDITORS

Welcome to this special issue on Technology and Teacher Education. We thank Seppo Tella and Yong Zhao who, under the tireless and talented guidance of Associate Editor Irene Thompson, served as Guest Editors. The entire issue, including our regular columns and book and software reviews, relates to the special topic. We think it makes a nice "package" for our readers. Special issues draw attention to especially important and timely topics. Future LLT special issues include Telecollaboration (May 2003), Distance Learning (September 2003), and Global Englishes (May 2004). January 2003 and January 2004 will be regular issues, filled with a variety of articles we trust you will find interesting and useful. With this issue, we have added access to the mastheads of archived issues. While the dynamic nature of Web materials allows us to keep information current, we want to give credit to those who have contributed to the journal as editorial board members, editors, and designers in past years. We would also like to thank Jennifer Leeman for her exceptional work as the Book and Software Review Editor for the past three years. She is not really leaving, however, as she has graciously agreed to join our Editorial Board. We are pleased to announce that Rafael Salaberry has taken the reins from Jennifer as our new Book and Software Review Editor and we welcome him to the LLT Editorial Staff. Sincerely,
Mark Warschauer & Dorothy Chun

Editors
Pamela DaGrossa
Managing Editor
Copyright 2002, ISSN 1094-3501
Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/speceditors/
May 2002, Volume 6, Number 3 pp. 1-4
FROM THE SPECIAL ISSUE EDITORS

The effects of information and communication technologies in language education are often mediated by the learner, the content, the teacher, and the learning environment. Up until recently, research has primarily focused on the relationship between technology and the learner, and between technology and content. A large part of the existing CALL research is about how language learners interact with technology as well as how certain technologies can be used to support the teaching of certain types of content (e.g., vocabulary, grammar, listening, or writing). Relatively little is known about how teachers interact with technology. However it has become increasingly clear that teachers are key to the realization of its claimed educational potentials (Cuban, 1986; Zhao, 2001, 2002). They are the "gate-keepers" of technology, who not only determine whether it enters the classroom, but also affect how it is used in the classroom. If it is not allowed in the classroom or not used properly, it cannot have the opportunity to exercise its educational power. The realization of teachers' critical role in effective uses of technology has led to a surge of interest in the relationship between the two (Zhao, in press; US Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). In some countries, this interest has also led to radical changes in teacher education programs, which now include considerably more courses in educational use of ICTs than a few years ago. This special issue of LLT joins the conversation about teachers and technology by exploring a number of critical issues in this field. There are two broad categories of issues related to teachers and technology. The first includes concerns with preparing teachers to effectively use technology as a pedagogical and professional tool to achieve greater educational outcomes, and the second includes issues about how to use technology in teacher education to prepare more versatile and better skilled teachers by making changes in their educational environment. In this special issue, we invited contributions exploring issues in both categories. How to Prepare Teachers to Use Technology? The ability to teach with technology is quite different from the ability to use it, because technology must be integrated with a sound pedagogical framework. Thus, the first issue we must consider in preparing teachers to use technology as a pedagogical tool and as a new teaching and learning environment is how it interacts with current pedagogical approaches. Research suggests that teachers are more likely to use it when it is found to be compatible with their pedagogical styles (Zhao, 2002). To find that compatibility, we must understand the salient features of various technologies and the attributes of promising pedagogical approaches. Weasenforth, Biesenbach-Lucas, and Meloni's article "Realizing Constructivist Objectives Through Collaborative Technologies: Threaded Discussions" is an excellent example of research attempting to connect pedagogy to technology. Through an extensive situated study of the implementation of one of the most widely used computer-mediated communication technologies, threaded discussion, this paper examines how technology can be used to meet curricular goals within a constructivist framework. In particular, the authors investigated the extent to which teacher-mediated technology promoted selected cognitive and social skills as well as addressed affective factors and individual differences in students. The examination of the interactions
Yong Zhao and Seppo Tella
From the Special Issue Editors
between technology and a constructivist pedagogical framework offers many important insights into the issue of compatibility between technology and pedagogy. Another critical issue in answering the question of how to prepare teachers to use technology is what factors affect its use by teachers. Klaus Brandl's article "Enhancing Authentic Language Use: The Integration of Internet-Based Reading Materials Into the Foreign Language Curriculum" identifies three factors which influence teachers' uses of technology in language teaching: teachers' technology proficiency, teachers' pedagogical approach, and students' language proficiency. Considering these three factors, the author suggests three approaches to integrating Internet-based reading materials into a foreign language curriculum: teacher-determined lessons, teacher-facilitated lessons, and student-determined lessons. Additionally, Brandl provides specific, detailed guidelines for curriculum development and instruction. Although this article deals with only one specific technology (the Internet) and one specific aspect of language teaching (reading), its analytical framework can serve as an excellent example for language educators and researchers in their thinking about using technology to support language teaching. Furthermore, Weasenforth et al. and Brandl's contributions point out directions to address another significant issue in preparing teachers to teach with technology, that is, the content of their preparation programs. Many organizations and agencies have started to define technology of knowledge through teacher technology standards (e.g., International Society for Technology in Education, 2000; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 1997). Suggestions from these two articles are consistent with these standards in that they emphasize not the technical capability of technology but its pedagogical connections. It is the pedagogical capacity of the technology and the context that may best take advantage of the technology itself, and which should form the core content of programs preparing teachers to use it. In other words, they suggest that we should teach teachers should not be limited to how to use the technology, but how to use it to teach. Immediately following the issue of what to teach teachers is the issue of how. Teachers learn how to use technology in a number of different ways. Some learn from their colleagues; others learn from the friends and family members; still others learn on their own. Of course, many teachers learn through organized professional development programs or courses, especially for pre-service teachers. A growing number also profit from upgraded teacher education programs that take information and communication technologies into account. While each approach may have its own merits, the question of efficiency and effectiveness remains. For example, one commonly asked question about teacher education is to what degree formalized teacher education makes a difference. In "The Impact of CALL Instruction on Classroom Computer Use," Joy Egbert, Trena Paulus, and Yoko Nakamichi examine the effects of formal teacher education programs on teachers' actual use of technology. Through a survey study, they compared what teachers learned in CALL courses and what they report using in their teaching. They found that those who use CALL implement activities that they learned and practiced outside of the course. They also found that lack of time, support, and resources inhibits use of CALL activities in some classrooms and that colleagues are the most common resources for CALL activities outside of formal coursework.
Language Learning & Technology
How to Use Technology to Support Teacher Education? Technology can be an effective tool for teacher education as it is often conducive to creating more versatile teaching, studying, and learning environments. Online technologies can be used to support professional communities for teachers. Multimedia and mobile technologies can be used to help teachers observe in more focused ways exemplary practices. Videos can be used by the teachers themselves to more carefully examine and reflect on their teaching practices. Videoconference systems with remote control make it possible for language trainees to observe lessons at a distance or receive guidance from a distant teacher, thus enhancing real-time and on-line communication between teachers, teacher educators, and students. Technology tools can also be used to help pre-service teachers connect with real classrooms. In this special issue, Aaron Doering and Richard Beach report their experiences using a variety of technologies to support teachers' acquisition of literacy practices. Connecting pre-service teachers to middle school students in a collaborative writing project, technology was used to help future teachers develop an understanding of various technology practices and of their future students. The authors found that hypermedia productions with middle school students helped pre-service teachers learn how to model the literacy practices of making intertextual or hypertextual links. This study demonstrated the potential of technology in support of teacher education. Summary Technology and teacher education is a complex and fairly recent phenomenon. Although technology, in a broad sense, has always been part of education, and teachers have always used it (e.g., books, blackboard, tape-recorders, language labs) in their professional lives, the technologies they must use today are much more complex and powerful. As a result, the process of preparing teachers to use technology becomes more complex as well. While the papers in this special issue offer insights into some of the significant issues that arise when teachers meet technology, there are many more questions in this process that remain unexplored. The following are a few examples. First, the cognitive and psychological process of technology integration by teachers awaits exploring. Some of the issues include the following: What kind of cognitive and psychological factors affect teacher adoption of technology? How do teachers become proficient in the use of technology? What mental models do teachers proficient in its use posses? How are these models different from those of novice users? Second, the kind of social and organizational arrangements that promote technology use by teachers is another area that needs further exploration. Some of the persistent issues include the following: Why do only few teachers in a particular school use technology? How can we help bring an exemplary teacher's practices into the next-door classroom? What kind of professional development is more effective in promoting technology integration? Which institutional policies result in more rapid adoption of technology? Third, the relationship between teachers and technology has been a long-standing issue that is yet to be resolved. Some argue that technology will replace teachers while others contend that we actually do not need technology. Apparently, the truth lies somewhere in between. Further research is needed not to settle the debate but to define the different roles technology and teachers can and should play in the language classroom.
Last, as Internet-based education becomes increasingly popular, we also need to explore the differences and similarities in online versus face-to-face teaching. Due to the vast differences in delivery and communication media between these two, teachers may have to take different approaches requiring different teaching abilities. Research is needed to help us understand what abilities teachers must have in order to teach online on the one hand, and to incorporate network-based education into more traditional classroom-based approaches on the other. Acknowledgements We are grateful to all our authors, including those who were not able to have their work published in this issue. We also want to thank all our reviewers for their timely and thoughtful comments and feedback about the manuscripts. We owe a special thank-you to Pamela DaGrossa, whose expertise and excellent management skills kept us moving. Finally thanks to LLT editors for allowing us to work on this special issue and guiding us through this process. All their work has resulted in an outstanding collection of papers. We hope you will enjoy reading them and learn as much from them as we have. Sincerely,
Yong Zhao
Michigan State University
Seppo Tella
University of Helsinki REFERENCES Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom uses of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National educational technology standards for teachers. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom. Washington DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (OTA-EHR-616). Washington DC: Office of Technology Assessment. Zhao, Y. (in press). What should teachers know about technology: Perspectives and practices. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G. A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual control theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 5-30. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.
Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/net/
September 2002, Volume 6, Number 3 pp. 4-7
ON THE NET Foreign Language Teacher Education Resources

Jean W. LeLoup SUNY Cortland Robert Ponterio SUNY Cortland When one talks about teacher education one must also, of necessity, include professional development. Teacher education does not end with the conferring of the degree; it must continue throughout the teacher's professional career or we will have instructors who are out of touch with their discipline. In essence, teacher education subsumes both preservice and inservice teachers, and this is particularly germane to foreign language (FL) teacher education. Second language acquisition is clearly an ongoing process, one that rarely -- if ever -- ends, if only because the languages and cultures we study are constantly evolving. The acquisition of professional knowledge and abilities is also a continuing process; successful teachers perpetually hone their skills and acquire new talents for use in the classroom. To accomplish this continuing renewal, FL teachers need to remain current with research in the field and trends in methodology and instruction, and to be reflective practitioners who think about their work. How to do this when one is either busy preparing to enter the teaching profession or, equally as busy, teaching on a daily basis with many students and language lessons to juggle? Having useful FL resources easily available can facilitate professional development of both the preservice and the inservice FL teacher. This column will examine a few sites that are designed for FL educators and serve as vehicles for both teacher education and professional development.
The ERIC Clearinghouse for Languages and Linguistics or ERIC/CLL is one such useful and easily available resource for FL educators. As stated on their Web site, ERIC/CLL is operated by the Center for Applied Linguistics, a private non profit organization. The Clearinghouse collects and disseminates information on current developments in education research, instructional methods and materials, program design and evaluation, teacher training, and assessment in the following areas: Foreign languages English as a second or foreign language Bilingualism and bilingual education Psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics Theoretical and applied linguistics Intercultural communication and cultural education Study abroad and international exchange
Jean W. Le Loup and Robert Ponterio
On the Net
While the ERIC/CLL site is extensive, in this column we will concentrate on those resources that are most directly involved with teacher education and professional development. First is the ERIC/CLL Resource Guides Online series that includes Internet Resources for Foreign Language Teachers. This comprehensive site offers links to the following FL teaching resources, some of which are created by ERIC though others are available from other sources: ERIC Digests: brief summaries of the latest hot topics dealing with FL learning and instruction written by recognized specialists in the field, including a specific section devoted to Professional Development ERIC/CLL Resource Guides Online: other ERIC series on related topics including Immersion, Bilingualism, and Early language learning Annotated Bibliographies: these minibibs are short bibliographies of recent research and articles dealing with a wide range of current issues in FL learning Other ERIC/CLL Publications: email newsletters (such as Language Link), bulletins, and even a publication for parents dealing with early language learning questions; Online Journals and Newsletters: additional resources not directly affiliated with ERIC/CLL including Language Learning and Technology Listservs: online discussion forums of interest to FL teachers, such as FLTEACH (Foreign Language Teaching Forum) and LLTI (Language Learning Technology International), with directions on how to subscribe Web Sites: certainly not exhaustive but a very good place to start National, Regional, and Language-Specific Organizations of Language Teachers, and Foreign Language Resource Centers: contact information and, in many cases, specific missions and areas of focus Conferences: some limited information on annual FL conferences ERIC Documents: a helpful illustration of what can be available from a search of the ERIC database of educational documents, including information about how to then obtain copies of documents identified through the search process Language Link, mentioned above, frequently publishes articles that deal directly with teacher education and professional development. Issues are available back through June of 1999 and are definitely worth a perusal. For example, in March of 2002, the feature article, Foreign Language Teaching Methods Online: ACTFL's New Course, detailed this valuable resource for both preservice and inservice teachers who may not have had a methods course specifically for FL educators. The June issue of Language Link offers a feature article on Bilingual Career Ladder Programs: An Answer to the ESL Teacher Shortage? It is a thought-provoking piece for anyone considering entering this area of the FL education field as a new or veteran FL teacher. The last offering of ERIC/CLL that we will mention here is an extensive article by Lily Wong Fillmore and Catherine E. Snow entitled What Teachers Need to Know about Language. It is the result of a special project funded by a U.S. Department of Education initiative. Any preservice or inservice FL teacher should read this article and ponder the ideas therein. Additional commentary on the paper's implications for early childhood educators, as well as three ERIC Digests on the topic, are also provided. The ERIC/CLL site is a great benefit for preservice and inservice FL teachers as well as anyone else interested in the issues involved in foreign and second language learning
On the Net
and instruction. We encourage you to take an in-depth look at this marvelous resource and to take advantage of the valuable professional support it offers. We briefly mention two additional sites below because they were specifically developed for use in preservice FL teacher education and represent an interactive use of the Web to actively involve the future teacher through the manipulation of the lesson content. However, these lesson can also be of use to the inservice teacher population in FL and, indeed, in general. At any rate, they were created by one of the authors of this column (J. LeLoup) and are freely available for those who wish to use them.
A Communications Technology Module for the Foreign Language Methods Course presents a basic introduction to essential communications technologies that FL teachers should be familiar with and know how to use. This module provides definitions, explanations, and practical application scenarios and activities to demystify this technology and make it accessible to educators. Because it was created with preservice teachers in mind, a pedagogy section proffers thought-provoking questions one should explore when contemplating the use of technology in a particular activity. The module also offers sample lesson plans using these technologies with a view toward helping FL teachers integrate this knowledge into their curriculum. The lessons are Standards-based and are centered around specific technologies.
The second site is foreign language-related but simultaneously targets preservice teachers across disciplines. The ESL/LEP Module was created as a drop-in component to be used in all teacher education programs at the State University of NewYork Cortland in partial fulfillment of a New York State Department of Education mandate for all teacher candidates to heighten their awareness of the needs of English as a Second Language/Limited English Proficiency students. This module includes several activities and assignments, some general and some discipline-specific, that aim to give preservice teachers a better understanding of the issues involved in teaching ESL/LEP students in any content area. Video clips are used to (a) simulate immersion in a class where course content is taught in another language and (b) reveal the ESL/LEP students perspective on several critical questions that arise concerning teaching methodologies and practices in classes with an ESL/LEP population.
On the Net
These pedagogical resources for teachers illustrate two of the principal advantages of Web materials as components of any course of training, whether university-based or individual and independent. The first advantage is fast, easy access to current, pertinent information in order to answer questions and offer solutions to problems. The Web thus becomes a virtual library allowing the preservice or inservice teacher to quickly locate and access documents that would otherwise not be available or that may only be found via a trip to a library that may be miles away, a significant hardship for the teacher facing considerable time constraints. Generally speaking, these documents can be deemed traditional in that they resemble the typical printed page. The advantage of the Web, therefore, is access. The second advantage of the Web is the possibility of using the power of the computer to implement an interactive, multimedia presentation that can support realistic simulations providing material that the teacher can manipulate. This can make for a much richer learning experience than a more traditional "page-turner" type presentation in which the information is displayed essentially as it would be in a book. The manipulation, designed to imitate the experience of active involvement in the learning process that one normally associates with work in a classroom environment, is a powerful feature that would be impossible to reproduce without the aid of the computer. The ERIC Clearinghouse for Languages and Linguistics site and the Communications Technology Module for the Foreign Language Methods Course and ESL/LEP Module are useful tools for the Foreign Language professional and interesting samples of the potential of the Web as an instructional medium.
Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6numX3/emerging/
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES Technology for Prospective Language Teachers

Bob Godwin-Jones Virginia Commonwealth University Language teachers in training today are likely to have become familiar with computers as part of their university experience, with the expectation of using, at a minimum, word processing, spreadsheets, and Web browsers to do research, writing, and projects. They are likely to be exposed to computer-assisted language learning (CALL), and some may elect to pursue CALL as a major focus. But even those teachers not delving deeply into CALL will be expected by their supervisors, their peers, and, most importantly, by their students to enhance their teaching through technology. We will be focusing in this column on what tools and technologies are likely to be important to teachers entering the classroom for the first time. Technology Training It is beneficial for teachers to have an appreciation of the range of options available in CALL and what the learning curve and effectiveness of each option is likely to be. The former is much easier to determine then the latter. There are too few CALL and SLA (second language acquisition) studies that provide concrete evaluations of specific tools and technologies and how they are used. Before being able to evaluate effectively CALL programs, teachers need to add to their pedagogical knowledge a fundamental understanding of the workings of computers and networks. To be able to use a word processing program, for example, one needs to understand the concept of a file and storage media. To use a Web browser effectively, one needs to understand about media types and Web page delivery. At a minimum teachers needs to become informed users of technology (see the special LLT issue on literacies and technologies). This should include not just software use but as well some hardware basics and an understanding of networks (local area and Internet). A familiarity with multimedia formats (DVD, MP3, etc.) as well as of players is clearly essential for language teachers. Naive technology users are not well suited to make intelligent choices on the selection of CALL materials. Anyone who has used any kind of technology in the classroom also knows how crucial it is to be able to do basic trouble-shooting of technology glitches. Most U.S. colleges now have computer literacy requirements in place. The requirements vary considerably, but usually are limited to a knowledge of the mechanics of computing. Today, such skills are normally a pre-requisite for success in higher education. For students needing training in the use of general purpose software, electronic tutorials have become widely available. Some are available on CD (such as SkillSoft products), others are accessed through the Web (such as Smartforce). In addition to commercial products, some schools have developed their own training materials, like the nice Microsoft Office tutorials from the Florida Gulf Coast University. One of the useful methods for developing training materials for learning specific software is the use of screen capture software. Such programs have been available for some time but have become more sophisticated. Programs from companies like TechSmith and Ambrosia allow not just screen captures but movies of the screen (in AVI or QuickTime formats) and even sound to be recorded. An instructor can move through successive steps in using an application and have all those steps recorded. Voiceovers can then be added.
10
Bob Godwin-Jones
Emerging Technologies
Digitization An area of obvious interest to prospective language teachers is the use of media in the classroom. The trend towards use of digital media has accelerated in recent years, due to faster processors, increased network speed, cheaper and more flexible storage options, and easier to use software. The slide projector has given way to projected graphics files, Web pages, and presentations. All-in-one projectors are displacing LCS panels mounted on overhead projectors. Although still quite expensive, such projectors can now project at high resolutions and are able to show video, sometimes at HDTV quality. They have also become significantly smaller, lighter, and brighter, useable in lit rooms and designed to be highly portable (comparative review). Getting pictures into a digital format is becoming easier and more affordable. Flat-bed scanners have dropped precipitously in price in recent years, while small portable scanners have become available, useful for traveling and collecting media. Of course, digital cameras can be used for this purpose as well. The close-up mode available in many models allows quite clear pictures to be made of objects such as menus or newspaper clippings. Many models available today offer very high resolution which can show clearly significant detail. Digital cameras have risen significantly in popularity as prices have dropped and models have proliferated. Options for transfer of images from the camera have increased, with USB connections now standard, and Firewire connectivity available on high end models. Fast transfer is possible with floppy disk or PC card adapters, into which a camera's media card can be inserted. The card then appears on the desktop and images can be easily dragged to the computer's storage device(s). Such adapters now support high capacity media such as the 128 MB SmartMedia card, which can hold hundreds of images. Software for the transfer, viewing, sorting, printing, and sharing of digital images has improved considerably. Programs such as Apple's iPhoto are so powerful yet easy to use that they make the manipulation of digital images much faster and more efficient than was possible with earlier software (or with the software that still comes with most digital cameras). iPhoto takes advantage of the Internet to enable easy sharing of pictures as well as commercial printing in a variety of formats (including photo albums). Although iPhoto runs only on MacOS X, its attractiveness is spurring developers to offer similar functionality for Windows users (such as Jasc's Media Center Plus or Ulead's Photo Explorer Pro). Microsoft's Windows XP includes user-friendly digital photo tools as well. Apple has played a similar path-breaking role in other digital media. iMovie simplifies tremendously the process of making digital movies. One need only compare the complex interface of the industry standard Adobe Premiere to that of iMovie to appreciate the extent to which Apple has made digital movie making available to the mainstream. Of particular interest to language teachers is iDVD from Apple, which simplifies greatly the task of creating a DVD. Mention should be made as well of the iPod, Apple's small but powerful portable MP3 player, which features fast Firewire transfer and an innovative navigational wheel. The MP3 file format has moved from the darling of teenage Napster users to being a widely used format in education. Media sites often supply audio files in a variety of formats including MP3. Using MP3 files, rather than cassettes to play audio in the classroom offers the advantage of instant replay and fast searching.
11
Bob Godwin-Jones
Presentation and Authoring Software Teachers using presentation software such as Microsoft PowerPoint generally need little training in its use. Templates make it very easy to develop a good looking slide show. Media incorporation is straightforward as well; graphics, audio, and video can be added from pull-down menus. Some interactivity is possible with presentation software, depending on the product. It is possible in most, for example, to use transitions and sequential display to deliver material in question and answer format or to create simulations. Many teachers are electing to put presentations on the Web so that students can review the materials presented outside of class. This can generally be done by using the "save to HTML" option, although the resulting Web-based slide show typically lacks some of the features of the original presentation. Software is available (such as Impatica) which does a better job of converting the presentation to a Web format. An alternative to presentation software is the creation of lessons or presentations directly in HTML. This results in a format which looks the same in class and on the Web. It used to be that HTML-created presentations were poor cousins to PowerPoint slide shows. That needn't be the case with the current capability of Web authoring. The "dynamic HTML" (DHTML) possible today enables transitions to be added and on-the-fly changes to Web pages without reloading. Of course, the learning curve for creating such pages is considerably higher than it is for learning PowerPoint or other presentation software. In addition to knowledge of HTML, creating interactivity in Web pages also requires use of JavaScript. Neither poses an insurmountable learning barrier, however, taking that plunge may be more than many teachers are ready to contemplate. An alternative is to use an HTML editor to create the Web pages. Products like FrontPage (from Microsoft) or Dreamweaver (from Macromedia) make the task to creating attractive and functional Web pages quite simple. Mastery of HTML or any scripting language is not necessary to use such a product, although some basic knowledge can be helpful in understanding how Web pages are put together (i.e., the nature of how hypertext links work, how graphics are embedded and formatted, or accessibility issues in the code that's used). Current versions of HTML editors also offer the ability to use some JavaScript or DHTML functionality from pull-down menus. Here, too, some understanding of the underlying scripting systems is helpful in understanding cross-browser and cross-platform issues and what additional functionality might be possible beyond the options offered by the software product. Content Management and Course Web Sites A basic understanding of what's going on under the hood on Web pages is also helpful to teachers who may be using what is generally called a "learning management system" (LMS) such as Blackboard or WebCT. These are products which greatly simplify the task of creating a Web site for a class and adding functionality such as discussion forums, chat rooms, and on-line quizzes. They have become popular options for teachers in higher education and are being increasingly used in secondary schools as well. To use a LMS it is not necessary to have any knowledge of HTML or of Web authoring in general. As a consequence, instructors with little or no experiences using the Web are able to create a course Web site which can incorporate a variety of interactive tools and hold a great deal of course content in electronic format. Also, publishers are making available some textbook content in formats which can be imported into Blackboard or WebCT, including some multi-item question pools.
12
Bob Godwin-Jones
It is important for teachers to recognize that a LMS can be a powerful teaching tool but also that its use tends to limit choices and options in the design of a course Web site. A template-based system necessarily restricts the degree of individualization. Customization is possible only up to a point; the basic structure and "look and feel" of the Web sites remain the same. Novice teachers also may assume that the tools and functions built into the system are the definitive statement of the functionality that is available for creating course Web sites. Given the expense of purchasing and maintaining such a system, institutions are unlikely to provide training beyond the basics of how to use the LMS. This has the unfortunate by-product of discouraging teachers from trying new and creative ways to use the Internet, which are not part of the LMS. While a LMS provides significant functions, it is designed for general educational use, not specifically for language learning. A hopeful sign for the future of LMS is the creation of the Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI), a collaborative project to design and deliver an open and extensible architecture for learning management systems. It is being led by MIT and Stanford University but supported by many more U.S. universities. The goal is to develop open standards for the creation and exchange of tools and learning materials among institutions and faculty. The hope is that the OKI standards will be adopted in future versions of commercial LMS, which should enable the interchange and flexibility lacking today. OKI is working with the long-running IMS (Instructional Management System) project to develop the standards. IMS defines an extensive set of meta-data for identifying and cataloging learning modules, while OKI is developing an application programming interface (API) specification for a variety of common services. Meanwhile, commercial LMS are beginning to move in the direction of modularity. Blackboard's "Building Blocks" initiative, for example, allows for plug-in modules to be added to Blackboard installations. Third-party developers are beginning to offer such plug-ins. Wimba's voice board, a tool of potential interest to language teachers, is available as a plug-in. When used within Blackboard, Wimba employs the same interface used in creating and managing Blackboard discussion boards. One of the other issues in using a LMS is content management. Electronic resources teachers make available are grouped together by the LMS, but the content collection is course-specific. The LMS does not provide for sharing of resources (among courses, instructors, or schools) or for cataloging and searching. As teachers accumulate more material electronically, management becomes a critical issue. Even for basic handouts and exams, issues such as version control, sharing with colleagues, and reliable longterm storage are important. These are functions usually associated with digital libraries or content management systems (CMS). Several CMS companies (such as Concord) are now integrating their services into LMS. WebCT Vista is an enterprise version of the product which aims to integrate a number of these services. Whatever system they use, beginning language teachers should early on try to find an efficient means for collecting and tracking their electronic teaching resources, which are bound to grow well beyond what they may envision today.
13
Bob Godwin-Jones
Resource List Training Materials and Tools Well Training Resources Includes a booklet on Web Skills for Language Learners Software Tools for the Web Nice lists for different platforms Skillsoft Commercial training materials SmartForce Commercial training materials Microsoft Office Tutorial From Florida Gulf Coast University Netskills UK resources for learning about the Internet On-line Teaching: Tools and Projects Reports on on-line projects Creating Web-based Language Learning Activities From the ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics TechSmith Screen capture software Ambrosia Screen capture software The WELL Project Web Enhanced Language Learning, a collaborative project in the UK Through the Web WYSIWYG Editor Widgets List of editors, some free, some commercial Learning Management and Content Management Systems Blackboard Commercial learning management system WebCT Commercial learning management system Concord Maker of MasterFile content management system Blackboard Users Group for Languages, Literatures & Culture Organized by Samantha Earp (Duke Unversity) Blackboard ML Press release on multilingual version of Blackboard WebCT ESL page WebCT resources for ESL teachers, includes link to discussion forum Integrating Technology into Language Learning Course Web site emphasizing WebCT (by Esperanza Román Mendoza) Instructional Management Systems Part of the On-line Teaching Tools and Projects site Suppliers of Virtual Learning Environments From the Ferl Web site Open Knowledge Initiative Open source course management project IMS project Meta-data project
14
Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/news/
NEWS FROM SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS

Sponsors University of Hawaiì National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR) Co-Sponsors Apprentissage des Langues et Systmes d'Information et de Communication (ALSIC) Australian Technology Enhanced Language Learning Consortium (ATELL) Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota (CARLA) Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC (CAL) Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO) European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning (EUROCALL) International Association for Language Learning Technology (IALLT)
University of Hawai'i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC)

The University of Hawaiì National Foreign Language Resource Center engages in research and materials development projects and conducts Summer Institutes for language professionals among its many activities. NFLRC GRANT CONTINUED TO 2006 In April the National Foreign Language Resource Center at the University of Hawaiì at Manoa was once again selected to serve as one of the nation's language resource centers established to improve the teaching and learning of foreign languages, particularly less commonly taught languages, throughout the United States. All nine current language resource centers were refunded, and three new centers were added (the Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research at Pennsylvania State University, the Language Resource Center for Central Asia, Azerbaijan, and Afghanistan at Indiana University, and the Center for Applied Second Language Studies at the University of Oregon). For more information on planned activities for the new grant cycle, visit the projects section of the NFLRC Web site.
Richard Schmidt (Director) and Jim Yoshioka (Program Coordinator) will serve as Program Chair and Associate Program Chair of the upcoming AAAL 2003 Conference in Arlington, Virginia. Highlights of the conference include six plenary addresses (Patricia Duff, Joshua Fishman, Georgette Ioup, Geoffrey Nunberg, William O'Grady, Congressman Robert Underwood), five invited colloquia ("Instructed Second Language Acquisition," "The Discourse of Health Care Dilemmas," "Classroom Talks: A Conversation Analytic Perspective," "Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition," & "The Development of Academic Competence in Adolescent English Learners"), a joint AAAL/ILTA colloquium, numerous selected papers, posters, and colloquia reflecting the diversity of applied linguistics, a publishers' exhibit, and much more! For more information about AAAL 2003, visit the AAAL Web site (www.aaal.org).
13
News from Sponsoring Organizations
NFLRC Publications Two additions to the NFLRC-Hawaii's Technical Report Series come available in September: New Technologies and Language Learning: Cases in the Less Commonly Taught Languages (Spreen, editor), is a collections of articles outlining how different types of technologies are used to support language programs (i.e., Web, ITV, and audio- or video-based materials), discussing identifiable trends in e-language learning and exploring how technology addresses issues of equity, diversity, and opportunity. An Investigation of Second Language Task-Based Performance Assessments (Brown, Hudson, Norris, & Bonk) describes the creation of performanceassessment instruments and their validation.
Please drop by and peruse our publications at the joint Language Resource Centers display at ACTFL 2002 in Salt Lake City.
Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR)
CLEAR's mission is to promote foreign language education in the United States. To meet its goals, projects focus on foreign language research, materials development, and teacher training. FOREIGN LANGUAGE RESEARCH Feedback and interaction Longitudinal analysis of foreign language writing development
MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT Products Business Chinese (CD-ROM) Modules for Assessing Socio-Cultural Competence for German (CD-ROM) Modules for Assessing Socio-Cultural Competence: Russian (CD-ROM) Pronunciacin y fontica (CD-ROM) African Language Tutorial Guide (guide and video) Directory of African Language Offerings (online database) Foreign Languages: Doors to Opportunity (video and discussion guide) Task-based Communicative Grammar Activities for Japanese and Thai (workbook) Test Development (workbook and video) The Internet Sourcebook for Business French (Web links) The Internet Sourcebook for Business German (Web links) The Internet Sourcebook for Business Spanish (Web links) Business Language Packets for High School Classrooms (French, German, & Spanish; PDF files) Portuguese Pronunciation and Phonetics CD-ROM Thai Tutorial Guide
Coming Soon!
Game-O-Matic The Game-O-Matic is a suite of wizards that create Web-based activities for language learning and practice. Teachers can make original Game-O-Matic games by visiting http://clear.msu.edu/dennie/matic/. Have a new idea for a Game-O-Matic activity? Contact Dennie Hoopingarner at hooping4@msu.edu.
14
Newsletter CLEAR News is a biyearly publication covering FL teaching techniques, research, and materials. Contact the CLEAR office to join the mailing list or see it on the Web at http://clear.msu.edu/clearnews/. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Summer Workshops Each summer, CLEAR offers professional development workshops for foreign language teachers on the campus of Michigan State University. For more information on the Summer Workshops, go to http://clear.msu.edu and click on "2003 Summer Workshops." Onsite Workshops CLEAR offers foreign language teachers at K-13+ institutions around the country the opportunity to host a CLEAR workshop. These 1-3 day workshops are led by CLEAR's professional development staff members. For more information, visit http://clear.msu.edu/onsite/about.html For more information about CLEAR, contact Center for Language Education And Research (CLEAR) A712 Wells Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1027 Phone: 517/432-2286 Fax: 517/432-0473 Email: clear@msu.edu
Australian Technology Enhanced Language Learning Consortium (ATELL)

Contacts: Assoc. Prof. Mike Levy, Griffith University (michael.levy@mailbox.gu.edu.au) Prof. Roly Sussex, The University of Queensland (r.sussex@mailbox.uq.edu.au)
ATELL is an informal collaboration of Australian language teachers and researchers involved in the development and use of technologies in language learning. It has recently been moved to Griffith University where Mike Levy and staff in the School of Languages & Linguistics are working on developing the concept. This work is continuing in collaboration with the Deans of the Faculties of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities Language Network in Australasia (DASSH) and the Association of Modern Language Teachers' Associations of Australia (AFMTLA). We intend to establish a network of complementary and collaborating resources for teachers and learners in the TELL domain in schools and tertiary institutions. The ATELL website will include information, collaboration, and resources such as: a register of Australian TELL experts a register of projects in TELL research, development & implementation a suite of resources for researchers links to other sites with TELL-related information and materials links to reviews of hardware, software, courseware As the various elements are put into place, an update on progress will be given.
Apprentissage des Langues et Systmes d'Information et de Communication (ALSIC)

ALSIC (Language Learning and Information and Communication Systems, http://alsic.org/) is an electronic journal in French for researchers and practitioners in fields related to applied linguistics, didactics, psycholinguistics, educational sciences, computational linguistics, and computer science. The
15
journal gives priority to papers from the French-speaking community and/or in French, but it also regularly invites papers in other languages so as to strengthen scientific and technical exchanges between linguistic communities that too often remain separate. The editorial board of ALSIC invites you to contact them for any prospective contributions at the following electronic address: infos@alsic.org.
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota (CARLA)

CARLA is one of several National Language Resource Centers whose role is to improve the nation's capacity to teach and learn foreign languages effectively. Launched in 1993 with funding from the national Title VI Language Resource Center program of the U.S. Department of Education, CARLA's mission is to study multilingualism and multiculturalism, develop knowledge of second language acquisition, and advance the quality of second language teaching, learning, and assessment by conducting research and action projects sharing research-based and other forms of knowledge across disciplines and education systems extending, exchanging, and applying this knowledge in the wider society. CARLA's research and action initiatives include a focus on the articulation of language instruction, content-based language teaching through technology, culture and language studies, less commonly taught languages, language immersion education, second language assessment, second language learning strategies, research on pragmatics and speech acts, support for study abroad, and technology and second language learning. To share its latest research and program opportunities with language teachers around the country, CARLA offers the following resources: an internationally acclaimed summer institute program for teachers; a database which lists where less commonly taught languages are taught throughout the country; listservs for teachers of less commonly taught languages and immersion educators; a working paper series; conferences and workshops; and a battery of instruments in French, German, and Spanish for assessing learners' proficiency in reading, writing, speaking, and listening at two levels on the ACTFL scale. Check out these and other CARLA resources on the CARLA Web site at http://carla.acad.umn.edu.
The Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)

The Center for Applied Linguistics is a private, nonprofit organization that promotes and improves the teaching and learning of languages, identifies and solves problems related to language and culture, and serves as a resource for information about language and culture. CAL carries out a wide range of activities in the fields of English as a second language, foreign languages, cultural education, and linguistics. These activities include research, teacher education, information dissemination, instructional design, conference planning, technical assistance, program evaluation, and policy analysis. Publications include books on language education, online databases of language programs and assessments, curricula, research reports, teacher training materials, and print and online newsletters. Major CAL projects include the following: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education The Cultural Orientation Resource Center Pre-K-12 School Services
16
CAL collaborates with other language education organizations on the following projects: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence Improving Foreign Languages in the Schools Project of the Northeast and Island Regional Laboratory at Brown University National Capitol Language Resource Center National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center National Network for Early Language Learning
News from the ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics ERIC/CLL Resource Guides Online provide links to relevant resources on various topics in second language teaching and learning. Two new Resource Guides Online have recently been added to the ERIC/CLL Web site: Less Commonly Taught Languages and Teaching Language Through Content. ERIC/CLL Digests cover a range of topics in ESL, foreign language, and bilingual education. Our most recent Digests include Tapping a National Resource: Heritage Languages in the United States, Selecting Materials to Teach Spanish to Spanish Speakers, Impact of Two-Way Immersion on Students' Attitudes Toward School and College, and The Role of Metacognition in Second Language Teaching and Learning. The newest book in ERIC/CLL's Professional Practice series is English Language Learners With Special Education Needs: Identification, Placement, and Instruction, edited by Alfredo J. Artiles and Alba Ortiz. This book describes the challenges involved in identifying and placing English language learners with special needs and describes model programs and instructional methods that have been successful in helping English language learners with special needs meet their full potential. Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource, edited by Joy Kreeft Peyton, Donald A. Ranard, and Scott McGinnis is the latest in ERIC/CLL's Language in Education series. This book describes the population of heritage language speakers in the United States and outlines what needs to be done to preserve this important language resource.
News from the National Center for ESL Literacy Education A new Annotated Bibilography is available from NCLE: Research on Reading Development of Adult English Language Learners The newest edition of NCLE's newsletter, NCLENotes, focuses on health literacy for adult English language learners. NCLE has also recently published several additional resources on Addressing Health Literacy in Adult ESL, including an ERIC Q&A, an annotated bibliography, and instructional activities.
Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO)

Since its inception in 1983, CALICO has served as an international forum for language teachers who want to develop and utilize the potential of advanced technology to support their teaching and research needs. Through its Annual Symposia, Special Interest Groups (SIGs), CALICO Journal, CALICO Monograph Series, CALICO Resource Guide, and numerous other publications, CALICO provides both leadership and perspective in the ever-changing field of computer-assisted instruction. The strength of CALICO derives from the enthusiasm, creativity, and diversity of its members. It comprises language teachers and researchers from universities, military academies, community colleges, K-12 schools, government agencies, and commercial enterprises.
17
CALICO '03: Collaborative CALL will take place from May 20-24 at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. To learn more about CALICO activities and how to participate in them, visit the CALICO homepage at http://www.calico.org.
European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning (EUROCALL)

EUROCALL is an association of language teaching professionals from Europe and worldwide aiming to Promote the use of foreign languages within Europe Provide a European focus for all aspects of the use of technology for language learning Enhance the quality, dissemination, and efficiency of CALL materials
EUROCALL's journal, ReCALL, published by Cambridge University Press, is one of the leading academic journals covering research into computer-assisted and technology-enhanced language learning. The association organises special interest meetings and annual conferences, and works towards the exploitation of electronic communications systems for language learning. For those involved in education and training, EUROCALL provides information and advice on all aspects of the use of technology for language learning. EUROCALL 2003 will be at the University of Limerick, Ireland, 3-6 September 2003. For full details, contact us at http://www.eurocall.org
International Association for Language Learning Technology (IALLT)

Established in 1965, IALLT (formerly IALL) is a professional organization whose members provide leadership in the development, integration, evaluation, and management of instructional technology for the teaching and learning of language, literature, and culture. Its strong sense of community promotes the sharing of expertise in a variety of educational contexts. Members include directors and staff of language labs, resource or media centers, language teachers at all levels, developers and vendors of hardware and software, grant project developers, and others. IALLT offers biennial conferences, regional groups and meetings, the LLTI listserv (Language Learning Technology International), and key publications such as the IALLT Journal, the IALLT Language Center Design Kit, and the IALLT Lab Management Manual. The 2003 IALLT conference will be held at the University of Michigan, June 17 - 21, 2003. For information, visit the IALLT Web site at www.iallt.org/.
18
Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/review1/
REVIEW OF E-MODERATING - THE KEY TO TEACHING AND LEARNING ONLINE E-Moderating - The Key to Teaching and Learning Online
Open and Distance Learning Series Gilly Salmon 2000 ISBN 0 7494 3110 5 18.99 180 pp. Kogan Page 120 Pentonville Rd. London N1 9JN
Reviewed by N. A. J. Moore, Etisalat College of Engineering, United Arab Emirates E-Moderators are "the new generation of teachers and trainers who work with learners online" (p. viii) using Computer-Mediated Conferencing (CMC) as a learning tool, regardless of the subject they are teaching. They are the focus of E-Moderating, a recent book which provides both a theoretical framework for developing online learning using CMC (part one), and a wealth of practical advice (part two). The book is supported by a Web site. The author, Gilly Salmon, a distance education specialist with the Open University Business School in the UK, provides a five-step model of effective online education, along with copious examples of how the model relates to real-life online learning contexts. Salmon proposes that, by basing learning on a constructivist model, it is e-moderators that can make the difference in online education as they convene, direct, summarize, and archive synchronous and asynchronous discussions. Chapter 1 outlines the scope of the book, and explains why CMC has become crucial to the world of online education. Salmon's main contribution to understanding and improving CMC is the five-step model of effective e-moderation, described in chapter 2. The model attempts to conceptualize the way that successful e-moderating progresses. Each of the five steps highlights the role of the e-moderator and the nature of the technology involved, while considering the implications for online learning and interaction. Step 1 of the model ("access and motivation") focuses on the basics of using the technology involved in CMC, and sets the social and pedagogical ground rules for learning with CMC. During Step 2, "online socialization," the e-moderator sets the tone for online interactions and may intervene in discussions on an individual or group level to engender good behavior. The self-explanatory "information exchange" (Step 3) requires e-moderators to encourage the online sharing of information for pedagogical purposes, and may require them to teach the necessary technical steps. This prepares participants for Step 4: "knowledge construction" which is the crucial stage in the model because it is where most learning is hypothesized to take place. Through online discussion, "many (but not all) participants engage in some very active learning, especially through widening their own viewpoints and appreciating differing perspectives" (p. 32). The role of the e-moderator in steps 4 and 5 is to encourage critical thinking and self-evaluation, as well as discussion of subject area knowledge and participants' experiences and opinions. The ultimate aim of the 5-step model is to develop participants into critical thinkers through a constructivist approach to learning.
21
Reviewed by N. A. J. Moore
Review of E-Moderating - The Key to Teaching
Most educators will recognize similarities between the 5-step model for online education and effective higher education in face-to-face contexts. One difference between these two environments, however, appears to be that "electronic discussion may create opportunities for more equal participation" (Warschauer, 1996). Salmon claims that the online environment promotes more egalitarian discussion, negating prejudices such as those based on race, gender, and age. Referring to the unequal relationships that exist in many current educational contexts, she asserts that "Existing hierarchies and relationships can change and even fade" (p. 19) through the use of online education. Using a large number of case studies, chapter 3 proposes the recruitment of confident and constructive teachers to train them in developmental and facilitating skills so that they can be knowledge sharing and creative e-moderators. These qualities of e-moderators are then discussed, using a comprehensive chart, in relation to the five-step model. Chapter 4 discusses the application of the five-step model to the online training of e-moderators, in a "Loop Input" style (Woodward, 1991). Of the 95 pages in part one that describe Salmon's approach to e-moderating, about 27 pages are devoted to examples, and almost half of chapter 4 is devoted to quotes, cases, and examples from colleagues and correspondents. I found this proportion of examples to discussion to be too high, but I expect that some readers will appreciate these accounts of practical applications. Salmon's work does include some references to other research, but these near-anecdotal quotes, comments from other e-moderators and extracts from CMC sessions and case studies provide the primary support for her arguments, suggesting a lack of empirical support for many of the claims made. Chapter 5 offers examples and practical guidance on remaining issues related to e-moderation, such as gender, disabilities, "lurking" or "browsing" (reading more than participating), and corporate training. Chapter 6 attempts to chart the future of e-moderating, and, following the theme of the subtitle, predicts a pivotal role for e-moderating in establishing effective online learning. The second half of the book is a list of "Resources for Practitioners." These resources range from the seemingly trite ("A Future Scenario"), the vague ("CMC Users with Disabilities") and the confusing ("Are You Ready to Work Online?") to the comprehensive and thorough ("Choosing a Software System for CMC") and the immediately practical ("E-Moderation Principles for Productive Conferencing"). The final category is the largest and there is a great deal of experience distilled into the useful checklists and advice. The final resource provokes debate on what e-moderators should call themselves. This is not a trivial issue. If a large number of educators are to earn their living online, then surely it is vital that the name fits. One resource that is better online than on the printed page is the list of useful websites, journals, virtual campuses, software, and databases for CMC. In general, though the E-Moderating Web site promotes the book and Salmon's work, with links to excerpts, the five-step model, reviews, and training courses for emoderators, as well as information about the author, case study contributors, and online purchasing. The Web site could do more to help practitioners develop their e-moderating skills, but at least there are pointers as to where to start. E-Moderating makes claims for IT in teaching and learning that require closer examination. For example, it claims that CMC challenges traditional hierarchies and accepted roles. While IT can be utilized for new modes and tools for learning, I see no evidence for suggesting that technology alone enables social change. If technology challenges roles, then it is because social changes have allowed those roles to be challenged. Technology is, in fact, often employed to reinforce traditional roles. For instance, the computerization of the banking system has done nothing to redistribute the world's wealth. (In fact, it may now be more difficult to steal from the wealthiest!) E-Moderating also claims that IT reduces prejudice while increasing access to education for minorities. Ironically, the increasing bandwidth and the attendant developments in voice- and video-based technologies predicted in chapter 6 are likely to bring back any prejudices reduced by the impersonality of the keyboard.
22
Another issue for consideration is the assumption, used to support the five-step model, that constructivist learning is effective, desirable, and real, and that it can best take place through participation (online or face-to-face). As appealing as this notion is, constructivism remains largely an ideological or philosophical position rather than an empirically-supported approach. Constructivism "is perhaps as much a guiding myth as a testable psychological theory, a general view rather than a single clearly stated set of claims" (Fox, 2001, p. 23). In the current volume participation is presented neutrally as effective for learning. Participation in higher education, especially for L2 speakers, however, is a cultural and political issue (Holliday, 1997), and there is little evidence to suggest that effective education depends on it. Salmon tacitly recognizes the limitations of constructivism with novices when she accepts that "Newcomers might treat, with equal deference, bizarre as well as sane contributions and true tendencies in addition to well-evidenced pieces of information" (p. 91). In the end, though, it is the e-moderator that will finally sanction what is "sane" and what is not, and so individuals' contributions are still evaluated by a more powerful participant. Salmon concedes that traditional power relationships are sustained by conservative testing systems that have failed to develop as quickly as the progress made in ComputerAssisted Learning. While we (must) still act as gatekeepers of certain standards, ESL/EFL teachers are in danger of setting false expectations by promising that students are at liberty to construct their own knowledge, especially when failure to conform to linguistic norms results in lack of comprehension. E-Moderating is not directed at online language learning, although Salmon mentions issues related to second language participants of CMC. Salmon works with MBA students, and her experiences may not reflect those of language teachers; many of our students are the "newcomers" that Salmon is concerned about, so one key issue for L2 teachers will be to apply and adapt Salmon's model in order to evaluate its effectiveness for L2 keyboarders. Within our field we must also look further into the qualitative (e.g., Collot & Belmore, 1996) and quantitative (e.g., Yates, 1996) differences in the language that constitutes CMC, and decide whether this model of language is one that merits our attention, or whether it is a transient form soon to be overtaken by language carried by greater bandwidth. In general, Salmon avoids unashamed praise of technology or exaggerated claims, but in chapter 6 all previous reserve is forgotten. Using quotes from other papers, Salmon does not resist the temptation to take a few shots in the dark of the technological future. Most of the claims are made from a European / North American viewpoint, and make assumptions about levels of income, access to technology, and the motivations of learners in the future that may not apply to people in large parts of the world, or even to many people within the more affluent areas. With that in mind, though, if the role of technology progresses to even half of what Salmon suggests, her central claim remains valid: E-moderators will play a significant role in ensuring the success of online learning. The advice offered in the book is obviously borne of the hard-earned experience of the author and other contributors working in distance learning, especially at the U.K.'s Open University. E-Moderating, however, is far more than a collection of anecdotes. It provides a framework for new and practicing emoderators and their trainers to use the technological tools to their best effect. E-Moderating strikes the right balance between analysis and advice and so comes highly recommended to anyone that aims to advance their learners' online learning through computer-mediated conferencing. ABOUT THE REVIEWER Nick Moore has worked with students and teachers of English and English for Specific Purposes in Turkey, Oman, Brazil, and Britain. He currently teaches at Etisalat College of Engineering in the U.A.E. E-mail: nick.moore@lycos.com
23
REFERENCES Collot, M., & Belmore, N. (1996). Electronic language: A new variety. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computermediated communication - linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 13-28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism examined. Oxford Review of Education, 27(1), pp. 23-35. Holliday, A. (1997). The politics of participation in international English language education. System, 25(3), pp. 409-423. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), pp. 7-26. Woodward, T. (1991). Models and metaphors in language teacher training. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication - linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
24
REVIEW OF CULTURE, DIFFERENCE, AND POWER

Title Author Distributor Contact information Culture, Difference, and Power, Interactive Video CD Christine E. Sleeter Teachers College Press Teachers College Press P.O. Box 20 Williston, VT 05495-0020 Phone: 1-800-575-6566 Fax: (802) 864-7626 www.teacherscollegepress.com Pentium 266 processor or higher; 16 MB RAM (32 MB recommended); Windows 9.x, or later; or Windows NT 4.0 or later; requires QuickTime and Adobe Acrobat Reader (installers included); headset or speakers $35.95 US 080774073X www.teacherscollegepress.com or tcpress@tc.columbia.edu English Teachers and students in teacher preparation courses, especially with K-12 focus
System requirements
Price ISBN Support Target Language Target audience
Reviewed by Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas, American University OVERVIEW With teachers in the K-12 education system in the United States as the primary audience, this e-book is intended to show that multicultural education involves more than celebrating ethnic holidays, tasting cultural foods, and talking about famous non-white people. Instead, Culture, Difference, and Power aims to provide teachers with the conceptual tools to critically examine -- following Freirian philosophy (Freire, 1970) -- institutional power relationships through real life application activities, so that they can respond appropriately to cultural differences within their own schools and larger society. Sleeter envisions three potential courses with three different student audiences in which her e-book may be used: an undergraduate service learning course on cultural diversity, a teacher credential course in multicultural education, and a graduate course in education. The nature of the e-book format engages users in the topic in a unique way that allows for multimedia interaction with text and information as well as a non-linear approach to reading. Upon loading the program, the user is prompted to start with the Overview section, where background statistics on ethnic and racial diversity in U.S. public schools and at U.S. colleges and universities are presented, the author's definitions of key terms are provided, and navigation is explained. The e-book is organized around four major sections: Culture, Power, Difference, and Pedagogy. Unlike conventional books, there is no prescribed sequence in which the four sections are to be read. However, in my own reading, I followed the linear sequence of sections as they were described in the Instructor's Manual (Sleeter, 2001) -- Culture, Power, Difference, then Pedagogy -- and found this to be quite effective. Each of the four main sections is divided into four subsections, accessible via hyperlinks, as shown in Figure 1. Each of these subsections are made up of three to five chapters, which Sleeter calls Ideas, and three or four follow-up Activities. There are also extensive hyperlinked cross-references that allow refamiliarization with concepts and information already introduced. Finding such cross-references in a
25
Reviewed by Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas
Review of Culture, Difference, and Power
traditional printed book can often be frustrating as it may require leafing through pages to locate a specific piece of information. CULTURE The New Demographics What is Culture? Culture and Representation Exploring Culture OVERVIEW DIFFERENCE Human Variation Encountering Difference Identity Mobilizing for Social Justice Figure 1. Four main sections and sub-sections in the e-book DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION Content In the section Culture, Sleeter provides background on shifting demographic and immigration patterns in the United States covering the past two centuries. She points out what becomes the dominant perspective in the e-book, namely, that cultural differences have been reconciled in favor of a predominantly white Eurocentric point of view. This section also covers the basics of ethnographic research, such as interview and observation skills, and the ethics of doing research. This is relevant as most of the follow-up activities require some type of ethnographic study. The section on Power pursues the idea of racism in the United States. Sleeter traces the development of capitalism and social class over the past 500 years and the current distribution of wealth in the United States. Two subsections are likely to be particularly interesting for teachers: one discusses lop-sided representations of diversity in textbooks while the other explores issues of cultural bias in a social studies curriculum. Sleeter discusses school practices such as tracking (placing students in groups based on estimates of academic ability) and their role in maintaining social hierarchy and reproducing inequality. In the section on Difference, Sleeter reviews the concept of biological determinism and how this has been used, especially by the media, to construct imagined categories of difference among people, which have then been used to justify discrimination. She discusses how alternative popular media may have an impact on altering this perspective. Finally, the section on Pedagogy discusses "culturally relevant pedagogy," "multicultural curricula," and "critical literacy" and provides examples of specific teachers and classrooms that implement these principles in a way the author finds exemplary. These examples are all from (mostly California based) elementary school classrooms, with one middle school class and one high school class represented. While the previous three sections lay much theoretical groundwork, the Pedagogy section is probably the most directly applicable to teachers as it provides examples and ideas from various classrooms. Throughout the sections, Sleeter provides numerous addresses for a variety of Web sites, for example, newspapers and magazines written for specific audiences such as Native Americans, people with disabilities, and gays and lesbians (all complete with subscription information). Considering that the intended audience for this e-book is (future) teachers, it would perhaps have been useful for this audience to also include Web addresses for sites that provide teaching and lesson ideas. In a country and a teaching environment where teachers encounter an increasing number of students whose first language is not English (see Faltis, 2001), Sleeter's e-book is an important contribution. POWER Power and Institutions Wealth and the Global Economy Knowledge and Ideology Schools as Institutions PEDAGOGY Culturally Relevant Pedagogy Multicultural Curriculum Critical Literacy Just Schools
26
Culture, Difference, and Power gets at the roots of a societal phenomenon that has important implications for teaching (see Damen, 1987; Faltis, 2001; Jin & Cortazzi, 1998): teachers lack multicultural training and have difficulty dealing with increasing diversity in their classrooms (Harklau, 2000; Lara, 1995; Marx, 2000; Verplaetse, 1998; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). Culture, Difference, and Power has the potential to make a difference by showing teachers what culturally responsive teaching should entail. Many of the issues addressed are relevant to teaching in a wide variety of teaching contexts, yet Sleeter addresses the challenge of multicultural teaching only from a K-12 perspective. However, those teaching adult immigrants, pre-academic, university-bound non-native students, as well as students enrolled in college courses often face similar difficulties, yet they are left out of the pool of potential teachers that this e-book targets. In one activity, users are to choose between the following two options: "Are you an elementary school teacher or are you a secondary school teacher?" Many students using this e-book may be neither, but designing culturally relevant pedagogy is a real challenge for teachers of adult minority students as well. Given that the stated objective of the e-book is "to develop teaching that is multicultural, critical, and responsive" (Overview, p. 3), I found the e-book a bit lopsided in the Culture, Power, and Difference sections in its heavy emphasis on white racism. Such a focus might perhaps be more appropriate for students in sociology or political science. Students in education and teacher credential courses will need more concrete frameworks and examples for teaching than are offered in the Pedagogy section, where users read and hear from several teachers about their personal approaches to multicultural teaching. However, the examples discussed are largely of a general nature and may not address the reality of nonK-12 users' teaching situations. While Sleeter adamantly emphasizes that she does not want to present pre-packaged lesson ideas, but to "engage teachers in discussions of what is worth teaching" (Multicultural Curriculum, Creating Multicultural Curriculum, p. 4), she does report an example of a math teacher who uses subway stops to help explain the concept of positive and negative numbers. More concrete suggestions or examples along these lines would likely help teachers, particularly pre-service teachers, see beyond a cultural contributions approach. Much of what Sleeter reports echoes the distinction between what Nunan (1999) labels traditional and experiential learning. The concepts that she presents with respect to multicultural teaching are not new; in fact, they are all firmly grounded in meaningful, cooperative learning (Kagan, 1989; McGroarty, 1993), constructivism (Faltis, 2001; Vygotsky, 1978), and current calls to address students' various learning styles, needs, and interests (Reid, 1987; Scarcella, 1990) and foster critical thinking skills (Grognet, Jameson, Franco, & Derrick-Mescua, 2000; Thinking Questions, 1999). Activities In addition to the follow-up activities, some chapters begin with activities designed to increase motivation for the upcoming subsection and to activate relevant background knowledge. For example, at the outset of Cultural Literacy, users are asked to choose among four possible teacher reactions to a student's question about why the US is bombing another country. These activities might benefit from some built-in feedback mechanism to the response the user types in; otherwise, users may not gain from the engagement that the activity seeks to create. Users of the e-book can quickly test their comprehension and retention of what they have read in short multiple choice quizzes, which Sleeter provides at the end of most Ideas sections. The majority of items ask users to recollect factual information from the section; for example, "The proportion of gay and lesbian high school students who have reported hearing homophobic remarks from other students, according to a recent survey, was: 97%, 79%, 53%" (The New Demographics; Quiz item 10). Immediate feedback is provided, as is a brief explanation of why the selected answer is correct or not.
27
Nonetheless, most of the activities at the end of Ideas sections are application activities that invite readers to reflect on their own cultural assumptions and practices. These appear to require a lot of field work which would be most easily implementable in a service learning setting. A number of activities are also more directly relevant for teachers, such as one in which users critically examine school textbooks for representation of minority groups. However, other activities that are potentially relevant to teachers either assume the users' immersion into a school setting or are quite vague. Still other activities assume that students already know how to put lessons together: "Using your knowledge of local social justice issues, symbol systems and beliefs, and the process of making social change, construct a unit in a way that teaches a group of students to critically analyze a social issue, and to take collective action to address it" (Critical Literacy; Teaching Critical Literacy activity). However, users of the e-book may have little experience teaching and little knowledge about methodological aspects of lesson design. E-Book Features Navigation through the e-book is very user-friendly and self-explanatory. Buttons at the bottom of the screen allow navigation between sections as well as within subsections and provide access to Ideas, Activities, and references. As sections and subsections can be read in non-linear fashion, and as crossreference information is provided with links dealt with in different sections of the e-book, it is easy to become lost. However, within each Ideas section, navigational help is available to facilitate navigation through an internal search engine and a Tips menu. The search engine contains a "find" function to locate specific ideas in the e-book. However, it appears that users need to target the relevant subsection, which makes the search for a specific concept a bit frustrating. In addition, the e-book contains a lot of attractive features that set it apart from a traditional book. Occasionally, users are engulfed in soft, pleasant musical interludes that accompany section openings, and they sometimes encounter vivid sounds accompanying the images. For example, readers hear a loud scream when viewing the income discrepancy between the average U.S. worker and the average CEO of an American company. The e-book is further interspersed with several short video clips featuring classroom teachers, artists, and researchers. The videos require QuickTime, included on the CD-ROM, and provide an element of immediacy and personalization that a written version cannot offer. Ironically, for someone who advocates the rights of the disabled, such as the deaf, Sleeter has included a large number of audiofiles without corresponding printed text. Other e-book features include animated graphics and interaction. Many subsections contain visual illustrations of concepts and processes, and most of these involve some kind of motion or manipulation on the screen (see Figures 2 and 3). Other screens provide text boxes that invite the readers to become writers by typing in a response to a prompt or by generating thoughts on a topic. These features add variety as well as input for highly visual and spatial learners. But because the typed data are not stored, readers must either cut and paste their responses into another document, or print the screen image before moving on. This seems quite inconvenient, and, like the activities at the beginning of subsections, text boxes could benefit from some type of feedback mechanism. However, the printed responses can become useful input for class activities or can be given to the course instructor for feedback.
28
Figure 2. Sample graphic display of a concept
Figure 3. Sample manipulative activity
29
Instructor's Manual The Instructor's Manual (Sleeter, 2001) for the e-book is available as a free download and viewable in PDF format from the publisher's Web site. It contains the same overview as on the CD-ROM, summaries of all four sections (including the subsections under each), three sample syllabi for courses in which the ebook might be used, chapter outlines, expected learning outcomes, suggestions for a culminating assignment to accompany each subsection. This is a handy reference list for instructors who are planning to use the e-book in their courses, and it is particularly useful that the Ideas and Activities menus for each subsection are also listed. Editorial Errors Something I found disturbing throughout the e-book was the large number of editorial problems consisting of spelling errors, but mostly sentence structure problems, as the examples below illustrate: "As long as kids are being testing [sic.] on prescribed material, " (Knowledge and Ideology; Ideology and curriculum: An Example, p. 4) "How does social class related [sic.] to teacher identities?" (Identity; Teachers as Cultural Beings, p. 42) "Friere [sic.]" instead of Freire (Critical Literacy; Developing Critical Literacy, p. 41) SUMMARY Provocative at times in its emphasis on unequal power relationships in an American society dominated by white Eurocentric values, Sleeter's e-book is well researched and documented. While the points relevant for the intended teacher audience -- forming stereotypes about students from underrepresented groups, interpreting behavior from one's own perspective -- have been presented by other researchers before (Barna, 1985; Damen, 1987; Faltis, 2001; Samovar & Porter, 2001), the format of Sleeter's e-book presents an intriguing alternative to books that deal with cultural issues and societal values. However, if it is so obvious, as Sleeter claims, that teachers generally do not teach in multiculturally responsive ways but rather perpetuate the racist status quo, then teachers (and especially pre-service teachers) perhaps do not know how to develop complex instruction and critical literacy. In order to address this deficiency, they perhaps need more guidance in the form of sample classroom lesson plans and activities than this e-book provides. Nevertheless, I am certain that Culture, Difference, and Power will compel users to question their conceptions about the society they live in, and that is not at all a bad start.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas is Assistant Professor in the TESOL Program at American University where she teaches ESL/EFL methodology, second language acquisition, and TESOL research. Her research focuses on pragmatic differences between NS and NNS student-professor interaction in electronic discourse, and the effects of new technology on education and learning. E-mail: sblucas@american.edu REFERENCES Barna, L. (1985). Stumbling blocks in intercultural communication. In L.Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 330-338). Fourth Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Damen, L. (1987). Cultural learning: The fifth dimension in the classroom. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
30
Faltis, C. J. (2001). Joinfostering: Teaching and learning in multicultural classrooms (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. Grognet, A., Jameson, J., Franco, L., & Derrick-Mescua, M. (2000). Enhancing English language learning in elementary classrooms: Study guide. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Harklau, L. (2000). From the "good kids" to the "worst": Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 35-67. Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). The culture the learner brings: A bridge or a barrier. In M. Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography (pp. 98-118). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning resources for teachers. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers. Lara, J. (1995). Second-language learners and middle school reform: A case study of a school in transition. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED388042. Marx, S. (2000). An exploration of pre-service teacher perceptions of second language learners in the mainstream classroom. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 444962. McGroarty, M. (1993). Cooperative learning and second language acquisition. In D. Holt (Ed.), Cooperative learning: A response to cultural diversity (pp. 13-27). Sacramento, CA: Delta Systems. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87-111. Samovar, L., & Porter, R. (2001). Communication between cultures (4th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Scarcella, R. (1990). Teaching language minority students in the multicultural classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Culture, difference and power: Instructor's manual. New York: Teachers College Press. Thinking Questions. (1999). Smart Card: KCL:TTQ. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Verplaetse, L. (1998). How content teachers interact with English language learners. TESOL Journal, 7(5), 24-28. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Youngs, C., & Youngs, G. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers' attitudes toward ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 97-120.
31
Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/reveiw3/
REVIEW OF TEACHERS UNDERSTANDING TEACHING: A MULTIMEDIA HYPERTEXT TOOL

Title Author Series Platform Hardware requirements Teachers Understanding Teaching: A Multimedia Hypertext Tool Karen Johnson and Glenn Johnson TeacherSource Macintosh or PC Macintosh: 68030 Macintosh with 4 MB RAM available (8 MB recommended); System 7.0 or later; 13" color monitor (640 x 480) with Color 8 bit, 256 colors; Macintosh CD-ROM 180 KB/second transfer rate, or faster. Windows: 386/33 megahertz or better; 4 MB RAM available (8 MB recommended); 13" color monitor (640 x 480) with Color 8 bit, 256 colors; double-speed or faster CD-ROM. Windows NT does not support the progress tracking system. Heinle and Heinle 20 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 70-page manual; online help 1998 1.01 Language teachers in pre-service or in-service professional development programs $68.95 083846356-8
Publisher
Support Year of Publication Version Target audience Price ISBN
Reviewed by Suzanne Scott, California State University, Humboldt OVERVIEW Readers involved in language teacher education are likely to be interested in Teachers Understanding Teaching, which explores teachers' ideas about teaching and includes footage and discussion of video clips of three actual ESL classrooms in the US. The classes cover a range of levels: a 4th-5th grade contentbased ESL science course, a 7th-8th grade language and literature class, and a pre-university IEP class. Like other materials in the TeacherSource Series, Teachers Understanding Teaching contains three main strands: Voices, Frameworks, and Investigations. Voices provides an insider's view of teaching, with excerpts from interviews with the teachers on their knowledge and beliefs about L2 teaching and learning. Frameworks presents an outsider's perspective, with information about theoretical issues gleaned from research on teaching and teachers. Investigations bridges theory and practice, showing excerpts from actual classroom instruction, organized around instructional considerations, and accompanied by the teachers' commentary on the excerpts. A Tasks section provides 35 activities to further users' understanding of concepts presented in the three strands. The goal of the program, to be used within a professional development language teaching program, is to help present and future teachers make sense of what they do in classrooms and why. DESCRIPTION Teachers Understanding Teaching opens with a choice of the three strands: Voices, Frameworks, and Investigations, each of which also has a number of subsections to explore. The Voices strand includes five sections called "Understandings": Second Language Learning, Students, TESOL, Memories of Teachers, and Beliefs (see Figure 1). Users access excerpts from the interviews by first selecting a topic to explore,
32
Reviewed by Suzanne Scott
Review of Teachers Understanding Teaching
and then choosing one of the three teachers. Further information is available in Key Concepts, which can also be accessed from a pull-down menu available in all strands.
Figure 1. Voices main menu Frameworks contains four "Research Issues": Learning to Teach, Teachers' Knowledge, Teacher Decision Making, and Teachers' Beliefs. In this strand, users click on a topic, and are shown a filing cabinet with tabbed files indicating references (e.g., Johnson, 1998); these references discuss ideas which theoreticians and researchers feel are important in teaching. Teachers' Beliefs, for example, has 12 tabbed files, each file containing a short quote from one citation relevant to the topic of teachers' beliefs. Each quote has the full reference available, as well as an annotation of the article or book. A few of the quotes also have comments on the topic from one or more of the three teachers. Key concepts are bolded, and when the cursor rolls over them, a definition of the concept is provided. Frameworks also has an Author Map, which gives a one-screen overview of this section. The third strand, Investigations, is perhaps the most interesting. It offers the user eight cognitive, social, and affective "Instructional Considerations" to explore: Curriculum Investigations, Subject Matter Content, Language Skills, Motivation and Involvement, Strategy, Management, Student Understanding, and Affective Needs. As with the Voices section, users select a topic, and then choose one of the three teachers. In Investigations, however, instead of an interview on the chosen topic, we step inside the teacher's classroom by watching video footage of the teacher in action. A short summary explains the context, for example, "Elizabeth provides an introduction to a reading skills activity." The teacher's afterthe-fact commentary on the classroom excerpt is provided as well. Transcripts of the teachers' comments are available, but there are no transcripts of classroom talk.
33
Figure 2. Investigations: Ken on student understanding A pull-down menu available in all strands provides information on the three teachers, such as their background in language learning and their professional development. In all three strands, an Information icon gives a quick overview of the strand, and a Reflections icon provides a basic text environment with prompts to guide reflective writing, which can be saved to floppy or hard disk. A Bulletin Board is designed to encourage discussions among class members. The Bulletin Board is not a networked communication system; users must use the same terminal to communicate with each other. A Tasks section provides 35 activities to further understanding, organized by strand or by purpose (e.g., tasks conducted outside or inside the classroom, tasks that foster collaboration). The tasks indicate their purpose, provide directions for users to do the task, and have users return to Investigations to examine how the three teachers accomplish the same task. A Progress tracking tool lets signed-in users know what parts of the CD they have viewed.
34
Figure 3. Task 2: Exploring commonly held conceptions of teachers and teaching DISCUSSION One of the most attractive aspects of Teachers Understanding Teaching is related to one of its primary shortcomings. The CD includes a wealth of information and approaches to the complex world of language teacher education, and the result can be well, messy. For example, the 70-page manual tells us that we can move through the CD in a number of different ways -- for example, by choosing one teacher and accessing all of that teacher's views and excerpts, or by selecting one of the three strands and viewing everything in that strand. Yet both of these approaches feel disjointed. Despite the careful layout of strands and considerations under each strand, I felt at times as if I were dropping in on conversations or written discussions of which I'd missed the beginning. While the words and concepts made sense in and of themselves, I wasn't always sure why I was listening to, or reading, any given bit at any given time. After viewing multiple screens, users may feel they've entered a whirling kaleidoscope of information, and they may not know what section to focus on next, or how one aspect ties in with another. As a result, instructors introducing this program to students ought to carefully plan their way through the CD, explicitly stressing linkages and providing coherence. Another major strength of the CD is the video clips of actual ESL classrooms, accompanied by commentary from the teachers. Unfortunately, the screen showing the videos is only approximately oneeighth the size of the computer screen, so the images can be quite small. Nonetheless, this footage is valuable, as are the teachers' accompanying explanations of various aspects of their teaching. Together, this information provides an ideal arena for discussion with teachers-in-training, including the match -- or lack of match -- between what the teachers say they are doing in a given clip, and how it might appear to the viewer. For example, in one clip, a teacher's behavior seemed to this viewer to be somewhat gruff and condescending towards her students. Yet the teacher's commentary on that excerpt indicated that she felt her behavior was supportive and encouraging. The contrast between our disparate interpretations of this video clip provides fertile grounds for discussion and highlights the risk involved in making assumptions
35
about a teacher after seeing only an isolated segment of teaching. Teaching is, as Johnson notes in the accompanying manual (p. 3), a highly contextualized activity, and this CD provides the opportunity to hear the teacher's perspective and to view multiple clips of the same class. SUMMARY Teachers Understanding Teaching: A Multimedia Hypertext Tool provides a useful means for exploring what teachers actually do in classrooms, and how their beliefs are reflected in their actions. While users may be frustrated by the lack of coherence as they move within and among the strands, the CD is likely to be beneficial nonetheless. It shows connections between teachers' belief systems and their teaching; it lets teachers speak for themselves about their own teaching; it gathers together, from research on teaching and teachers, quotations for consideration; and it gives us footage of classrooms and commentary explaining the rationale behind teaching choices. I would recommend that language teacher educators take the time to examine Teachers Understanding Teaching: A Multimedia Hypertext Tool and that they consider including it in their professional development programs for language teachers.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER: Suzanne Scott is an Assistant Professor at California State University, Humboldt. Her research interests include language teaching and language learning, as well as issues in interpersonal communication. E-mail: sps15@humboldt.edu
36
REVIEW OF THE MOUTON INTERACTIVE INTRODUCTION TO PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY AND PHONETICS: AN INTERACTIVE INTRODUCTION
Title The Mouton Interactive Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology (2000) Jrgen Handke Windows (9x/ME/NT 4.0/2000) and Macintosh (MacOS 8.1 or higher) PC: Pentium, 32 MB RAM, 30 MB hard disk space, SVGA graphics board, CD-ROM drive and sound card. Mac: PowerPC 120 MHz or higher, 32 MB RAM, 30 MB hard disk space, screen resolution 800x600, color monitor with thousands of colors or higher, CD-ROM drive, sound card. Mouton de Gruyter. http://www.degruyter.de/mouton/ phonetics/ Extensive context-sensitive "Help" menus throughout the program, as well as a "Help" index. Brief overview of program options given in inside cover of booklet inside the jewel case. English and general Linguistics students and instructors $39.95 (for orders placed in North America). Class adoption price (20 or more copies) $29.95. Campus license $750. 3-11-016812-X Phonetics: An Interactive Introduction (2000; Contains bonus program Introduction to Voice Onset Time, 1996) Nicholas Reid, with contributions from Helen Fraser Windows (95/98/NT4) and Macintosh (MacOS 7.5.1 or later) PC: Pentium processor or equivalent, 2x speed CD-ROM, 12 MB RAM (free), 800x600 8-bit color display. Mac: 68040 or faster processor, 2x speed CD-ROM, 12 MB RAM (free), 800x600 8-bit color display.
Author Platform Minimum hardware requirements
Publisher
Support offered
The University of New England, Australia http://www.une.edu.au/tlc/phon.htm None. (Tips given from the Navigate pull-down menu.)
Target language Target audience Price
ISBN
English and general Linguistics students and instructors UNE Student $21.93; Other Student $54.77; Institution $98.63. Incl. postage, handling and GST. (Price given in Australian dollars.) 1-86389-609-0
Reviewed by D. Eric Holt, University of South Carolina OVERVIEW The Mouton Interactive Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology and Phonetics: An Interactive Introduction, which includes the bonus program Introduction to Voice Onset Time, are CD-based multimedia resources for the beginning student of linguistics, as well as for more advanced students (or instructors) who desire further review of the fundamentals of phonetics and phonology in a visually stimulating, interactive setting. Both CD-ROMs contain detailed illustrations, animated graphics, and video clips of the physical, acoustic, and auditory aspects of speech production and perception, and in the case of the Mouton title, of more abstract phonological concepts, representations, and theories. Both programs are easily navigated via menu-driven commands and clickable hotlinks, and they include practical exercises for the student to develop mastery of the concepts presented.
37
Reviewed by D. Eric Holt
Review of Mouton Interactive and Phonetics
These programs are part of the growing trend to offer Web-based or CD-ROM resources for students of linguistics, such as those that supplement the texts of Hammond (2001, http://www.cascadilla.com/ssaa/ index.html); Labov, Ash, & Boberg (2001, http://babel.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/home.html and http://www.uni-marburg.de/linguistik/dgweb/atlas/cdinfo.htm); Ladefoged (2001a, 2001b, http://hctv. humnet.ucla.edu/departments/linguistics/VowelsandConsonants/index.htm); as well as the Contemporary Linguistics companion Web site (http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/linguistics/), which provides excellent links on phonetics and phonology. The difference in the current context is, of course, that the CD-ROMs under review are stand-alone materials. (See the Appendix for a list of other multimedia and on-line phonetics and phonology materials.)
DISCUSSION
The Mouton Interactive Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology From the opening screen, there is access to separate branches dedicated to phonetics and phonology, with over 100 screens of content. Various buttons appear on each screen when the functions are available: Navigation (which leads to the closest thing to what one might call the table of contents); Bibliography (with a list of 12 entries on phonetics and phonology, with reference information that can be copied to the clipboard; a blurb about the book, and a summary of its contents); Glossary (an A-Z listing of technical words and terms employed, with definitions and textual examples where appropriate); Notepad (for notetaking); Information (about the project and the author, narrated by the author); and Help. In addition, content screens have a button for the Interactive Tutor when relevant exercises are available. The Phonetics section shows all aspects of articulatory, auditory and acoustic phonetics, and in addition to text, includes numerous animations and sound files to help the student more fully grasp the concepts presented (see Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1. Mouton Phonetics overview
38
Figure 2. Mouton State of the Glottis The interactive presentation of Phonetics is noteworthy. For example, one highly useful screen from the subsection The Segments of Speech is The International Phonetic Alphabet: Pulmonic Consonants, which contains a full IPA chart. When a symbol is clicked, a traditional three-part articulatory description is shown, and the sound is heard, accompanied by animated side-view facial diagrams. Likewise, Primary Cardinal Vowels allows the user to see how vowel sounds are produced by moving the cursor over a vowel triangle superimposed on an animated human vocal tract (side view). As the cursor moves over a certain vowel, the mouth and tongue in the image shift to reflect the articulation of the vowel; an additional front view of a human face also shifts according to the vowel produced, which may be heard by clicking on it. Finally, The Human Hearing System (from the Auditory Phonetics subsection) provides an animated graphic of the workings of the outer, middle and inner ear, along with a voice-over description by the author. The Phonology section covers standard topics such as the phoneme and distinctive features, as well as suprasegmentals and a variety of phonological theories from the ancient tradition to Optimality Theory, and it includes discussion of British and American English. There are copious illustrations of minimal pairs, stress and intonational phrases, and other topics, all fully exemplified visually, graphically and auditorily where appropriate (see Figure 3).
39
Figure 3. Mouton Phonology overview Finally, the Interactive Tutor tests students and monitors their individual progress, with results stored in an individual student-protocol. For all topics there is a variety of exercises ranging from multiple-choice tasks to labeling or construction tasks, and even exercises involving transcription, where the student has the chance to put into practice those elements just introduced. Most exercises have several levels of difficulty that are activated as the student progresses; that is, the questions get more difficult as the student answers lower-level ones. For a more detailed overview of the Mouton product, the reader is referred to the excellent demo program available at http://www.uni-marburg.de/linguistik/dgweb/phonology/demos.htm, where one can overview the contents and structure of the program, view representative screenshots, and see the workings of the three Phonetics screens described above. Phonetics: An Interactive Introduction Phonetics: An Interactive Introduction, which may be used as an autonomous resource or as a supplement to any general introductory phonetics textbook, was originally developed for distance students of linguistics at the University of New England, Australia. The target audience now includes graduate students in linguistics and speech pathology at numerous universities around Australia, and Phonetics would serve equally well in universities in other parts of the world. The CD-ROM includes modules called The Vocal Tract, Speech Sounds, Phonation Modes, Airstream Mechanisms, and Acoustic Analysis, and also includes a module of Exercises (see Figure 4).
40
Figure 4. Phonetics opening page The program is rich in multimedia, and includes numerous sound files, video resources, and animations that vividly demonstrate all aspects of speech articulation. The student can listen to speech sounds, match them with their International Phonetic Alphabet symbols, watch video of the vocal folds in action and of patients whose larynx has been removed and who speak using esophageal airflow, and even listen to a speaker of a "click" language. These last two items are especially interesting and are unique to this title. Also particularly noteworthy is the Australian context of this program, and audio files allow the student to compare Australian English with other varieties (see Figure 5). Further, there are animations of complex articulatory gestures, and of the basics of the acoustic properties of speech (see Figure 6). As noted by the authors, this type of information is difficult to learn from print-based sources, and the extremely visual and interactive nature of this CD-ROM is likely to maintain high student interest and facilitate assimilation of the concepts presented.
41
Figure 5. Phonetics Speech Sounds (Australian English vowels)
Figure 6. Phonetics Acoustic Analysis (introduction)
42
The Exercises section is quite good, and provides immediate feedback to the student on activities such as labeling parts of the vocal tract, identifying and labeling symbols for consonants and vowels, transcribing three- and eight-phoneme words, choosing the phonation mode, and identifying parts of a spectrogram. There are no record-keeping, printing, or e-mail options that I could identify. The CD-ROM contains a bonus program, Introduction to Voice Onset Time (VOT; Figure 7), an excellent resource that further enriches the learning experience of the student and of the teaching possibilities for the instructor. All aspects of VOT are discussed and exemplified, and there are clickable examples from English, French, Hindi, Tamil, Korean, and Thai.
Figure 7. VOT EVALUATION Uses for these programs are many: showing animation and video clips in class; assigning out-of-class tasks; reviewing material for general study or exam preparation; delving deeper into issues presented in class or not covered in class; and self-paced independent study. These titles are further valuable to phonologists without in-depth training or teaching experience in phonetics, or with exposure to the discipline primarily via the printed word. Likewise, the Mouton title is valuable to phoneticians who wish to learn more about a variety of phonological theories. Phonetics won a prestigious award from the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) for its exemplary use of electronic technologies in teaching and learning; this is a well-deserved honor, in my view. Limitations The Mouton Interactive Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology. An overall index, table of contents, and site map are lacking and would be most welcome, as would a list of audio, video, and other animated files, for facilitated reference and access to all materials. Likewise, a list accessible from the main page with names or authors would also be useful, especially one with links to citations within the program. As
43
far as I can tell, the very interesting Important Phoneticians and Phonologists, a list of 29 researchers with a picture and short biography of each, is accessible only from within the Phonological Theories page. Additionally, while the Interactive Tutor is an exceptional resource, I would have liked to see a central list of the activities to be completed, with the flexibility to undertake the exercises from the opening page. Finally, while the program is indeed as user-friendly as its promo touts, I had some difficulty with some of the sound files, and at times only the beginning of the selection was played, including in the Interactive Tutor, so that I was unable to make fully-informed choices of answers. This technical difficulty may not be an issue for other users, however. Phonetics: An Interactive Introduction. This title is more limited in scope than the Mouton CD-ROM, as it does not treat phonology. Like the Mouton title, this one lacks a comprehensive index or table of contents, which, while not essential, certainly would have been welcome here, too. However, the inclusion of Introduction to Voice Onset Time gives this product unique added value. SUMMARY Both CD-ROMs are highly valuable tools for the student of linguistics and phonetics and would be most welcome in language technology, linguistics, and phonetics labs, as well as for individual at-home use. The two programs are strongly recommended for students and instructors of phonetics and phonology as they are a significant addition to the currently available media and materials which present concepts that can be difficult to internalize without visualizing and practicing. While the instructor will still be an invaluable part of the learning process, these titles provide wonderful ancillary support that can lighten the burden of covering everything in detail in the classroom. Because both programs are excellent, the choice between them will depend on the specific interests and needs of the user: Mouton offers phonology while Phonetics offers VOT and the opportunity to compare different varieties of English. That is, neither CD-ROM supercedes the other in terms of content and value, and both will prove useful and enlightening to audiences with an interest in language and speech science.
APPENDIX Other Multimedia and Internet Resources The following does not pretend to be an exhaustive listing, but includes sources, in addition to those given in the References section, that the reviewer has found to be useful aids to the students in his courses. Videos Well, Joan, & Caldwell, Robert. (1991-1995). The Singer's Voice. Redmond, WA: Caldwell Publishing. (18-27 minute video segments/tapes on Vocal folds, A fiberoptic view of vocal folds, The vocal tract, Breath, and Resonance; ISBN 1-877761-63-X. VHS/DVD. $400.) Available at http://www.caldwellpublishing.com/ Stone, Maureen. (1993). Measuring Speech Production. VHS/PAL. (three-cassette collection containing demonstrations for use in teaching courses on speech acoustics, physiology and instrumentation; part two has several segments on MRI and ultrasound techniques I've found good for phonetics units) Available from the Acoustical Society of America at http://asa.aip.org/videos.html Other sites used by phoneticians and linguists 3-D Vocal Tract MRI Gallery: http://web1.dcpa.org/brad_html/mrgallery.html Center for Spoken Language Understanding (CSLU): http://cslu.cse.ogi.edu/tutordemos/ (materials and information regarding speech recognition and synthesis)
44
Prosody on the Web (with tutorials): http://www.eptotd.btinternet.co.uk/pow/powin.htm Vocal Fold Animation: http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/linguistics/faciliti/demos/vocalfolds/vocalfolds.htm Speech Internet Dictionary: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/johnm/sid/sidhome.htm Tutorial on VOT & Aspiration: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/johnm/siphtra/plostut2/plostut2.htm Online Phonetics: http://www.unil.ch/ling/phonetique/api1-eng.html - Intro Coarticulation: http://www.ling.lu.se/persons/Sidney/coartdem/ Speech Analysis Tutorial: http://www.ling.lu.se/research/speechtutorial/tutorial.html Voice Quality: http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/phonetik/EGG/ Methods of Examining Larynx: http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/phonetik/EGG/page13a.htm Distinctive Vowels Sounds of British and American English: http://faculty.washington.edu/dillon/PhonResources/vowels.html Speech Perception and Production Laboratory: http://psyc.queensu.ca/~munhallk/ X-ray Film Database for Speech Research: http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/faculty/munhall/x-ray/
UCLA Phonetics Lab
University College London
University of Lausanne University of Lund
University of Stuttgart
University of Washington
University of Queens
ABOUT THE REVIEWER D. Eric Holt is Assistant Professor of Spanish and Linguistics at the University of South Carolina, where he teaches courses in general and Hispanic linguistics, including general phonology, Spanish/English phonetics and pronunciation, historical linguistics, and the history and dialects of Spanish. E-mail: holt@sc.edu ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I thank David Cross and Julio Coln for their student-oriented comments and insights regarding the Mouton de Gruyter CD-ROM. REFERENCES Hammond, R. M. (2001). The sounds of Spanish: Analysis and application (with special reference to American English). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Labov, W., Ash, S., & Boberg, C. (2002). Atlas of North American English [ANAE] (formerly the Phonological Atlas of North America). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ladefoged, P. (2001a). A course in phonetics (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace. Ladefoged, P. (2001b). Vowels and consonants: An Introduction to the sounds of languages. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
45
Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/meskill/
EXPERT AND NOVICE TEACHERS TALKING TECHNOLOGY: PRECEPTS, CONCEPTS, AND MISCONCEPTS
Carla Meskill, Jonathan Mossop, Stephen DiAngelo, and Rosalie K. Pasquale University at Albany, State University of New York ABSTRACT When new teachers, teacher trainers, and administrators consider the ways in which technologies can best serve practice, they are wise to turn to experienced teachers and veteran technology users. It is the voices and experiences of these professionals who have worked through the complex processes of adapting curricula, classroom design, dynamics, and teaching approaches that can best inform those new to teaching and learning in general, and teaching with technologies in particular. This study compares and contrasts the "technology talk" of novice and expert teachers of K-8 language and literacy (ESOL). Interview data with eight teachers - two expert (experienced teachers and technologies users), five novice (limited experience in teaching and teaching with computers) and one transitional expert (experienced teacher and non-technology user) serve to illustrate the conceptual and practical differences between those who have adapted technologies as powerful teaching and learning tools and teachers who, in spite of specific formal training in instructional technology, speak about it and its application in starkly contrasting ways. These contrasts are presented as a set of four conceptual continua that can help in explicating novice starting points, transitional issues, and the expertise of computer-using language professionals.
INTRODUCTION The conceptual and practical differences between novice and expert teachers have been examined by a number of researchers. Pinpointing the qualities of expert practitioners in contrast to those new to the profession has yielded a number of insights that inform teacher training, administration, and teachers themselves. Those differences that have been empirically revealed through a number of qualitative approaches include the relationship between lesson plans and teachers' implementation of them (Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Bailey, 1996; Peterson & Clark, 1978; Richards & Crookes, 1988), differing abilities as regards moment-by-moment decision making (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986), awareness and accommodation of learners as individuals (Johnson, 1996; Westerman, 1991), ability to shift content on the fly (Freeman, 1989), the number and quality of instructional patterns and routines in their repertoire (Johnson, 1992), and the degree to which planning is undertaken at a macro or micro level (Nunan, 1992, 1996). In nearly all cases, novice teachers appear to respond less effectively to derailments during their planned lessons and have fewer contingencies to apply to novel situations. Technologies While numerous recent studies in teacher education delineate discomforts and stumbling blocks experienced by novice classroom teachers, particular precepts, concepts, and misconcepts associated with instructional technologies have not been explicitly explored. One exception may be Watson, Blakeley, and Abbot (1998) who empirically surmise that non-using teachers' perceptions of technology may be "at odds with reality" (p. 15). What is fairly well understood is that experienced teachers who use technologies effectively with their students can be broadly characterized as viewing technology as a means rather than an ends to learning
46
C. Meskill, J. Mossop, S. DiAngelo, & R. Pasquale
Expert and Novice Teachers Talking Technology
(Garner & Gillingham, 1996), that they see themselves in a mainly advisory role (Meskill, Mossop, & Bates, 1999; Norton & Gonzales, 1998), and that as professionals they welcome newness and variety, and continually seek to expand their repertoires (Berg, Benz, Lasley, & Raisch, 1998). Novices, on the other hand, feel they must first and foremost master the routines and rituals of new contexts (Kagan, 1992). When these contexts include mandated technologies use, there is risk of non-reflective appropriation. Nonetheless, many scholars have pointed to the potential of technologies to be transformative rather than reinforcing the status quo (Goodman, 1996; Meskill, 1999; Papert, 1993). As all sectors of the educational community struggle to support teachers in adapting technology to their teaching, it is arguable that the transformative aspect is what needs to be focal. The unanswered question, however, remains: "Transformation into what?" It is the experienced, expert technology-using teacher who can provide a great deal of insight in this regard. This study set out to explore the discourse of expert technology-using educators and contrast the patterns and concepts it reveals with those of novice teachers. The underlying goal of the inquiry is to begin to lay out a clear path of conceptual change or "transformation." The path technologies use in instruction purportedly represents may not as yet be an explicit tool in technology training curricula for educators. METHODOLOGY In an effort to address the conceptual and relative practical differences between expert and novice technology-using teachers, recorded interviews were undertaken with three groups. One group consisted of two teachers who had extensive experience using technologies in support of their learners' language and literacy development (Meskill, Mossop, & Bates, 1999). These teachers were selected for their high level of expertise in teaching language and literacy with technology, as well as their willingness and skill at articulating their craft. They were prompted to discuss how and why they implemented a technology component as part of their instructional practices, focusing particularly on how they conceived computers as part of the daily instructional stream, and the ways they saw machines as being supportive of the learning communities they engineered in general, and the instructional routines they employed through and around computers in particular. In order to compare and contrast the thinking and talk of these expert practitioners, interview data were also compiled from five novice teachers during their first experiences as public school teachers in a technologies-centered after school program. This group also kept a daily reflective journal. These five novice teachers had completed at least one graduate course in the use of media and technologies in the classroom as well as intensive courses in instructional theory and practice. Finally, a "transitional expert" provided a third set of interview data that tracked her real and conceptual transition from an expert, veteran teacher who abhorred the idea of using computers, to one who embraced and valued their use as language and literacy tools. Interviews were semi-structured and probed uses, experiences, and beliefs. These were tape-recorded and transcribed. Novices kept daily journals on their uses, experiences, and reflections on their teaching with computers. Interview length averaged 1.5 to 2 hours. Interview transcripts and journal entries served as the study's dataset. Using a thematic coding approach, journals and transcripts were reviewed and coded by categories of discourse about technologies use by the four researchers in cycles of independent and collaborative coding. Coding and recoding took place during eight cycles of revision during which categories were proposed, data were reviewed accordingly, and, if contradictory or inconsistent data were located by the group, the category was rejected and/or revised to be explanatory of all interview data. Codes were continually added, rejected, retooled, and redefined as the data was repeatedly revisited. Comparisons and contrasts between discourse trends of the groups were then made under those categories that emerged directly from our data.
47
Teacher Participants The five novices who agreed to participate in this study were pre-service teachers in a Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) masters program leading to a permanent New York State teaching certificate. Through a local district's efforts, a small implementation grant had been acquired to support a newly conceived after school program for elementary school children who are English Language Learners (ELLs). Through collaboration with the University's masters program, the five were hired as instructors on the grant. All five had clinic class experiences with adult learners of English as a second language and one of the five had classroom teaching experience but at the college, not elementary level. Apart from having undertaken two or three observational visits to ESOL classrooms in the community, four of the five had neither worked in nor spent an extended period in an elementary school. One had completed a 10-week student teaching practicum in the same district as the after school program and knew several of the participating children. All five had completed the bulk of their coursework which included a 3-credit, semester-long course in using instructional technologies for language teaching. The two expert teachers were the focus of an earlier study (Meskill, Mossop, & Bates, 1999). Both were long-time teaching professionals (8-10 years) who had successfully integrated a technologies component into the everyday stream of their language and literacy instruction. Some of their knowledge of computers developed through formal in-service training, but more, they claim, came out of being experienced teachers who saw computers as yet another tool to exploit for instructional purposes. I think the fact that the interaction with the students is so important and that computers do enable this to happen in a very natural way and it's not like they're sitting at a desk and they're afraid that somebody's going to call on them and they're going to have the right answer. It's just a much more relaxed atmosphere when they're sitting back there by the computer and it does encourage the conversation. I think that's an important part of it too. (Expert 2) Our third subject, the transitional expert, is an ESOL teacher with 27 years of classroom experience. Up until recently, she saw absolutely no role for computers in either her professional or her personal life. It was a burden to me to learn how to use the computer. I couldn't see the utility of it. (Transitional Expert) However, through direct, active participation in a district-procured grant that put computers and an expert helper in her classroom, over a 1.5 year period she came to not only embrace technologies as tools for learning, but to see her teaching incomplete without them: I look forward to using the computer with the kids. I do. I absolutely love having a computer in the room. It's a wonderful toolI don't know. I can't explain it. I think it's magical, it just works now. (Transitional Expert) We hoped that the inclusion of this transitional expert would provide an additional perspective that would enrich our understanding of the conceptual issues related to technologies use in language and literacy instruction. THE CONTINUA Talk and concepts concerning technologies and their uses in instruction varied markedly among these three diverse groups of language and literacy educators. The following novice-expert continua emerged from the talk and writing of these three groups. We use these to frame, present, and point to practical training application of these contrasts. Contrasting talk lies along four teacher-development continua:
48
Locus: Focus: Practice: Emphasis:
Machine Self Managing Students Product
Learners Student Learning Empowering Students Process
Locus: Machine/Learners The first of these, locus of learning, represents one salient point of contrast. Where the expert practitioners saw the machine as merely a tool with all agency for teaching and learning residing in teachers and students, novice discourse (both spoken and written) is replete with references to computers as being the locus of agency in the instructional process. The conceptual continuum for agency begins at the most nave end with the locus of learning residing with the machine, and extends to the expert end where computers are referred to as tools with the locus of learning residing in the sociocollaborative tasks and contexts orchestrated around them.
For the novices, the notion of machine agency was particularly pronounced in instances where they encountered technical difficulties. Comments like the following from a novice interview were not uncommon: One of the computers refused to indent, then two more refused to let the students type! (Novice 2) Rather than shifting gears and applying contingency plans as did the more experienced teachers, novices reported "freezing" along with the machines they were helping their students use. Rather than seeking contingencies, they dwelt instead on the machine as thwarting their efforts to carry out specific plans. This reaction is in keeping with other studies where derailment from a plan is a serious source of difficulty for new teachers (Allwright & Bailey, 1991). When computers are involved, this sense of helplessness appears even more striking as does the subsequent blame aimed at the machine. Novices also reported surrendering their own agency as teachers to the machine. This was evidenced in several reported instances where novices expressed relief that they could "put the kids on the computer." I let them spend the remaining time on the Arthur1 program It was not like they are just playing games, they still learn using this software. (Novice 4) Not only did the machine take over responsibility for holding children's attention, the rationale for doings so was attributed to the machine's capacity to directly "teach." Indeed, in many instances, it appeared the novices had more confidence in the machine/software than in their own abilities to teach. Once I felt their attention begin to waiver, I placed them on the computer, which they were happy to do. (Novice 3) In terms of learning outcomes, novices used language that attributes learning to the machine, not to the learner: The [Claris Works] software we used worked fairly well in inspiring and encouraging the children to write. (Novice 1)
49
This is in keeping with an earlier study that saw even experienced classroom teachers who were new to technology attributing the "doing" and "learning" to the machine, not to themselves nor to their students (Meskill & Swan, 1999). It is also in keeping with more blatant attributions of human agency typical of the novice discourse: The printer was not behaving/ being temperamental. (Novice 3) By contrast, expert teachers' discourse is devoid of anthropomorphic references to the machine. Agency is clearly and consistently expressed and referred to as residing in students and teachers. Rather than talk about what machines do, the expert teachers' discourse clearly reflects a conceptual locus for learning as residing in the learner, not the computer. We did a lot with [emphasis added] the computer with making posters and writing thank you notes and that type of thing. (Expert 2) Where they can select, they can take a risk. . .It was almost as if that arrow moved from left to right, the words would come right out. (Expert 1) Where the spoken and written discourse of the novices was replete with references to computers as having agency, the experienced teachers referred to machines only as the inanimate objects that they are. It's a wonderful tool. (Transitional Expert) With the assistance of a University mentor, our transitional expert made this conceptual change quickly. At the outset of her technologies adaptation process, she, like the novice teachers, was somewhat mystified by what computers were actually supposed to "do" to affect learning. Where she began was by thinking along the lines of the machines taking over some of the vital social aspects of the teaching and learning experience: I really thought that language is such a vital thing, is such an alive thing, that why would this machine have anything to do with imparting communicative skills. (Transitional Expert) However, she very soon discovered the merit of the tools conception of technologies: It's a tool at the end of the lesson. It's not really the way to always introduce something, to teach a concept on its ownit's a reinforcer. (Transitional Expert) This was by far more in keeping with her extensive, humanistic grounding and rich experience as a professional educator than was the machine-as-transmitter-of-learning conception common among the novice teachers. Focus: Self/Student Learning Consistent with a number of studies of teacher development, our data reveal sharp contrasts in the ways novices and experts discuss their craft on what Kagan (1992) terms the self/other continuum. Beginning teachers typically focus on themselves as teachers, not on student learning as do more experienced teachers. This shortsighted view of teaching is explicit in novice teacher comments regarding technologies which, in the novice discourse, get cast as being in primary relationship with teachers and their plans, not the learners and their learning. This is also in keeping with teacher education research that found that novice teachers reflect on and analyze their craft on intuitive rather than empirical grounds as do experts (Reynolds, 1992).
50
Self-reference is evidenced in repeated allusions to self-initiated actions, or a kind of listing of actions novices took without incorporating learner actions or learning: I began the lessonI had them read their work againI allowed one student to print out her workI went to the computerI printed out the sentencesI let them play with the Arthur software. (Novice 5) I began using Microsoft Power Point. I used it to create story prompts. I would choose a picture (Novice 4) There were times when novices expressed an adversarial stance toward computers within their heavily self-referenced thinking, planning, undertaking, and reflecting. Overall the machine was seen as either thwarting personal plans and efforts (see Locus above), or as something offering a reprieve from the pressures of being the central focus (see Practice below). Where self-referential language used to discuss teaching is prevalent in novice talk and writing, it is completely absent in the expert data. For the experts, learning/meaning construction happens in the social space around (not through) the machine. This is clearly one of the most marked aspects of the two experts' teaching around computers: the diffusion and redistribution of roles and authority. These teachers allow and support their students in taking ownership of the computer, the processes they undertake in consorting with it, and the products they create with it. As one expert put it: they can start typing stories immediately and it's their own work. They can print it out, take it home, read it to their parents, read it to brothers and sisters. So it's like creating their own books that they have that they can read and it's their work. (Expert 1) The experts consistently framed their responses to classroom activities in terms of the learner, not themselves. They referenced the activity, the attempts, and accomplishments of their students in terms of their learning objectives and instruction: He would be using the visual cue and another time perhaps I could take it a step further and cover up the animation and have him just look at the sentence from those phrases he chooses. (Expert 1) I can click on multiplication or division and it's a fun way for him to actually do that math and let me see what he can do rather than just giving him a test. (Expert 2) Where our transitional expert was at first intimidated and of a novice-like mind regarding herself in relation to the riskiness of the machine, this was quickly overcome through gentle mentoring -- mentoring that continually highlighted her tremendous strengths and vast expertise as a professional educator and pointed out how her goals and style could be in complementary relation to what the computers in her classroom had to offer. When this experienced educator employed "I statements" in relation to computers, they were used to express her actions as integral, rather than primary, to learning activity. I'm the one who's keyboarding but on the other hand to be practical, I don't know how else to handle that. So but it's fun, everybody takes a turn, they're all around me, I sit down, I've got five kids round me. They tell me what to say. (Transitional Expert) A preoccupation with self, accompanied by the misconception of machine agency (locus) can also exacerbate beginning teachers' lack of confidence in that, along with agency comes a sense of the unpredictable and risk and, as we will see in the next section, more chance for their plans to be derailed. Practice: Managing/Empowering For the novices, classroom management can be an overwhelming obstacle to what they see as their primary mission -- affecting and enacting their plan. The novices in this study reported that their focus was oftentimes more on controlling learners than on the language and literacy development of their
51
students. Kagan (1992) finds that until novices have established standard routines, they will be preoccupied with issues of classroom control. Processes of student learning take a back seat to working out these management issues.
Novice teachers using technology are subject to the typical classroom behavioral and organizational tensions coupled with those that arise when children have access to expensive and potentially sensitive equipment. Bundled with the misconception of machine as locus of learning (see previous discussion), this tension can be quite absorbing. Novices reported being preoccupied with the belief (sometimes for good reason) that the children would harm the machines in some way: I really cannot leave them at the computers alone for a second because they begin erasing programs, banging the keyboard or pounding on the mouse. (Novice 1) I had to constantly be watching them. Turning away from them for only a moment normally prompted them to start "playing" with the computer, attempting to drag programs off the desktop or even delete them into the Trash. (Novice 5) Such preoccupation with managing learner behavior appeared to take precedence over attending to and supporting student learning processes. Additionally, the misconception of agency led novices to see children's computer work as something that placed less demand on them -- something that was easy for them: So I figured that this would be an easy task. All I would have to do is have the girls word process the sentences and read the sentences back to me. And they wouldn't even have to share a computer. There was one for each of them. It seemed simple enough. But it was a disaster. The girls just didn't know their alphabet, or the sounds of the letters It was just downright awful (Novice 3) An experienced teacher would not have a) planned so narrowly so as to depend on the computer doing something (see Locus above); nor b) been derailed, blind to the teaching and learning opportunities that learners' lack of knowledge and the presence of letters on the computer screen represent. Our transitional expert, who has worked with student teachers in her classroom for many years, put it nicely: [New teachers] will prepare a lesson, whether it be for using the computers, using whatever, if it doesn't work they kind of fall apart over it. Experienced teachers will go, well OK, and this happens to me all the time, the computers don't work for some reason, well I have lots of other activities I can pull out just like that [snaps fingers], to do with the kids. Why? Because I've done it 27 years. I just know what every book contains in the room. I just know what the material is and I know what works and what doesn't. A recent study reported in Education Week (Trotter, 1999), indicates that where experienced teachers carefully integrate technologies to complement and enhance existing curricula, novice teachers use computers as a means of reward and punishment. Novice teachers participating in our study likewise reported their "putting the children on the computer" as form of reward for cooperative behavior (see Focus above) and denied them use of the machine as a way of punishing uncooperative behaviors.
52
Sammi and Pheadra2 have very clear discipline problems -- they do not respond well to direction, and are apathetic about the materials and subject matter in this session I finally let Sammi play with one of the computers -- both he and his sister do like to use them. (Novice 4) More experienced teachers saw the computer as an additional opportunity to teach, rather than to punish. Yeah, that's right. There were mouse fights. There were. But in anything you have to teach the kids, when we play a game, that was very typical. (Transitional Expert) In contrast to the novice tendency to seize up, the expert teachers seized every opportunity to enhance the language and literacy potential of working with computers, focusing on student process and learning rather than on a single plan: Today we had a really good example because we had a couple kids that they click on the computer and then they are impatient when the little hand is up and they click again and they click again and pretty soon the computer is freezing on them and their screens are changing. So I put one of the boys up [front] in the room and I said well let me show you why some of you are having this problem. So I said Tony go to the blackboard, no, go to the waste basket and you know, I just kept giving him commands that were totally contradictory of each other he just looked at me like I was crazy and I said, well every time you click on the mouse you tell it to do something and if you don't give it a chance to do what you told it and you give it another command and another command they're like all stacking up and the computer gets crazy too. So that's like just showing them why they don't get what they want right away or why some of the things that are coming up on their screen are crazy because they've already clicked on it. (Expert 2) Emphasis: Product/Process For this continuum, we noted the difference in instructional emphasis between novices and experts. For the novices, what appears to matter most when learners use computers is what gets done -- some product is anticipated. For the expert teachers, what counts most, what gets emphasized in tasks and their management, is the learning that gets engaged in -- the learning process.
Of note throughout the novice journal entries and interviews is their perception that working at the computer is what is important: students "get on" and "get off" the machine. They emphasize their need for learners to produce rather than be engaged in processes whereby language and literacy skills are developing in an ongoing fashion. Although they sometimes seemed to have more interest in playing with the format than in composing texts, they did produce a substantial amount of writing. (Novice 2) All three groups of teachers uniformly praised the medium for its motivational aspect. A startling difference, though, lies in the concepts associated with that enthusiasm. Novice reports were nominal, superficial, with the locus of motivation lying solely with the machine and, as such, being a one-time "product" of interaction with it: They had a blast with it. It worked well. I think the computer activity was effective.
53
Experts, on the other hand, went more deeply into the connections between the motivational aspects of the medium and how they supported the processes of student learning: Where he can select he can take a risk it's a non-threatening way for him to get into reading ... the speed, the ease for a lot of these students struggling with handwriting is difficult too whereas the computer it's always neat, which is something most of them are really proud of. (Expert 1) Part and parcel of an emphasis on process is an educator's ability to notice what is important in the learning processes and to act on it in ways that support and enhance the learning (Berliner, 1988). Where novice teachers appeared more occupied by the machine, their own teaching, class management, and products, the experts were highly attuned to what it was learners were doing and were proactive in responding to teachable moments as they continually arose: That was amazing to see the conversation that took place between the kids you know once we got the right formula and they really, really worked. (Transitional Expert) DISCUSSION An expert not only knows more terms and facts about a domain than a novice, but also has developed a conceptualization of how those terms, facts, and concepts fit together into an overall schema (Walker, 1987). This connection to teaching extends well beyond matters of curriculum to encompass a larger conceptual composite of craft knowledge. Teachers need to learn to see and seize opportunities to observe, enact, and support learning in highly complex social settings. This is an aspect of teaching that sharply distinguishes novices from experts. Novice preoccupation with new technologies can potentially undermine their evolution to an expert s fine-tuned noticing ability unless, perhaps, these risks are made explicit. Understanding conceptual differences and how these translate into such practical, procedural risk-taking may help further professional development efforts for technology-using language educators. Although these findings are limited due to the small number of participating teachers, our attempt to distinguish the salient conceptual, and corresponding practical differences between novice, expert, and transitional expert technology-using educators evolved four major points of contrast. Clearly more such contrasts exist and many more may emerge as the nature of schooling evolves along with the technologies used there. What is immediately relevant is that our participant accounts make it very clear how these conceptual differences get played out in actual instructional practices with technology. Study of classroom processes with computers, then, can be informed by these basic conceptual differences. Likewise, teacher training can acknowledge these conceptual starting and end points in considering and designing professional development sequences and assessments. CONCLUSION In considering differences in the discourse and practice of novice versus expert teachers as regards technology, it becomes clear that training may not be sufficient for the needed conceptual development that leads to the kind of ease and repertoire characteristic of expert users. Indeed, those novice teachers who had received "state of the art" training in classroom technologies use were far less comfortable in their implementations than the more experienced teacher who had no formal training with computers but a great deal of classroom experience. Understanding the conceptual and discourse differences of preservice and newly practicing teachers is a critical starting point in developing the instructional materials, experiences, and guidance that can support growth in understanding the power and potential of the medium. Further, it is by increasing awareness of these differences in thought, action, and talk that the teacher training and administrative communities can reconsider a) the processes involved in technologies and teacher training; b) the inclusion of experienced and expert teachers as models of discourse and practice; and c) the notion of technologies as sidestepping the human expertise required for powerful learning.
54
Teaching craft more closely resembles practical wisdom than it does a fixed set of scientifically-derived principles. This study indicates that as far as technologies in education are concerned, part of that practical wisdom is to attain and maintain a particular conceptual frame or set of frames as regards the potential role of technologies for language and literacy development. Rather than "tinkering around the edges of their practice" (Stein, Smith, & Silver, 1999), educating novice teachers in thoughtful technologies use needs to begin with the development of concepts - a complex process of implementation and reflection that can be greatly informed by the voices of experienced practitioners. NOTES 1. Part of Broderbund's Living Books series, the Arthur books are the multimedia version of the popular children's book series. 2. Pseudonyms. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper was originally presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, April, 2000, New Orleans, LA. This project was supported in part by the National Center on English Learning and Achievement (CELA). The Center is supported by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement (Award #R305A60005). Partial support was also provided by The Language Advocacy Project, University at Albany, a language and literacy training project funded through the Office for Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs (OBEMLA), U.S. Department of Education (Award #T195A970024-99). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Carla Meskill is an Associate Professor of the Department of Educational Theory and Practice, University at Albany. E-mail: cmeskill@uamail.albany.edu Jonathan Mossop currently teaches English as a second language at the University at Albany and the Emma Willard School. E-mail: jmossop@emmawillard.org Stephen DiAngelo is an English teacher in Japan. E-mail: stephen_diangelo@hotmail.com Rosalie Pasquale lives in New York and Berlin, Germany where she teaches teachers of Business English. E-mail: rkpasquale@hotmail.com REFERENCES Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bailey, K. (1996). The best laid plans: Teachers' in-class decisions to depart from their lesson plans. In K. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
55
Berg, S., Benz, C., Lasley, T., & Raisch, C. (1998). Exemplary technology use in elementary classrooms. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(2), 111-122. Berliner, D. (1988). Implications of studies of expertise in pedagogy for teacher education and evaluation. In New directions for teacher assessment (Proceedings of the 1988 ETS Invitational Conference; pp. 3868). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model of teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 27-45. Garner, R., & Gillingham, M. (1996). Internet communication in six classrooms: Conversations across time, space, and culture. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goodman, S. (1996). Media, technology & education reform. Video and Learning, Fall/Winter, 1-2. Johnson, K. (1992). The instructional decisions of pre-service ESL teachers: New directions for teacher preparation programs. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock, & S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on second language teacher education (pp. 115-134). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. Johnson, K. (1996). The vision versus the reality: The tensions of the TESOL practicum. In D. Freeman & J. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 30-49). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169. Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75-95. Meskill, C., & Swan, K. (1999). Response-based multimedia: A pilot study of Kidspace in four elementary classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4), 339-367. Meskill, C. (1999) 20 minutes into the future. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, Practice, and Critical Issues (pp. 459-469). Washington, DC: TESOL, Inc. Meskill, C., Mossop, J., & Bates, R. (1999). Electronic texts and learners of English as a second language: Optimal contexts for language and literacy. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement. Retrieved August 27, 2002, from http://cela.albany.edu/esl/index.html Norton, P., & Gonzales, C. (1998). Regional educational technology assistance initiative-phase II: Evaluating a model for statewide professional development. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(1), 25-48. Nunan, D. (1992). The teacher as decision-maker. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock, & S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on second language teacher education (pp. 135-165). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. Nunan, D. (1996). Hidden voices: Insiders' perspectives on classroom interaction. In K. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 41-56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. NY: Basic Books. Peterson, P., & Clark, C. (1978). Teachers' reports of their cognitive processes. American Educational Research Journal, 15(4), 555-565. Reynolds, A. (1992). What is competent beginning teaching? A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 1-35.
56
Richards, J., & Crookes, G. (1988). The practicum in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 9-27. Stein, M., Smith, M., & Silver, E. (1999). The development of professional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3), 237-269. Trotter, A. (1999, September 23). Preparing teachers for the digital age. Education Week, 19(4), 37-42. Available onlin at http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/articles/teach.htm alker, C. (1987). Relative importance of domain knowledge and overall aptitude on acquisition of domain-related information. Cognition and Instruction, 4(1), 25-42. Watson, D., Blakeley, B., & Abbot, C. (1998). Researching the use of communication technologies in teacher education. Computers in Education, 10(1-2), 15-21. Westerman, D. (1991). Expert and novice teacher decision making. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 292-305.
57
Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/weasenforth/
REALIZING CONSTRUCTIVIST OBJECTIVES THROUGH COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGIES: THREADED DISCUSSIONS

Donald Weasenforth The George Washington University Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas American University Christine Meloni The George Washington University ABSTRACT Two crucial aspects of implementing instructional technologies effectively in language classrooms are having an understanding of the capabilities of various technologies and evaluating the usefulness of the technologies in realizing curricular goals. This paper presents a situated study -- based on a prominent pedagogical framework -- of the implementation of threaded discussions, a widely used instructional technology, to meet constructivist curricular objectives in university ESL classes. The authors use constructivist principles as a framework to evaluate the three-semester process of their implementation of threaded discussions to fulfill constructivist curricular goals. Of particular interest is the extent to which the technology, as mediated by the instructors, promoted selected cognitive and social skills as well as addressed affective factors and individual differences in students.
INTRODUCTION: CONSTRUCTIVISM AND CALL Recognizing the importance of determining how instructional technology can fulfill instructional goals, Bonk and Cunningham (1998) point out that "The blending of technological and pedagogical advancements has elevated the importance of research on electronic student dialogue, text conferencing, information sharing, and other forms of collaboration" (p. 27). While general frameworks (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1995; Chapelle, 1997; O'Malley, 1995; Ortega, 1997; Tella & MononenAaltonen, 1998) provide a basis for investigating the effectiveness of various technologies in fulfilling pedagogical goals, of particular interest to educators who value constructivist principles of learning is the interactive and distributed nature of some technologies. Constructivists have found that communication technologies can realize constructivist ideals of learning (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998): active, collaborative construction of knowledge instead of knowledge transfer from one person to another (Cobb, 1994; Jonassen, 1994; O'Malley, 1995; Schank & Cleary, 1995), engagement in contextualized authentic tasks as opposed to abstract instruction, and lesscontrolled environments versus predetermined sequences of instruction where "conditions for shared understanding" are created and "alternative solutions and hypothesis building" (O'Malley, 1995, p. 289) are promoted through student interaction. Such learning environments encourage thoughtful reflection and "empower learners to assume ownership of their knowledge, rather than reproducing the teacher's" Jonassen, p. 6). But various technologies differ in the way and extent to which they facilitate the realization of constructivist principles (Tella & Mononen-Aaltonen, 1998). Instructors need to identify the technologies and the implementations of those technologies, which best fulfill curricular goals (Bonk & King, 1998; Chapelle, 1997; Tella & Mononen-Aaltonen). In recent years, a number of studies have investigated the advantages and disadvantages of asynchronous technology with both native and non-native speakers in a
58
D. Weasenforth, S. Biesenbach-Lucas, & C. Meloni
Realizing Constructivist Objectives
variety of higher education settings. Asynchronous communication realizes constructivist tenets in that it changes the role of instructors and students and extends the classroom in time and space. Students take on a more active role and become "problem solvers rather than just memorizers of facts" (Collins & Berge, 1996, p. 3; Jonassen, 1994; Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999). Asynchronous technology such as threaded discussion "facilitate[s] self-pacing and self-directed learning" (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999, p. 411), promotes students' reflection on course content, and encourages students to take responsibility for their own learning (Chong, 1998; Collins & Berge; Greenlaw & DeLoach, in press; Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999; Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999). In a threaded discussion, students participate in an asynchronous conversation by posting messages to an electronic bulletin board with threads (or strands) of discussion. The original posting and all replies posted in response to the original posting are hierarchically displayed. The additional processing time provided through the asynchronous medium is particularly important when dealing with non-native speakers (Kamhi-Stein, 2000a; O'Malley, 1995). It promotes careful deliberation over course content, which in turn encourages critical thinking as students develop knowledge at their own pace (Jonassen, 1994; Kamhi-Stein, 2000b; Scarce, 1997). Merron (1998) found that students using threaded discussions wrote more thoughtfully than students who were not afforded such opportunities. Similarly, Parker (1999) and Irvine (2000) found significant improvement in students' metacognitive reflection and depth of thought with the use of threaded discussions. Chong (1998) reports that students became actively engaged by course materials which provided opportunities to test understanding of the materials. The interactive and collaborative nature of asynchronous technology allows students to share perspectives and experiences, to establish relationships, to seek assistance (Chong, 1998), to exchange information that can influence intercultural attitudes (Mller-Hartmann, 2000), and to support and encourage each other (Collins & Berge, 1996; Kamhi-Stein, 2000b; Sengupta, 2001). Further, it "allows everyone to be heard" (Greenlaw & DeLoach, in press), including students who do not normally participate in face-to-face discussions (Kamhi-Stein, 2000b; Schallert et al., 1998). Several researchers have observed that asynchronous technologies also foster students' awareness of discourse-related aspects of communication as well as academic conventions (e.g., citing sources) and syntactic flexibility (Davis & Thiede, 2000; Hutton, 1999; Irvine, 2000; Sengupta, 2001). Especially when the technology is integrated over an extended time frame, students learn to "interpret and produce contextually appropriate language by recognizing, deconstructing, and analyzing texts they encounter" (Sengupta, p. 110). Comparing threaded discussions, chat, and listserv e-mail, Irvine found that threaded discussions exhibited largely content-related statements and few procedure-related statements and prompted referencing to outside sources and other messages in threads. However, Ocker and Yaverbaum (1999) as well as Benbunan-Fich and Hiltz (1999) observed that students in their study were not always satisfied with the quality of asynchronous interaction, perhaps due to "log-in lags" (p. 423) typical of asynchronous technologies. Coordination of when and how often to contribute can be difficult and can lead to "lurking ... some group members read the electronic message but do not contribute" (Ocker & Yaverbaum, p. 429). Collins and Berge (1996) suggest that dissatisfaction can also be the result of an absence of visual and social context clues. Dissatisfaction for non-native speakers can also stem from the fact that their language output needs to be written, and they have insufficient linguistic flexibility to express complex thoughts well (Collins & Berge; Lang, 2000). In addition, threaded discussions can be perceived as busywork if they are not well integrated into a curriculum (Bannon, 1995; Chong, 1998; Collins & Berge, 1996; Scarce, 1997). They can also lead to information overload if group sizes are not controlled (Chong). Despite noted disadvantages, researchers agree that asynchronous technologies add to students' learning in new and significant ways and are probably best seen as a a supplement, not a substitute for other class activities. While previous studies have attested to the usefulness of asynchronous technologies in addressing constructivist principles (e.g., Bonk & King, 1998), these studies have focused largely on the social aspects of learning. The present study, however, provides a broader view of constructivist learning
59
by examining not only social, but also cognitive, affective, and individual principles of learning. The focus here is on the application of the American Psychological Association's (1997) constructivist principles in a multiple case study of the implementation of threaded discussions by two English as a Second Language (ESL) instructors in their classes over a period of three semesters. The study documents how instructional mediation of threaded discussion has led to a realization of constructivist principles in the classroom. In the following section, the constructivist principles used as a framework for the study are presented. Then, a description of the assignment is given, followed by a discussion of how these constructivist principles were realized through the use of threaded discussion. ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK Following is the framework used in this study (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998, p. 29). Cognitive and Metacognitive Factors 1. Nature of the learning process. The learning of complex subject matter is most effective when it is an intentional process of constructing meaning from information and experience. 2. Goals of the learning process. Over time and with support and instructional guidance, the successful learner can create meaningful, coherent representations of knowledge. 3. Construction of knowledge. The successful learner can link new information with existing knowledge in meaningful ways. 4. Strategic thinking. The successful learner can create and use a repertoire of thinking and reasoning strategies to achieve complex learning goals. 5. Thinking about thinking. Higher order strategies for selecting and monitoring mental operations facilitate creative and critical thinking. 6. Context of learning. Learning is influenced by environmental factors, which include culture, technology, and instructional practices. Motivational and Affective Factors 7. Motivational and emotional influences on learning. What and how much is learned is influenced by the learner's motivation. Motivation to learn, in turn, is influenced by the individual's emotional states. 8. Intrinsic motivation to learn. The learner's creativity, higher order thinking, and natural curiosity all contribute to motivation to learn. Intrinsic motivation is stimulated by tasks of optimal novelty and difficulty, relevance to personal interests, and personal choice and control. 9. Effects of motivation on effort. Acquisition of complex knowledge and skills requires extended learner effort and guided practice. Without the learner's motivation to learn, the willingness to exert this effort without coercion is unlikely. Developmental and Social Factors 10. Developmental influences on learning. As individuals develop, they have are different opportunities and constraints for learning. Learning is most effective when differential development within and across physical, intellectual, emotional, and social domains is taken into account. 11. Social influences on learning. Learning is influenced by social interactions, interpersonal relations, and communication with others.
60
Individual Differences 12. Individual differences in learning. Learners have different strategies, approaches, and capabilities for learning that are a function of prior experience and heredity. 13. Learning and diversity. Learning is most effective when differences in learners' linguistic, cultural, and social backgrounds are taken into account. 14. Standards and assessment. Setting appropriately high and challenging standards and assessing the learner as well as learning progress (including diagnostic, process, and outcome assessment) are integral parts of the learning process. Note that "Developmental influences on learning" (principle 10) is not included in subsequent discussions because it is not particularly relevant for adult students. While graduate students develop intellectually, this development did not appear relevant to study. ELECTRONIC DISCUSSIONS ASSIGNMENT Six classes -- one class for each of two instructors for three semesters -- participated in the threaded discussion assignment. All classes were advanced-level university ESL reading/writing classes. In this paper, the set of classes (for semesters 1-3) that were taught by one instructor are referred to as ESL1; the other set of classes taught by the other instructor are referred to as ESL2. A total of 52 students (30 in ESL1; 22 in ESL2) participated in the study. All were international graduate students from various fields of study. Most were Asian, but several cultural affiliations and nationalities were represented in every class. All classes included male and female students ranging in age from midtwenties to early thirties, and class size ranged from 7 to 15. The technology used for the assignment evaluated in the study was asynchronous threaded discussion on a Web board. The instructors used Prometheus, a widely-used course management system in the US (Prometheus, 2001). Following is a description of the assignment specifications as they were developed over a three-semester period. Introductory Materials At the beginning of each semester, the assignment was introduced to students through an assignment description and evaluation form, which were jointly developed by both instructors (see Appendices A and B). The handouts provided a rationale for the assignment and descriptions of how it should be carried out and how messages would be evaluated. The instructors jointly modified the description and evaluation forms for semester 2 (see Appendices C and D) and independently modified the forms for semester 3 (see Appendices E, F, G, and H). The ESL1 instructor provided a discussion excerpt illustrating expected features. Group Assignments For all three semesters, each class was divided into groups of three or four students with at least one male and one female in each group. The instructors also strove for an even distribution of nationalities and at least one assertive student in each group. Group composition remained the same for the first semester in all classes, and in the ESL1 class it was the same for semesters 2 and 3 as well. The ESL2 instructor, however, changed group assignments midway through the second and third semesters. Discussion Threads and Prompts During semester 1, students were required to introduce a new thread each week and participate in a total of 12 discussions about course content. However, since the instructors and students felt that 1 week was usually not enough time for an effective discussion, most threads were extended to 2 weeks in the second
61
semester. In the third semester, the instructors varied the length of the discussions from one to three weeks, depending on the prompt and the students' interest. In the first semester, students were required to post once per thread but were encouraged to post twice. The ESL2 instructor required two postings per thread in the third semester while the ESL1 instructor continued to require one posting. In the first semester students were told that their discussions should focus on course content but they could decide on the specific subject. Each group then selected the student who would begin each week's discussion. For subsequent semesters, instructors provided discussion prompts. Instructors' Role The instructors' role in semester 1 was limited to observation and evaluation of the discussions. During semesters 2 and 3, the ESL1 instructor participated in the discussions, providing ideas for discussion, modeling desired discourse, and encouraging student participation, as well as managing the discussions in general. The ESL2 instructor intervened only once in order to clarify a misunderstanding. Evaluation Instructors evaluated each student's messages on a weekly basis using the jointly developed analytic scale (see Appendix B). Students were required to post at least one message per week. Each posting was to relate to course content, demonstrate critical reflection, and be linked to previous postings. The requirement for "critical reflection" was based on an expectation for critical commentary (see Bloom, 1956). Linguistic accuracy was not evaluated. Revisions to the evaluation form (see Appendix D) in semester 2 were made to clarify the requirement of "reflective thought." For semester 3, the ESL1 instructor used an evaluation form similar to the one used in semester 2. For that same semester, the ESL2 instructor elaborated the analytic scale using Bloom's terminology (see Appendix H), and then subsequently abandoned it for a holistic evaluation without the use of a scale. Survey At the end of each semester, students completed a survey in which they assessed the benefits of the assignment. References to survey results are included below. APPLICATION OF CONSTRUCTIVIST PRINCIPLES In the following section, we describe how the two instructors' implementation of threaded discussions in their classes fulfilled (or did not fulfill) constructivist principles (see Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). The first semester is discussed for both ESL1 and ESL2 since both instructors implemented the technology in the same ways. For some principles, similarities between the two sets of classes for the second and third semesters are then discussed when the principles were similarly addressed. Then, where appropriate, the application of the principles is discussed for each set of classes for the second and third semesters.1 Cognitive and Metacognitive Factors (Principles 1-6) 1. Nature of the Learning Process Intentional process of constructing meaning from information and experience Semester #1 In the first semester, student initiation of the topic promoted intentionality of postings; that is, students had to take the initiative to contribute to the week's discussion. Furthermore, the analytic scale promoted students' intentional choice of topic (aspects of course content), intentional references to course materials and own experiences, and intentional inclusion of reflective thought. The intentional construction of
62
meaning entailed students' linking their own experiences to course materials and to the experiences of the other students (Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999; Muirhead, 2000; Nunan, 1999a). Meaning was jointly constructed as students presented viewpoints and experiences and reacted to those of their group members. Students had to make explicit (hence intentional) connections to others' contributions (Berge, 1998). However, there was a lack of explicit connections between the discussions in class and the threaded discussions which led students to see the threaded discussions as an isolated assignment rather than an integral part of the course (Chong, 1998; Scarce, 1997). This did not effectively promote intentionality of constructing meaning from information presented in the classrooms. Semesters #2 and 3 for Both Instructors In semesters 2 and 3, both instructors provided course-related prompts, but the students again had to take the initiative to contribute to the discussion and link their previous knowledge and experience to the discussion. This provided for more overt connections between the threaded discussions and classroom discussions, promoting more intentional construction of meaning through this "carry-over" (O'Malley, 1995). In survey responses, approximately 40% of all students for all three semesters identified the sharing of ideas as the greatest benefit of the assignment. Sharing provided information and experience from which meaning was constructed in the threads and in the classrooms. The variable assignment of discussions during semester 3 so that they correlated more closely with classroom activities -- rather than assignment on an arbitrary weekly basis -- promoted more thoughtful construction of meaning (Berge & Collins, 1993; Kamhi-Stein, 2000b; Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999). The creation of meaning also became more intentional, since the discussions became a more direct extension of classroom discussions cut short by lack of time. Semesters #2 and 3 for Each Instructor ESL1 For semesters 2 and 3, the discussion assignment was given greater weight in determining the final course grade, thus underscoring the importance of the assignment more than in semester 1. Instead of being part of the "participation" grade, which comprised 10% of the final course grade, the discussion assignment became a full 10% of the final grade, prompting students' intentional participation in the threaded discussions (Chong, 1998; Scarce, 1997). Providing an annotated example of a previous thread in the introductory handout for the third semester also increased the intentional focus of students on producing critical discourse. One difficulty which students faced during the first and second semesters was reaching a clear understanding of "reflective thought." Most students came to understand this criterion by the second or third week because of modeling by the instructor and other students and instructor comments given as evaluations (Berge, 1998). In response to student suggestions and the instructor's observations of the lack of reflective thought, it was decided that a model should be offered (Peirce, 2000). Students seemed to take a more intentional approach to including reflective thought in their messages. Students' survey responses noted that the instructor's occasional participation influenced their electronic communication by prompting them to include reflective commentary, indicating that students intentionally constructed meaning from course materials in response to the instructor's presence and evaluation. An unintended improvement of the dialogic nature of the discussions during the third semester deserves discussion. Two students, without being prompted by the instructor, assumed the roles of discussion leaders by initiating and managing their groups' discussions. They not only started the discussions but also set agendas for the discussions, encouraged responses from group members, commended members
63
for particularly valuable contributions, and routinely summarized discussions. Partially as a response to peer pressure, this helpful addition to the discussion was an intentional construction of meaning and promoted other students' intentional construction of meaning (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999; DeLoach & Greenlaw, 2002; Tella & Mononen-Aaltonen, 1998). ESL2 In the third semester, the ESL2 instructor's adoption of a holistic evaluation and elimination of the evaluation form may have facilitated the evaluation process. However, this may also have meant that students approached the assignment with less intentionality. 2. Goals of the Learning Process Creation of meaningful, coherent representations of knowledge over time and with support and instructional guidance Semester #1 The introductory handout and technical training given in all three semesters provided students with instructor support and guidance, which were also provided in the form of feedback and evaluation on a weekly basis (Berge, 1998; Chong, 1998). In the ESL1 classes, the instructor returned both marked copies of messages and the evaluation form, making the guidance specific in terms of indicating how students' messages addressed the criteria. In the ESL2 class, instructional guidance may have been less effective as instructor comments were made on the evaluation form only; students were not given copies of their messages with comments. Maintenance of the same groups promoted sustained social support from classmates. The students contributed to their group on a weekly basis, over 12 weeks, promoting coherence in terms of meeting expectations (e.g., developing critical thought) and tying together information and ideas (Kamhi-Stein, 2000b; Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999). Semesters #2 and 3 for Both Instructors The provision of an instructor-provided prompt served as a means of support and guidance. Both instructors were thereby able to more directly guide the learning, which came from readings and classroom discussions. Varying the length of threads during semester 3 may have slighted principle #2. There were times at which no threaded discussions were carried on, since some students posted only the required one message. Thus, the continuous nature of the assignment was decreased. However, while the length of the discussions varied from one three weeks, the students were still expected to participate every week throughout the semester, thus promoting the construction of meaning over time. Semesters #2 and 3 for Each Instructor ESL1 The participation of the instructor allowed for additional support and guidance (Gamas & Solberg, 1997). Thus, the instructor was also able to answer questions if necessary and to guide discussions so that they were more reflective (Muirhead, 2000). Also, the provision of the discussion excerpt in semester 3 provided increased guidance (Peirce, 2000) by clarifying students' expected roles in the co-construction of coherent representations of knowledge. The assumption of discussion management tasks -- initiation of discussions, establishment of agendas for the discussions, and routine summaries -- by two students further enhanced the amount and types of support and guidance individual students received. The students' encouragement of group members and
64
commendation of members for valuable contributions provided support from fellow students in addition to that offered by the instructor (Sengupta, 2001). ESL2 The ESL2 instructor regularly discussed in the classroom each week's contributions in terms of their meeting the criteria. The instructor identified model messages, providing additional guidance to students (Nunan, 1999a; Peirce, 2000). 3. Construction of Knowledge Linking new information with existing knowledge in meaningful ways Semester #1 One of the two criteria that remained essential throughout the three semesters in all of the classes was the requirement to make connections between students' own viewpoints and those of their group members (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999). This promoted the linking of new information (from other students' postings) to previous knowledge (Jonassen, 1994; Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999). The other constant criterion was the requirement to include "critical reflection." This promoted linking previous knowledge (course content) to new information (extrapolations in the form of reflective thought).2 Semesters #2 and 3 for Both Instructors Varying the length of threads to more closely tie classroom and threaded discussions gave students additional opportunities to link old and new information in the creation of meaning. Semesters #2 and 3 for ESL1 Opening a thread immediately after an interesting point in class was discussed promoted the linking of information discussed in the classroom with other information. Providing a written example of the types of linking expected as well as how to linguistically realize those links also facilitated students' linking information from the classroom to new information offered in the discussions. Coherent construction of meaning was also promoted by the instructor's participation in discussions as several students noted in survey responses. In addition, by periodically summarizing group messages, discussion mediators modeled the linking of information from course materials and from other group members. They also prompted other students to do the same (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999; DeLoach & Greenlaw, 2002). 4. Strategic Thinking Creation and use of repertoire of thinking and reasoning strategies to achieve complex learning goals Semester #1 The students discussed course-related aspects by using various strategies reflected in Bloom's taxonomy (see Appendix H). The assignment promoted the use of those types of thinking strategies (DeLoach & Greenlaw, 2002). However, the ambiguity of "critical reflection," the lack of a model and the fact that the discussions were student initiated, led to little use of analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Semesters #2 and 3 for Both Instructors The introductory handout introduced students to a range of thinking and reasoning strategies. In addition, the instructor-provided prompts promoted the use of a repertoire of critical thinking skills by focusing students' attention on critical, analytic issues related to course materials.
65
The following excerpt from a thread about culture as a factor of emotional expression exhibits the use of a repertoire of thinking and reasoning strategies -- comprehension, analysis, and evaluation -- in the service of commending valuable contributions and concluding the thread: I agree with my classmates' opinions, and would like to elaborate on several points they raised. First, Heyoung has brought up the issue of cultural evolution, and how cultural differences have decreased over time[Comprehension]. This, in my opinion, is a natural product of social and cultural evolution throughout history [Analysis]. The fact that it's clearer in the last few decades, is probably caused by technological advances and globalization [Analysis]. Nan mentions an important point. Her discussion of personality brings into light the vital role personality plays in filtering and interacting with the individual's intangible surroundings [Evaluation]. Finally, Lee lists religion as a factor affecting behavior [Comprehension]. The author [of the reading being critiqued] has overlooked the crucial importance religious beliefson the smallest details on of the followers' day-to-day lives [Evaluation]. Semesters #2 and 3 for Each Instructor ESL1 Two changes promoted students' use of a repertoire of thinking and reasoning strategies. The provision of a discussion excerpt illustrated a range of strategies, while the instructor's participation in discussions prompted the use of a range of strategies. The instructor's devotion of one thread to discussion of research paper topics promoted interaction but seemed to limit the range of thinking strategies. The contributions to this thread were mostly limited to reporting with some evaluation. This limitation is no doubt attributable to a lack of knowledge and a reluctance to seem critical of a classmate's proposed topic (Sengupta, 2001). Chong (1998) recommends, however, the use of such prompts which elicit more critical thought to elicit use of a repertoire of thinking strategies. ESL2 As a result of discussing postings in class on a regular basis, there was more evidence of a range of thinking and reasoning strategies than in semester 1. Furthermore, revision of the evaluation form for semester 3 so that it incorporated Bloom's levels of thought prompted students to use a repertoire of thinking strategies. 5. Thinking About Thinking Higher order strategies for selecting and monitoring mental operations facilitate creative and critical thinking Semester #1 Since critical reflection was required, some students' contributions included higher order strategies, which resulted in creative thinking (DeLoach& Greenlaw, 2002; Kamhi-Stein, 2000b; MacKinley, 1999). In the first semester, however, many students' postings remained at the lower half of Bloom's taxonomy. This was because no prompt was provided and students could select their own topics (as long as these were course-related). Students did not often challenge each other (or themselves) to analyze, synthesize, or evaluate (Lang, 2000; Richardson & Turner, 2000). Semesters #2 and 3 for Both Instructors With more explicit instruction and guidance, students demonstrated thinking skills related to monitoring their critical thought. The provision of instructor-provided prompts elicited selection of critical, analytic operations in dealing with course materials.
66
In the following excerpt, a student demonstrates explicit use of argument structural elements to advance his argument: In last discussion, I pointed out that people have different triggers for their anger due to cultural differences [Cause/Effect Warrant]. As a result, they often have difficulty understanding why certain things seem to anger us in the first place [Claim]. Now I give an example, Kosinski's (1976) autobiographical novel [Authoritative Warrant], The Painted Bird In this novel, a hermit caught a bird that he had painted in a colorful. Later, he released the colorful bird and watched the bird jointed the flock. However, the flock attacked the colorful bird and pecked 'the alien' to death [b]ecause the flock feared of the difference [Support]. In the same manner, I have seen [Authoritative Warrant] people dismiss some people [Reiteration of Claim].3 Semesters #2 and 3 for ESL1 Participation allowed the instructor to explicitly identify and model the selection of critical thinking expected of the students (Peirce, 2000). In the following excerpt, the instructor attempts to refocus a discussion by identifying previous relevant contributions and posing questions to prompt analysis and evaluation of conditions for catharsis as discussed in a course reading. The instructor then prompts application of the results to arguments of whether "closure" justifies the death penalty: I'd like to refocus your attention on the connection between catharsis and the death penalty. Anna and May have touched on the issue, but I'd like you to deal with it more directly Some people have argued that executing a murderer provides catharsis for the family and friends of the victim. Anna described an interesting case in which a woman seemingly found catharsisDo you believe that the death penalty is warranted by the catharsis/relief that the family and friends find? Must the 4 conditions apply in the case of the death penalty? The group discussion managers' contributions served as appropriate models for selection of critical thinking strategies. The managers demonstrated the usefulness of synthesizing various members' contributions to furthering the group discussion. Similarly, their summary of parts of the discussion and of the complete thread demonstrated the usefulness of providing a coherent perspective of discussions. In the excerpt below, one student proposes an agenda for the week's discussion and suggests applying reading strategies learned in class: Hi all we can debate the contents of the two readings or debate our individual's opinions about catharsis and death penalty There are a lot of reading strategies that we have learned from our writing class can be applied to our discussion. 6. Context of Learning Learning influenced by environmental factors, including culture, technology, and instructional practices Semester #1 Students had access to the discussions 24 hours a day and could thus participate whenever they had the time and desire. Campus and home access to technology extended learning through the discussions outside class (Bannon, 1995; Berge & Collins, 1995; Gamas & Solberg, 1997; Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999). It might be argued that the asynchronous nature of the technology threatened the coherence of thought and social interaction (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999). However, the opposite effect seemed to be evident. By facilitating response and reference to previous messages, the students had time to read each other's contributions and to think carefully about their own contributions, which promoted coherent discussion. The linear display of threaded discussions (Lang, 2000) also created coherence of thought and social interaction.
67
The grouping function of the technology provided a non-threatening environment for the students. Quiet students took active roles in discussions, which promoted their learning (Bannon, 1995; Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999; O'Malley, 1995; Sengupta, 2001), and the instructional practice of grouping the students with one assertive student per group promoted learning by providing a model and setting higher standards (Kamhi-Stein, 2000b; O'Malley, 1995). Semesters #2 and 3 for ESL1 For subsequent semesters, the ESL1 instructor incorporated a second technology and altered instructional practices so that most of the threaded discussions could be devoted solely to developing students' use of critical thinking skills. A computer-mediated testing software was used to test students' basic understanding of readings. Misunderstandings could be addressed in class, allowing the threaded discussions to be used for critical discussion. Motivational and Affective Factors (Principles 7-9) 7. Motivational and Emotional Influences on Learning Learning influenced by the learner's motivation. Motivation to learn influenced by the individual's emotional states Semester #1 The "distance" provided by technology motivated students who rarely participated in the physical classroom due to potential embarrassment (Greenlaw & DeLoach, in press; Kamhi-Stein, 2000a, 2000b; Scarce, 1997; Warschauer, 1996). The novelty of the technology and social interaction also motivated students (Warschauer, Shetzer, & Meloni, 2000). Students also understood that familiarization with the technology would be useful in other courses and in their professional work. However, the frequency of the postings and the long term nature of the assignment seemed to be a demotivating factor for some students. They felt that the threaded discussions were a burdensome addition to other more traditional assignments, which were already required. Poor group dynamics in one of the groups in the ESL2 class also had a negative effect on motivation in the first semester. One student did not participate in all of the weekly discussions, frustrating other members of his group (Muirhead, 2000). Semesters #2 and 3 for Each Instructor ESL1 The discussion assignment was given greater weight in determining the final course grade. This change gave students greater extrinsic motivation to participate in the threaded discussions (Bannon, 1995; Scarce, 1997). ESL2 Students had positive affective responses to the change in group assignments. The additional motivation may have led students to learn more about each other. Unfortunately, a lack of participation on the part of some group members continued to be a problem for both semesters. This lack of motivation seemed to demotivate other students (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999; Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999; Scarce, 1997). 8. Intrinsic Motivation to Learn Intrinsic motivation is stimulated by tasks of optimal novelty and difficulty, that are relevant to personal interests, and provide for personal choice and control.
68
Semester #1 During all three semesters and for all of the classes, the novelty of the task increased the intrinsic motivation of the students. Only a few (approximately 20%) had participated in threaded discussions before, and these students had not had extensive experience. Since students chose their own discussion topics, they could choose those relevant to their personal interests (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996; Sengupta, 2001). However, these topics did not necessarily represent optimal difficulty. Students apparently avoided topics that they felt were difficult to discuss (Sengupta). In contrast to the choice of topics, students could not control the length of the threads, which may have decreased some of their intrinsic motivation. Semesters #2 and 3 for Both Instructors Although prompts were assigned during semesters 2 and 3, students often related the prompts to their own experience and interests (Nunan, 1999a). Also, by assigning prompts, instructors could provide tasks of optimal difficulty. Many of the discussions in the classes were given 2 weeks rather than one week in the second and third semesters. Students frequently asked to continue a discussion because they were intrinsically motivated to do so (Kamhi-Stein, 2000b; Sengupta, 2001). Semesters #2 and 3 for ESL1 Tying the discussions more closely to classroom activities -- by initiating discussions when classroom activities warranted this -- appeared to increase students' intrinsic motivation (Sengupta, 2001). Likewise, there is evidence that the initiative of the two discussion managers prompted an increase in other students' intrinsic motivation. Group members were motivated to provide meaningful, useful messages as evidenced by the interest shown in others' contributions, and the investment of time they made in reading others' messages (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999). 9. Effects of Motivation on Effort Acquisition of complex knowledge and skills requires extended learner effort and guided practice Semester #1 Evaluative feedback from the instructors provided guidance as to whether or not students needed to reflect more on course content or make more explicit links to prior postings. Guidance was less direct in the ESL2 class since feedback was provided on the evaluation form rather than on copies of the actual messages. Instructors also occasionally provided guidance through additional models of complex skills such as critically analyzing course content and providing clear references to sources of information. This guided practice further promoted students' acquisition of complex knowledge and skills. Students had to exert extended effort in meeting the criterion to demonstrate critical thinking skills. For example, simply preparing and posting a summary of what they had read would have required considerably less effort than evaluating course materials. Prompted by the instructors' encouragement and guidance, some students did analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information. Developmental and Social Factors (Principle 11) 11. Social Influences on Learning Learning influenced by social interactions, interpersonal relations, and communication with others. Semester #1 This assignment required social interaction and communication within sustained groups on an ongoing basis, thus promoting interpersonal relationships (Kamhi-Stein, 2000b; Korenman & Wyatt, 1996; Nunan,
69
1999a). In fact, in response to the survey, approximately 50% of all students each semester identified social interaction (i.e., sharing ideas and experiences, and familiarization with classmates and other cultures) as the greatest benefit of the assignment. However, uneven participation among group members reduced the amount of communication and interaction among students as well as the relationships that could have thereby been established (Chong, 1998). This, in fact, was identified as the greatest weakness of the assignment by approximately 15% of the students, with fairly equal distribution across classes and semesters. In addition, the assignment of students to one group for the whole semester precluded building interpersonal relationships with other classmates in the discussions. Semesters #2 and 3 for Each Instructor ESL1 The thread devoted to discussion of students' research paper topics during the second semester provided opportunities for social interaction, for creating interpersonal relationships, and for communicating with classmates (Nunan, 1999a). Students presented their topics, helped each other choose and clarify topics, and suggested direction for topics and sources (Kamhi-Stein, 2000a). The discussion excerpt provided at the beginning of semester 3 prompted more substantive messages. However, it also led to longer contributions, which in turn reduced the interactive nature of the discussion (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999; Irvine, 2000). Few students were willing to contribute more than one message because of the additional work involved. Thus the social interaction was reduced, whereas the use of higher order thinking was increased. In contrast, social interaction and interpersonal relationships were enhanced by the self-initiated discussion leaders. These students prompted participation, encouraged fellow group members, created social cohesion among members, and enhanced the quality of the communication within groups. ESL2 By reassigning students to different groups, interaction with more than one group of students was promoted. Interpersonal relationships were thus broadened as students communicated with all classmates instead of an unchanging group, as noted by 20% of all students in survey responses. This change may partially explain in part the ESL2 students' increasingly favorable view -- from semester 1 to 3 -- of the ability of the assignment to build relationships and promote familiarity with other students. During the last two semesters, ESL2 students thought the assignment was more helpful in promoting familiarity and relationships with other students than did the ESL1 students. Group reassignments in ESL2 -- in contrast to the use of fixed groups for all three semesters in ESL1 -- may account for this difference. Individual Differences (Principles 12-14) 12. Individual Differences in Learning Learning determined by different strategies, approaches, and capabilities for learning that are a function of prior experience and heredity Semester #1 The assignment accommodated various strategies, approaches, and capabilities for learning. For example, students who wanted to take their time preparing postings and those who wanted to communicate at a faster pace were able to work within their own style and pace of learning (Collins & Berge, 1996; KamhiStein, 2000b; Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999; Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999). The assignment also promoted the use of different strategies and approaches for learning (Bannon, 1995; Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999; Collins & Berge, 1996). Based on their prior experience, students shared
70
ideas about how to tackle course assignments thereby adding to others' experiences. In discussing a writing assignment, for example, one student wrote, "I read your thoughts about how to organize the writing. To my mind, the most interesting thing is the adaptation of the American organization of academic writing to our native language organization" Furthermore, students had to evaluate the contributions of other students, thus using a strategy, which is often used by the instructor only (Berge, 1998; Collins & Berge, 1996). The assignment helped the instructors become familiar with individual students' learning strategies and abilities and, in turn, to accommodate and promote strategies in the classroom. For instance, students who exhibited a more reflective learning strategy in the threaded discussions could be accommodated in the classroom by allowing them more time to formulate responses. On the other hand, those same students could be taught the usefulness of developing other strategies as well. Semesters #2 and 3 for Both Instructors While prompts were general enough for all students, regardless of their background, to address, they also allowed students to draw on prior experience, as exemplified in the following response to a prompt on anger and catharsis: I agree that the damage is already done. Especially when "most victims, their family and friends, never recover from the damage, even after the convicts have been executed" I was victimized when I was 8 years old, and although I know that he has been dead for a long time, that fact does not make me feel any better because I know that this person did to other innocent people what he did to me because he was twisted and rotten already. Semesters #2 and 3 for Each Instructor ESL1 The self-initiated discussion managers demonstrated different learning strategies: Classroom discussions of critical reading strategies were actually exemplified by the discussion leaders as they evaluated messages, synthesized ideas, and summarized threads. This, in turn, promoted the use -- or awareness -of various strategies in the other students. ESL2 In the third semester, the ESL2 instructor shifted from one required posting per week to a more variable structure, in which students were required to post twice on a given topic, irrespective of the length of the thread. Thus, while students' strategies, approaches, and capabilities for learning were accommodated in a way similar to semester 1, students also had to learn to adapt according to the changing length of topic threads. While students with more reflective styles seemed to feel at ease with a pace of two postings over a three-week thread, they may need to adapt this preference when they have to post twice over a oneweek thread. Such flexibility can be beneficial for developing capabilities for learning in a variety of circumstances. 13. Learning and Diversity Learning is most effective when differences in learners' linguistic, cultural, and social backgrounds are taken into account. Semester #1 The assignment facilitated students' sharing of information about their linguistic, cultural, and social background differences (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999; Kamhi-Stein, 2000a, 2000b; Korenman & Wyatt, 1996). They applied this new information to their own backgrounds, thus promoting learning. For example, during a discussion about academic writing in U.S. universities, students shared information
71
about writing conventions in their own languages. One student wrote, "For me, the most exciting thing in every new language is its structure and organization. We have to study not only grammar, which is like the visible part of a language iceberg, but how to organize our thoughts in that language." This information could, in turn, be used by the instructors to address individual differences in the classroom. The grouping of students so that various linguistic/cultural backgrounds would be represented in each group promoted the interest and learning of students who relished telling about their own cultures and learning about those of other students (Kamhi-Stein, 2000b). 14. Standards and Assessment Setting appropriately high and challenging standards including diagnostic, process, and outcome assessment as integral parts of the learning process Semester #1 Appropriate and challenging standards for assessment were set at the outset of the semester (Killion, 1998). Critical reflection, analysis, and evaluation are essential skills for graduate students (Scarce, 1997). Instruction in using and demonstrating these skills is necessary for many international students, some of whom come from educational systems which do not promote critical thought to the extent that American universities do (Nunan, 1999b). As noted by other researchers (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999; DeLoach & Greenlaw, 2002), students also set standards for themselves and other group members. Some students tried to enforce standards (e.g., the number and timeliness of postings) set by the instructors, and some also implicitly set standards for the tone and substantive nature of postings. As noted above, the standards were not always appropriately high or challenging. The continuous assessment contributed to students' learning progressed over time. The assignment allowed the instructors to diagnose students' critical thinking skills at the beginning of the semester as well as track the development of those skills throughout the semester. Semesters #2 and 3 for Both Instructors The provision of a prompt allowed the instructors to tailor the difficulty level of the discussion. Rather than allowing students to focus mostly on simple association of information as happened in the first semester, the instructors were able to prompt the use of more challenging critical skills such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation (Kamhi-Stein, 2000b; Muirhead, 2000). Semesters #2 and 3 for Each Instructor ESL1 Students' comprehension of lectures and readings was assessed through quizzes and class discussions prior to the threaded discussions. Therefore, through the assigned prompt, the instructor was able to focus the threaded discussions on critical, analytic issues related to the lectures and readings. The threaded discussions thus provided an appropriate and challenging measure of each student's critical understanding of course materials, because basic understanding of the readings was assured through the reading comprehension quizzes and face-to-face discussions. During the third semester, the discussion managers set appropriately high and challenging standards for their group members (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999; DeLoach & Greenlaw, 2002). In addition to implicitly setting standards as models, they also explicitly set standards by praising group members for valuable contributions and by prompting members to contribute.
72
ESL2 In semester 3, the analytic criteria based on Bloom's taxonomy provided challenging standards for graduate students. Due to concerns about the reliability of the analytic ratings, the instructor changed to a holistic assessment, and was thus able to provide challenging standards as well as to more appropriately evaluate students' critical thinking.4 DISCUSSION Over the course of three semesters, the assignment described in this paper was modified in order to better address constructivist principles. According to Berge (1998), constructivist teachers "model cognitive processes, provide guided instruction, encourage reflection about thinking, give feedback, and encourage [connections between old and new information]." Thus, they enable "students' exploration of the course goals rather than the teacher's presentation or delivery of course materials and content" (p. 3). The instructors' role in the present study was to create a learning environment "where learners actively participate in the environment in ways that intended to help them construct their own knowledge, rather than having the teacher interpret the world" (Jonassen, 1994, p. 4; see also Tella & Mononen-Aaltonen, 1998). In the instructors' attempts at targeting some principles more explicitly, others received less emphasis, but the path of development has highlighted the enormous potential of threaded discussions for realizing constructivist principles. The implementation of the assignment has also made clear the responsibilities that constructivist instructors need to be prepared to take on. The following discussion highlights the major recommendations and insights gained from the present study. Role of Instructors and Benefits to Students In threaded discussion, "a general and diffuse goal of exchanging messages [is] insufficient to maintain the dialogue between [students]" (Bannon, 1995, p. 273; see also Tella & Mononen-Aaltonen, 1998); therefore, an important role for the instructors, evident after the first semester, became the provision of prompts that would target specific course-related topics and thinking skills, and as observed, the quality of students' contributions subsequently increased. In an attempt at tying threaded discussions closely to course objectives and class themes and promoting critical thinking, students were provided a variety of prompts for their discussions which addressed aspects of course content (Bailey & Luetkehans, 1998; Chong, 1998). In addition, once the instructors' role included tying threaded discussions more closely and deliberately to classroom discussions, the assignment's long-term promotion of constructions of meaning increased as a result (Peters, 2000). It is also recommended that instructors vary the length of ongoing discussions instead of setting an arbitrary limit. This allows instructors to realize long-term construction of meaning, appeal to students' intrinsic motivation and sustained effort, and exchange ideas collaboratively on topics of greater interest. Another change in instructor roles over the course of the semesters was increased guidance through the provision of a discussion excerpt, illustrating not only critical thinking but also ways in which links between students' own ideas and those of classmates or readings could be achieved (Lang, 2000; Nunan, 1999a). This also led to longer postings and increased intentionality of students since the expectations of the instructor were clearer. A positive impact on the quality of discussions was noted as students' attention was focused on critical, analytic issues related to course readings and lectures (Collins & Berge, 1996; Peirce, 2000); thus instructors can provide appropriate guidance in line with constructivist principles. Also, through the sample discussions with three or four people interacting, students may realize that their postings do not have to be long in order to contain critical thought. These aspects are especially important when teaching non-native speakers who are unfamiliar with expectations of American academic assignments (Nunan, 1999b). However, while the principle of critical thinking was addressed more fully in semesters 2 and 3, the principle of interaction seemed to fall short. The size of the groups remained relatively stable over the three semesters, including three to four students, as a number of researchers
73
recommend (Bailey & Luetkehans, 1998; Korenman & Wyatt, 1996; Peirce, 2000). This possible limitation in interpersonal relationships and viewpoints can be overcome by changing groups during the semester or by opening a temporary forum for whole class exchange of ideas, two strategies both instructors in the present study followed. Thus, instructors need to be keenly aware of group processes and dynamics that develop both in the threaded discussions as well as in class and may need to re-assign students to new groups or increase or decrease group size throughout the semester. Nunan (1999a) argues that it is important to "find ways for students rather than the teacher to take control of the interaction" (p. 71), a principle realized in the present study through threaded discussions. The instructors took on a passive role by not intervening in the group discussions during the first semester and providing feedback only on student contributions. Similarly, the students' greater involvement became particularly evident in the voluntary group leaders in one of the classes, representing excellent examples of independent students who managed their group discussions in a productive manner. However, the instructors' participation also gradually increased over the next two semesters. They influenced "the discussion process by encouraging new topics, sharing new material, and redirecting the conversation patterns" (Muirhead, 2000, p. 2). Thus, their role became more active as they provided guidance and support by directly joining student discussions. The instructors were thereby able to model and promote students' use of various learning and thinking strategies. Their active participation facilitated students' productive interaction; that is, they fostered and modeled productive group discussion skills -- an important aspect when teaching non-native speakers, who need appropriate guidance in order to take control in similar interactions in the future. Through their participation, the instructors contributed to coherent construction of meaning, thus providing the type of guided instruction typical of a constructivist teacher. As evaluation criteria changed over the course of the semesters, the instructors' role in the evaluation process became more active. Each instructor made criteria for evaluation of critical thinking skills more explicit. One instructor felt a more holistic evaluation was more adequate, while the other felt that an analytic scale would better clarify to students what they had and had not done well, and promote intentionality. In order for the criteria to be relevant to students, the instructors needed to develop these criteria in advance and to ensure that they were unambiguous and transparent in order to more directly promote use of higher level thinking. In addition, the assignment was given greater grading weight, increasing extrinsic motivation by making the importance of the assignment more obvious (Chong, 1998; Knowlton, Knowlton, & Davis, 2000; Scarce, 1997). Similarly, the instructors' role in the described threaded discussion assignment became one of continuous assessment, which allowed tracking students' understanding and development of critical thinking skills in ways that are not typically possible in classroom discussion or other types of assignments. Benefits of Asynchronous Medium The asynchronous nature of the threaded discussions makes this assignment particularly useful for the promotion of coherent discussion. The additional time available for reading and composing postings encourages reviewing and responding to classmates' arguments, as does the linear display of postings, which is easy to follow and process (Kamhi-Stein, 2000a, 2000b; Sengupta, 2001). The asynchronous nature of the medium invites quiet students to play active roles as their more reflective learning styles are easily accommodated (Collins & Berge, 1996; Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999). However, lack of participation of some students, as noted by one of the instructors in the present study, suggests that students need to be responsible for a certain number of postings, determined by either the teacher or jointly by the class, and that some threads need to be allotted more time, as determined by students' motivation to respond. Such adjustment of discussion time is typically not possible in the classroom, where instructional time is limited and curricular obligations need to be maintained. The asynchronous
74
nature of the threaded discussions allows extension of discussion time, which would not be possible if only physical classroom time were available. Link with Class Activities The shifting role of the instructors over the course of the semesters included the preparation of appropriately challenging prompts at the beginning of the semester to ensure that they were well integrated with the topics of the course. However, as one of the instructors observed, some of the best discussions and prompts developed spontaneously out of discussions in class and gave students opportunities to pursue topics that were of genuine interest to them, thus contributing to intrinsic motivation. This also makes the connection between in-class activities and threaded discussions more explicit and allows students to continue engagement with content and with each other between classes. Thus, it is recommended that instructors be flexible in their approach and possibly give students options as to which prompts to address. As some students in one of the classes in the present study demonstrated, it appears to be quite useful to enlist students to help in moderating discussions in order to foster a sense of student "ownership" and relieve instructors of some of the work of managing the discussions (Chong, 1998). We recommend that each group include discussion leaders (Bailey & Luetkehans, 1998) who would pose questions, set an agenda for the group, manage the flow of the on-line interaction, and provide carry-over from the Webdiscussions to the classroom, thus addressing increased intentionality in the assignment as well as social dynamics. The different roles should be rotated throughout the semester so that each group member has a different responsibility within the group each week. The connection between the electronic and the physical classroom would also be enhanced. Through successful participation in online discussions, some students developed confidence to participate more actively in class. This may have been due to greater understanding of the course work, increased interest in course materials or greater familiarity with classmates as a result of the online discussions. But it may also have been due to a better understanding of interaction inherent in group discussions, a teaching technique which is not used in some countries. The increased classroom participation may also have been due to a greater facility with English used in online group discussions, which may have carried over to classroom discussions. As suggested by the above comments, however, it should not be assumed that students will understand and be able to apply group discussion skills. Instruction in group discussion roles and in related language skills may be necessary. Benefits to All Learners and to ESL Learners The constructivist principles addressed through the assignment described are not exclusive to classes teaching ESL skills to non-native speakers. Students in all disciplines will benefit from the continuous nature of the assignment and the ongoing guidance that they receive from their instructors as students develop and refine their critical thinking skills. The threaded discussion affords extended effort over time which is clearly beneficial to students from various disciplines as they receive more than one opportunity to practice academic writing skills on which they will be evaluated. Asynchronous threaded discussions have been used in a variety of non-ESL university courses (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999; Chong, 1998; DeLoach & Greenlaw, 2002; Greenlaw & DeLoach, in press; Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999; Merron, 1998; Parker, 1999; Scarce, 1997), demonstrating that they are a technology which students should learn to use. The use of threaded discussions in ESL classes can thus prepare pre-academic ESL students for this type of discourse in non-ESL classes in a unique and authentic way. Similarly, the role of the students in threaded discussions is not dependent on discipline. While students are foremost respondents to teacher-provided or student-provided prompts, they can take more active roles as discussion leaders, who pose problems to their classmates, set agendas, summarize postings, and synthesize readings and course discussions. Thus, students are encouraged to become active participants in the class discourse instead of remaining passive recipients of course information. For ESL students, the
75
added processing time provided by the asynchronous nature of threaded discussions provides a safe environment in which to try out and practice more active roles. While native speakers easily carry over discourse conventions from other disciplines, ESL students have less experience with discourse-related expectations in American academia (Kamhi-Stein, 2000b; Nunan, 1999b). Therefore, provision of model postings and model threads before the start of the assignment in a class is particularly critical to ESL students. This might even be supplemented by weekly selections of model postings, which help make instructors' expectations explicit and expose students to the conventions of this new type of discourse. CONCLUSION While the specifications of the assignment were the same for both classes during the first semester, the specific experience each instructor had with the given class and the particular context of each class (instructor and student differences) determined changes implemented in subsequent semesters. By the third semester, the similarities in assignment implementation and evaluation had decreased, and the differences had increased. However, even though to different degrees and despite different implementations, each instructor grew as a constructivist teacher in Berge's (1998) sense and realized the 14 constructivist principles. As Bannon (1995) aptly notes, "rather than viewing new media as replacements for others, we can construct contexts in which a variety of media can be used to support collaborative learning practices" (p. 274; see also Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). Thus, threaded discussion can represent an important forum for opening up new learning possibilities that might not be achievable in a face-to-face classroom alone. Especially for non-native speakers in university ESL courses, who need to gain greater flexibility and fluency in academic language skills, this medium provides both the interactive features and the reflective qualities that oral face-to-face interaction cannot provide (Sengupta, 2001). However, unless the technology is tightly integrated with the remainder of the course, and unless this integration is carefully structured and monitored by the instructor (Collins & Berge, 1996; Peters, 2000), it is not likely to bring about the desired effect of targeting important constructivist principles.
76
APPENDIX A. ELECTRONIC GROUP DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT Semester 1 (ESL1 & 2) Electronic Group Discussion Assignment Student Guidelines 1) Your instructor will assign you to an electronic discussion group of 3 or 4 students for the semester. The purpose of the discussion groups is to promote evaluative reflections on course content and to provide your professor with another opportunity to evaluate your understanding of course content. 2) Each group will be expected to carry on electronic group discussions throughout the semester. Each of you will make weekly contributions to the discussions in the form of threaded discussions in Prometheus. Your instructor will provide additional information on how to use threaded discussions. 3) Your contributions will be evaluated based on the criteria given below. They will NOT be evaluated for language accuracy. Criteria You will be expected to send at least 1 message per week to your group. Your contributions should be reflections of course content, including lectures, class discussions, readings, and anything else related to the course. Your contributions need to include -- but need not be limited to -- evaluation of course content. In other words, you need to include critical reflections, not only descriptions or summaries. Examples of "critical" questions are: Is the content supported well? Is it clearly organized? How does it relate to other information/ knowledge/experiences that I have? Each message that you write should be a response to previous messages. This means that each contribution must build on previous contributions. Your contribution should not be a separate, independent message without a relationship to messages from others in your group.
You will each receive a weekly grade for your participation in the discussions. Your instructor will give each of you the following evaluation form each week.
APPENDIX B. EVALUATION FORM Semester 1 (ESL1 & 2) Weekly Evaluation Form for Electronic Group Journal Assignment Student: ___________________________ At least 1 email sent (to group members and instructor) Messages are on course content Messages include critical reflection Messages build on previous messages 3 = Good, 2 = Adequate, 1 = Inadequate 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Date: _____________ 3 3 3 3 Grade: _____
77
APPENDIX C. ELECTRONIC GROUP DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT Semester 2 (ESL1 & 2) Electronic Group Discussion Assignment Student Guidelines 1) Your instructor will assign you to an electronic discussion group of 3 or 4 students for the semester. The purpose of the discussion groups is to promote evaluative reflections on course content and to provide your professor with another opportunity to evaluate your understanding of course content. 2) Each group will be expected to carry on electronic group discussions throughout the semester. Each of you will make weekly contributions to the discussions in the form of threaded discussions in Prometheus. Your instructor will provide additional information on how to use threaded discussions. Note that your instructor may occasionally participate in your discussions. 3) Your contributions will be evaluated based on the criteria given below. They will NOT be evaluated for language accuracy. Criteria You will be expected to send at least 1 message per week to your group. Your contributions should reflect your understanding of course content, including lectures, class discussions, readings, and anything else related to the course. Your contributions need to include -- but need not be limited to -- evaluation of course content. In other words, you need to include critical reflections, not only descriptions or summaries. Examples of "critical" questions are: Is the content supported well? Is it clearly organized? How does it relate to other information/ knowledge/experiences that I have? Each message that you write should be a response to previous messages. This means that each contribution must build on previous contributions. Your contribution should not be a separate, independent message without a relationship to messages from others in your group.
You will each receive a grade for your participation in each discussion. Your instructor will give each of you the following evaluation form for each discussion thread. Please note that your instructor will respond to each message, but one grade will be assigned for all messages associated with a discussion thread.
APPENDIX D. EVALUATION FORM Semester 2 (ESL1 & 2) Evaluation Form for Electronic Group Discussion Assignment Student: ________________________________ Week(s): ________________ 1. Shows understanding of the course materials yes (1) no (0) 2. Relates new information to relevant previous information yes (2) no (0) 3. References messages of other students appropriately yes (2) no (0) 4. Evaluates course materials effectively yes (2) no (0) 5. Offers new insights yes (2) no (0) Prompt: _________________________________________________________ Total: ______ Comments:
78
APPENDIX E. ELECTRONIC GROUP DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT Semester 3 (ESL1) Electronic Group Discussion Assignment Student Guidelines 1) Your instructor will assign you to an electronic discussion group of 4 or 5 students for the semester. The purpose of the discussion groups is to promote evaluative reflections on course content and to provide your professor with another opportunity to evaluate your understanding of course content. It also provides an opportunity for you to practice your English outside the classroom. Finally, the assignment promotes exchanges of useful information. 2) Each group will be expected to carry on electronic group discussions throughout the semester. Each of you will make weekly contributions to the discussions in the form of threaded discussions in Prometheus. Your instructor will provide additional information on how to use threaded discussions. 3) Your instructor will initiate the discussion with a question or comment. 4) Your instructor may also occasionally participate in your discussions. 5) Your contributions will be evaluated based on the criteria given below. They will NOT be evaluated for language accuracy although your instructor may correct language errors. Criteria You will be expected to send at least 1 message per week to your group. Your contributions should include reflections on course content, including lectures, class discussions, readings, and anything else related to the course. You may discuss any topic, but there should be some reflective evaluation of course materials included. Your contributions need to include -- but need not be limited to -- evaluation of course content. In other words, you need to include critical reflections, not only descriptions or summaries. Examples of "critical" questions are: Is the content supported well? Is it clearly organized? How does it relate to other information/ knowledge/experiences that I have? This assignment requires group discussion, not independent messages from individual students. Therefore, you need to refer to previous messages and address issues raised in previous messages. You should, of course, also raise other issues of interest to you.
You will each receive a weekly grade for your participation in the discussions. These grades will make up 10% (for participation) of your final course grade. Your instructor will complete and provide each of you the following evaluation form each week. ----------------------------------Below is a short excerpt from an exchange which exemplifies the qualities your professor will be looking for in your messages. Prompt: Consider the effects of anger on health and the necessary conditions for catharsis discussed in the first two readings. What are the implications of these findings for use of the death penalty? One argument often given for use of the death penalty is that it provides "closure", a sense of relief, for the victims' family and friends. How might the information in our first two readings be applied to this argument? Student: Freudian psychologists assert that expressing anger purge emotions. They point out that when people retaliate against the person, who caused their problems, they feel catharsis. According to their
79
assertion, if murder victim's family would get the retaliation against the murderer, their anger may be reduced. Therefore, the death penalty may give them relief.1 As a example,2 'Dead Man Walking', movie discovering the truth and the false points of the death penalty, explain the effect of retaliation well. Just as portrayed in the movie, Robert Lee Willie killed two teenagers Loretta Bourque and David LeBlanc on November 4, 1977, in an Iberia. The girl was raped and both were shot in the back of the head. The stepfather and mother of murder victim have been vocal supporters of the death penalty with retaliation against the murderer. Robert Lee Willie, who raped and killed an 18-year-old woman, was finally executed. Before execution, he told the victim's parents, "I hope you get some relief from my death." They did not move or show emotion as Willie spoke to them. But 30 minutes later, outside the penitentiary gate, smiling victim's father poured drinks and offered to dance with reporters. And he said to reporters, "I feels 100 pounds lighter. Robert Lee Willie has gone straight to Satan's company and the fires of eternity." At that time, he felt catharsis. However, as time went by, he felt guilt. He thought later that although homicide was a capital offense, execution was overdone retaliation. The feeling of guilt harassed him, and he could not find a means of calming himself down. In conclusion, if retaliation goes beyond the reasonable level, on the contrary, people get the retaliation deserved.3 Professor: Some people would agree with you4 and would argue that the death penalty is too great of a retaliation, even for murder. They support their argument by pointing out that "two wrongs don't make a right" and the fact that some criminals commit crimes partially as a result of their physical/psychological/social background.5 Other people make the argument of "an eye for an eye."6 This sounds very cold hearted, but I wonder how I would feel if my wife or child were murdered. I believe that my first reaction would be to look for the killer's execution.7 Thanks for pointing out that the film Dead Man Walking deals with this issue.8 I haven't seen it yet, but I'll put it on my list of movies to rent. --------This introductory paragraph summarizes relevant points from Reading #2, providing a basis for why people might support the death penalty. The following text provides an illustration -- based on a real-life case, which was the basis for Dead Man Walking -- of information in Reading #2.
3 2 1
This conclusion raises the question about the level of retaliation needed to satisfy the urge to strike back, an issue mentioned in Reading #2. This is a reference to the student's apparent argument that the death penalty is too great of a retaliation.
4 5
This comment raises issues for further analysis: What types of backgrounds lead to crime? What are the connections between crime and the criminal's background? How might various backgrounds of criminals affect the wish to retaliate and the attainment of catharsis?
6 7 8
This comment articulates an opposing argument. This is a very short personal application. This is another reference to the student's contribution.
80
APPENDIX F. ELECTRONIC GROUP DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT Semester 3 (ESL2) Developing Critical Thinking Skills through Electronic Discussions Bloom et al. created a hierarchy of critical thinking skills. They began with comprehension, then placed analysis, application, and synthesis. At the top of the hierarchy they placed evaluation. Keep these skills in mind. * Comprehension * Analysis * Application * Synthesis * Evaluation Each week you will be given a question related to your course readings on the Web Board. You should respond to it and discuss it with your peer group. You will be evaluated on the evidence you gave of the five thinking skills. The question will be posted to the Web board on Friday. The discussion will be closed 8 days later on the following Saturday at midnight. You should post two messages per week. If you are the first poster of the week, you will receive extra credit. If you post both messages by noon on Thursday, you will receive extra credit as well. If you mistakenly post your message twice, edit the second one by deleting the message and writing BLANK in the white space.
APPENDIX G. EVALUATION FORM Semester 3 (ESL1) Weekly Evaluation Form for Electronic Group Discussion Assignment Student: ________________________________ Question/Prompt: ______________________________ Shows understanding of course materials Includes reflective, evaluative comments on course materials References messages of other students and addresses issues Offers new insights Grade: ________ Comments: Week(s): ________________ YES ____ ____ ____ ____ NO ____ ____ ____ ____
81
APPENDIX H. EVALUATION FORM Semester 3 (ESL2) Evaluation Form Name: _______________________ Topic: ___________________________ Part I. Understands the content of the reading (comprehension) [2 points] Evidence: summary of the main points of the reading Understands the structure of the reading (analysis) [2 points] Evidence: reference to the organization of the reading Applies the content of the reading (application) [2 points] Evidence: reference to relevant past knowledge or past experience Evaluates the reading (evaluation) [3 points] Evidence: references to the quality of the content and the writing Synthesizes ideas in an original way (synthesis) [3 points] Evidence: creation of original content beyond the reading Part II. Peer response [3 points] Evidence: significant response to at least one peer First poster [2 points] Minimum number of postings [2 points] Evidence: two unique postings Timely posting of messages [1 point] Evidence: both messages posted by Thursday
NOTES 1. If the instructors did not institute changes in subsequent semesters that departed from the realization of constructivist principles in semester 1, no discussion is provided. 2. Students were not given full credit unless the links to the postings of other group members or to previous knowledge were explicit and substantive. If a student simply wrote, for example, "I agree with Takeshi" or "I read about global warming in an undergraduate course" with no further development, no credit for linking was given. 3. The terms for higher order strategies (in brackets) are based on Toulmin's (1958) description of argumentation. 4. The analytic scale reduced the concept of "critical thinking" to elements which, when assessed individually or collectively, did not reliably reflect the students' quality of thought. Students' messages can exhibit critical thinking despite the fact that not all elements of Bloom's taxonomy are present. Through the holistic rating, the ESL2 instructor was able to take this into account more appropriately without compromising the high standards of the assignment.
82
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Donald Weasenforth is Assistant Professor in the Department of English as a Foreign Language at The George Washington University. His research interests include computer-aided language instruction methodology with a particular interest in how communication technologies can promote and enhance student collaboration as an essential element of language acquisition. E-mail: weasenf@gwu.edu Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas is Assistant Professor TESOL at American University where she teaches graduate level courses in ESL/EFL methodology, second language acquisition, and TESOL research. Her research focuses on pragmatics and speech act analysis in student-professor e-mail interaction, and the effects of new technology on education and learning. E-mail: sblucas@american.edu Christine Meloni is Professor in the Department of English as a Foreign Language at The George Washington University. Her research has focused on computer-assisted instruction and implementation of web-based projects with classes across the globe. She is co-author with Mark Warschauer and Heidi Shetzer of "Internet for English Teaching" (2000). E-mail: meloni@gwu.edu REFERENCES American Psychological Association. (1997, November). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school redesign and reform. Retrieved February 10, 2001, from the American Psychological Association Web site: http://www.apa.org/ed/ lcp.html Bailey, M. L., & Luetkehans, L. (1998). Ten great tips for facilitating virtual learning teams. In Distance Learning 98: Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning (pp. 19-25). Madison, WI. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED422838) Bannon, L. J. (1995). Issues in computer supported collaborative learning. In C. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 267-281). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Bednar, A., Cunningham, D. J., Duffy, T., & Perry, D. (1995). Theory in practice: How do we link? In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (2nd ed., pp. 100-112). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (1999). Impacts of asynchronous learning networks on individual and group problem solving: A field experiment. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 409-426. Berge, Z. (1998). Changing roles of teachers and learners are transforming the online classroom. Retrieved December 10, 1999, from the ONLINE-ED Web site: http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/ online-ed/mailouts/1998/aug30.html Berge, Z., & Collins, M. (1993). Computer conferencing and online education. The Arachnet Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture, 1(3). Retrieved May 20, 2001 from http://www.emoderators.com/papers/ bergev1n3.html Berge, Z., & Collins, M. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom in distance learning. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine, 2(4). Retrieved May 20, 2001, from http://www.ibiblio.org/cmc/mag/1995/apr/berge.html. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
83
Bonk, C., & King, K. (Eds.). (1998). Electronic collaborators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bonk, C., & Cunningham, D. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. Bonk & K. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators (p. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 19-43. Retrieved June 29, 2001, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/chapelle/ default.html Chong, S-M. (1998). Models of asynchronous computer conferencing for collaborative learning in large college classes. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators (pp. 157-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20. Collins, M., & Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses. Retrieved June 15, 2000, from http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/flcc.html Davis, B., & Thiede, R. (2000). Writing into change: Style shifting in asynchronous electronic discourse. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 87120). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. DeLoach, S. B., & Greenlaw, S. A. (2002). Do electronic discussions create critical-thinking spillovers? Unpublished manuscript. Gamas, W., & Solberg, B. (1997). Classroom collaboration in cyberspace. Retrieved December 4, 2000, from http://www.coe.uh.edu/insite/elec_pub/HTML1997/de_gama.htm (This site was not working at publication time.) Greenlaw, S. A., & DeLoach, S. B. (in press). Teaching critical thinking with electronic discussion. Journal of Economic Education. Hutton, S. (1999, November). Course design strategies -- Traditional versus on-line. What transfers? What doesn't? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education, Phoenix, AZ. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED430115) Irvine, S. E. (2000). What are we talking about? The impact of computer-mediated communication on student learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444494) Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Technology as cognitive tools: Learners as designers. IT Forum Paper #1. Retrieved May 30, 2000, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper1/paper1.html Kamhi-Stein, L. (2000a). Adapting US-based TESOL education to meet the needs of nonnative English speakers. TESOL Journal, 9(3), 10-14. Kamhi-Stein, L. (2000b). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Web-based bulletin board discussions in a methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 423-455. Killion, J. (1998). Establishing a community in a virtual classroom. Retrieved December 4, 2000, from http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/tcc_conf97/pres/killion.html Knowlton, D., Knowlton, H., & Davis, C. (2000). The whys and hows of online discussion. Syllabus, 13(10), 54-58. Korenman, J., & Wyatt, N. (1996). Group dynamics in an email forum. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computermediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 225-242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
84
Kosinski, J. (1995). The painted bird (2nd ed.). New York: Grove Press. Lamy, M-N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). "Reflective conversation" in the virtual language classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 43-61. Retrieved June 29, 2001, from http://llt.msu.edu/ vol2num2/article2/ Lang, D. (2000, September). Critical thinking in Web courses: An oxymoron? Syllabus, 14(2), 20-24. MacKinley, K. (1999, September 6). Planning to use e-mail to support the learning process? Retrieved December 10, 1999, from the ONLINE-ED Web site: http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/online-ed/ mailouts/1999/Sept6.html Merron, J. (1998). Managing a Web-based literature course for undergraduates. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(4). Retrieved October 26, 2000, from http://www.westga.edu/ ~distance/merron14.html Muirhead, B. (2000). Enhancing social interaction in computer-mediated distance education. Educational Technology & Society, 3(4). Retrieved June 29, 2001, from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_4_2000/ discuss_august2000.html Mller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 129-147. Retrieved June 29, 2001, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num2/muller/default.html Nunan, D. (1999a). A foot in the world of ideas: Graduate study through the Internet. Language Learning and Technology, 3(1), 52-74. Retrieved June 29, 2001, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/nunan/ Nunan, D. (1999b). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum, G. J. (1999). Asynchronous computer-mediated communication versus faceto-face collaboration: Results on student learning, quality, and satisfaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8(5), 427-440. O'Malley, C. (1995). Designing computer support for collaborative learning. In C. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 283-297). New York: Springer-Verlag. Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 82-93. Retrieved June 29, 2001, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/ortega/ Parker, M. J. (1999). Web-based extended learning through discussion forums. Research paper: Connecting technology to teaching and learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444455). Peirce, W. (2000, September). Online strategies for teaching thinking. Syllabus, 14(2), pp. 21, 24. Peters, K. (2000, August 29). Concrete steps for on-line discussion. Retrieved September 19, 2000, from the OTL Newsletter: http://booboo.webct.com/otln/Asynchronous_Strategies.htm Prometheus 3.0-4.7. (1998-2001). Blackboard.com [Online courses server software]. Richardson, J. A., & Turner, A. (2000). A large-scale "local" evaluation of students' learning experiences using virtual learning environments. Educational Technology and Society, 3(4), 1-24. Retrieved November 20, 2000, from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_4_2000/richardson.html Robbins, T. (Director). (1995). Dead man walking [Film]. Hollywood, CA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Scarce, R. (1997, July). Using electronic mail discussion groups to enhance students' critical thinking skills. Retrieved June 7, 2000, from The Technology Source: http://ts.mivu.org/ default.asp?show=article&id=526
85
Schallert, D. L., Benton, R. E., Dodson, M. M., Lissi, M. R., Amador, N. A., & Reed, J. H. (1998). Conversational indicators of the social construction of knowledge in oral and written classroom discussions of reading assignments. Unpublished manuscript. University of Texas at Austin. Sengupta, S. (2001). Exchanging ideas with peers in network-based classrooms: An aid or a pain? Language Learning and Technology, 5(1), 103-134. Retrieved June 29, 2001, from http://llt.msu.edu/ vol5num1/Sengupta/ Schank, R., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tella, S., & Mononen-Aaltonen, M. (1998). Developing dialogic communication culture in media education: Integrating dialogism and technology. Helsinki: Media Education Publications 7. Retrieved February 10, 1999, from http://www.helsinki.fi/~tella/mep7.html Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2/3), 7-26. Warschauer, M., Shetzer, H., & Meloni, C. (2000). Internet for English teaching. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
86
Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/brandl/
INTEGRATING INTERNET-BASED READING MATERIALS INTO THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CURRICULUM: FROM TEACHER- TO STUDENT-CENTERED APPROACHES
Klaus Brandl University of Washington ABSTRACT Whereas many educators enthusiastically embrace the use of Internet-based reading materials, little theoretical and empirical research exists that demonstrates how to make use of such practices in a sound pedagogical way. This article provides guidance to teachers and curriculum developers by describing three approaches to integrating Internet-based reading materials into a foreign language curriculum. The design of an Internet-based lesson is largely determined by a teacher's pedagogical approach, her/his technological expertise, and the students' language proficiency. In light of these factors, the approach to the pedagogical design of successful lessons falls along a continuum from being teacher-determined or teacher-facilitated to studentdetermined. In more detail, lesson designs may distinguish themselves in the following areas: the learning resources, that is, the topics and content, text type the scope of the learning environment, that is, the number of different sources (sites or links) to be integrated the learning tasks, that is, the ways in which the learners explore the reading materials, synthesize and assimilate what they have learned. the degree of teacher and learner involvement in determining the areas mentioned above
Based on concrete sample lessons, this article describes the strengths and challenges of each approach from a pedagogical, technological and designer's point of view.
INTRODUCTION In recent years, the use of the World Wide Web (WWW) as a resource for language learning materials has gained increasing popularity among language teachers. As the Internet keeps expanding, listserves, newsletters, and even journal articles keep listing and pointing out potential Web sites that can be used in language learning. Furthermore, the literature on Web-based instruction reveals numerous personal accounts, informally collected student surveys, or occasionally some pilot studies on students' experiences using Internet-based resources (Brandl, 2002; Lee 1998; Osuna & Meskill, 1998; Warshauer, 2000). What still remain rare, however, are models and guidelines that are based on theoretical or empirical research findings to guide teachers and teacher trainers towards pedagogically sound practices. As Chun and Plass (2000) point out, "the use of networked environment for learning in general, and for second language acquisition in particular, raises many questions regarding the design of these environments that differ from the traditional design of text-based and stand-alone systems" (p. 152). This article focuses on the exploration of authentic materials as available on the WWW in primary visual and verbal/textual modes. I will concentrate on the interpretive mode of communication, or reading skills, as this is, besides writing, currently one of the two best suited to the Web.1 In particular, I will present three different approaches to using Internet-based resources, discuss the rationale for each design based on empirical and theoretical research, and furthermore include a short description of technological skills involved. The article concludes with a list of guidelines to provide further guidance in the implementation of Internet-based lessons.
87
Klaus Brandl
The Integration of Internet-Based Reading Materials
DEVELOPING INTERNET-BASED READING LESSONS: TOWARDS A SOUND PEDAGOGICAL RATIONALE AND DESIGN The Internet as a resource can enrich and expand language instruction. There are numerous reasons in favor of integrating the Internet into a language curriculum. Chun and Plass (2000, p. 161) mention general capabilities of features of the WWW that have the potential to enhance language learning. These are a) the universal availability of authentic materials, b) the communication capabilities through networking, c) the multimedia capabilities, and d) the nonlinear (hypermedia) structure of the information. The most compelling reason is definitely the convenience in accessing and obtaining an endless supply of authentic materials in target languages. The WWW has brought the world to the fingertips of each learner. Applying the WWW to foreign language teaching also provides the opportunity to meet the Standards in several ways (Walz, 1998): "Competence in more than one language and culture enables people to gain access to additional bodies of knowledge; all students learn in a variety of ways and settings; language and culture education incorporate effective technologies; and using the Web is consistent with learning theories about learning to read authentic materials" (p. 104). As pointed out by the rationale above, there are numerous convincing arguments in favor of integrating Internet-based materials into a foreign language curriculum. At the same time, several arguments can be made that ask for a more cautious approach when using the Internet. The Internet is not an ideal way of delivering instruction, and there are numerous challenges to overcome. First, there are still many limitations on interactivity and bandwidth. Second, the hyper-linked structure and presentation of information on the Internet may easily cause students to get lost. Third, we have no control over the quality and accuracy of the contents of the information. In other words, the use of the Internet resources completely depends on reader judgment, which presupposes solid language proficiency and critical reading skills. Fourth, little theoretical and empirical research actually exists that demonstrates how to make use of Internet-based materials or how to design tasks that allow the learners to explore these materials and yield expected learning outcomes. In the same vein, little is known about students' attitudes towards the integration of Web-based readings in the foreign language curriculum. FROM TEACHER TO STUDENT-CENTERED APPROACHES An important principle of communicative language teaching is the use of authentic materials. A great deal of research has been conducted on how to integrate such materials along with pedagogically welldesigned reading tasks into the foreign language curriculum (for a review of selected readings on design of reading lessons see Grellet, 1981; Lee & VanPatten, 1995; Omaggio-Hadley, 2001). As OmaggioHadley points out, the design of appropriate comprehension tasks for written discourse becomes a function of text type, the purpose for which the comprehender is reading, and the background information and language proficiency skills the reader brings to the text. In general, instructional strategies that have been suggested constitute a combination of bottom-up, top-down, and interactive approaches that guide the learner to approach the processing and decoding of a text from different perspectives (for a review see Omaggio-Hadley, 2001; Grellet, 1981). Such instructional practices by-and-large can be applied most successfully in a text-specific approach, in which the instructor guides the learners through a text, matching text and reading tasks with the proficiency level and needs of the students. Undoubtedly, there are many pedagogical justifications for this approach. In principal, the approach to task and lesson design of Internet-based reading materials should follow the same guidelines suggested in the literature on reading methodology. Needless to say, the open-ended structure of the Internet limits the possibility of a text-specific and interactive teacher-student approach. Furthermore, the use of the Internet as a learning environment requires some technological skills and
88
Klaus Brandl
knowledge. This raises the question on how to take full advantage of the vast amount of Internet resources. In particular, what technological skills are necessary and how can learning tasks be designed that make Internet-based resources accessible to the learners. By-and-large, little empirical Internet-based research exists that provides us with clear guidelines. Furstenberg (1997) suggests student tasks should "exploit the associative nature of hypertext or hypermedia so that students can collaboratively discover and construct new connections, which they combine in a coherent whole" (p. 24). She sees the role of the instructor or Web designer as that of designing "tasks that enable students to tell us what they have seen, learned, or understood and that enable students to work collaboratively to create valid arguments, contexts, and stories that they can support, illustrate, and justify" (p. 24). An effective way to engage foreign language (FL) students in an activeinteractive reading process is also to have them write about what they read. Writing about one's reading experience seems to facilitate reading comprehension and leads to the discovery of the different factors that intervene in the reading process (Martnez-Lage, 1995; Zamel, 1992). Warshauer (1997) recommends that computer-mediated communication activities be experiential and goal-oriented, and that tasks be consistent with principles of situated learning (i.e., that learners engage in meaningful tasks and solve meaningful problems that are of interest to the learners and can also be applied in multiple contexts). Such principles in activity design also need to apply to the use and exploration of Internet-based resources. The findings of a recent study by Osuna and Meskill (1998) provide support for Warshauer's recommendations. Their research involved the piloting of five Spanish language activities for which they used the Internet. The activities consisted of planning a family trip to Madrid, describing photos from Argentina, comparing the Universidad Autnoma de Mxico to the students' own college, finding places for leisure activities in Chile, and creating an authentic Mexican meal. They assessed 13 learners' perceptions of their experiences in terms of both language and cultural learning, as well as their attitudes towards the medium. Based on the results, their subjects enjoyed theses activities and believed that their language and cultural knowledge increased quite a bit. An interpretation of their data suggests that the subjects assessed those tasks that engaged them in real-world activities highest, as it was in particular the case with the creation of an authentic Mexican meal, and least so with the description of photos from Argentina. Considering the variety of factors (e.g., curricular goals, pedagogical issues, learner needs, student proficiency levels, the hypertext-based structure of the Internet, technological and design issues) that influence the decision whether and how to use the Internet, I propose three different types of lesson designs that lend themselves well to integrate Internet-based resources into a foreign language learning curriculum. The three lesson designs are based on the degree of teacher and student involvement in determining the content (choice and selection of topics and Internet-based materials), the scope of the learning environment (number of different sources: sites or links), and the learning processes and tasks (ways of exploring the reading materials). In other words, the design of such lessons may distinguish themselves ranging from being very teacher-centered, where teachers take a central role in controlling content and learning tasks (see Appendix A), to being very student-centered. In the latter, the teacher' roles vary from being a facilitator, designer, and guide (see Appendix B) to a resource person (see Appendix C). Moving from a teacher-centered to a student-centered approach assigns the learners an increasing role in taking charge of their own learning. It promotes the development of learner independence and autonomy, and thus follows principles of communicative language learning (Omaggio, 2001). When shifting from teacher-centered to student-centered designs, the students' levels of proficiency play an increasing pivotal role that also need to be taken into account. The learners need to have a minimal functional proficiency that allows them to explore an open-ended environment as the Internet without the intervention of an instructor. Nevertheless, the degree of teacher and student involvement in making
89
Klaus Brandl
decisions regarding the choice of resources, the scope of learning environment, and comprehension tasks closely correspond to the learner's level of language expertise. In the following section, I will present three different approaches to lesson design, two of which are teacher-centered, and the third taking a student-centered approach. I will demonstrate how lessons can be configured varying in their degree of teacher guidance and involvement, learner autonomy, and authentic exploration of Internet-based materials. For each approach, I will discuss its strengths and challenges from a pedagogical, designer, and technological point of view. APPROACH 1: TEACHER-DETERMINED LESSONS Pedagogical Perspectives The reading lesson in Appendix A demonstrates an example of a teacher-centered approach to providing reading instruction online. The reading activities and materials of this approach are comparable to the computer as an online electronic workbook. The teacher prescreens and selects reading materials or cultural readings from Internet-based or other resources, designs comprehension activities, and makes them available through his/her Web page. The pedagogical strength of this approach lies in the textspecific approach to exploring authentic cultural (textual or images) resources. By pre-selecting and preparing the readings, the instructor tailors the contents and tasks to the students' proficiency level. He/she scaffolds the reading tasks by guiding the learners through the texts. The tasks are designed to support the reader's comprehension process focusing on textual, linguistic and cultural features. Depending on the text, the reader's background and proficiency level, guided reading instruction, in particular in form of management strategies and comprehension checks, has its pedagogical strength at all levels of instruction. As Cobb and Stevens (1996) point out, "Second language readers may not have automated one or more of the component processes of reading in the second language, such as word decoding and recognition, resulting in working memory overload and diversion of attention away from the construction of a text model. Or, at a higher processing level, readers may not be familiar with semantic or discourse schemata specific to the culture of the second langue, so that they have no preactivated scaffolding to help them summarize and organize the details of the incoming text, and quickly face overload" (p.122). Furthermore, in particular at beginning levels, the text-specific approach to reading allows the instructor to support the second language readers in decoding and recognition of vocabulary, for example, by providing specific word glosses and word recognition training. As some scholars argue, glosses, rather than distraction readers, ensure more fluent reading of the selection and enhance comprehension of a text (Davis, 1989; Martnez-Lage, 1997). The approach to reading instruction in the example above is nothing new, and one might ask the question, what are the actual advantages of the Internet-based reading activities over the reading activities based on authentic printed resources. There are benefits that are unquestionable to both instructors and students, which make such application worthwhile. Reading is a silent process that is best done individually. The learners get to explore authentic reading materials outside of class at their own pace. This frees up classroom time that can be spent more effectively getting students involved in communicative language learning activities. Furthermore, depending on the instructional program design, students' answers may be automatically tallied and forwarded to the instructor. The strongest argument, however, for providing online reading might be that the online environment allows one to take advantage of a vast amount of images and the hypermedia functions to attach text and images to a particular text. A great deal of research exists that supports the use of images in a variety of ways. For example, visual aids have been found effective as advance organizers, because they help to build background knowledge pertinent to the target text and facilitate the contextualization of what is being read (Omaggio, 1979). Pictorial cues can also increase comprehension of a reading passage, in particular with low proficiency readers (Hudson, 1982). Cultural images can function to enrich a text. They can be used by instructors to
90
Klaus Brandl
"catch students' attention, capitalize on natural curiosity and encourage student prediction by asking how the illustrations might relate to the text" (Barnett, 1989, p. 117). Furthermore, the use of visual imagery aids allows for providing concrete images of unfamiliar words. Such instructional practices not only support the learning process of new vocabulary (Kellogg & Howe, 1971), but also enhance incidental learning of vocabulary (Chun & Plass, 1996). In conclusion, depending on text type and reading tasks, this approach lends itself for all levels of instruction. Students' responses to reading tasks are limited by the capacity of authoring packages, which at its best allow for automatic tailoring of true/false, matching, or multi-choice answers. Any open-ended student response that goes beyond one-word answers requires the intervention of an instructor to assess the students' work. Technological Considerations The development of reading lessons as demonstrated in this approach may be time consuming and cumbersome. To create such activities, skills and expertise in language pedagogy, instructional design, and some programming are required. The latter may include experience with HTML editors, HTML or Internet-based authoring packages such as Half-Baked Software,2 or WebCT. Other technological skills such as the use of scanners and graphic programs are recommended. The use of Internet-based resources may also require copyright clearance in many instances. APPROACH 2: TEACHER-FACILITATED LESSONS Pedagogical Perspectives Internet-based reading activities that have gained most wide-spread attention and popularity among language teachers and students are those in which the instructor provides a set of learning tasks that engage the learners in exploring reading materials in their authentic environments. Based on the example presented in Appendix B, the approach to this type of Internet-reading lessons can be simply described in the following way. The instructor determines a particular topic and set of goals for his lesson, such exploring German cities, or Mexican restaurants. The teacher prescreens and selects a set of sites to ensure its contents are appropriate for their pedagogical goals. Through a particular task design, the instructor facilitates the students' reading process and guides the learners to explore a variety of preselected resources, thus providing a clear goal to be accomplished by the students. Furthermore, the tasks are designed so "they are not so broad that students wander aimlessly through the material yet open enough to provide multiple paths, outcomes, and interpretations, which can form the basis for subsequent classroom interaction" (Furstenberg, 1997, p. 24). In this way, the teacher controls the navigational scope and the number and kind of Internet sites that the students access. Despite the restriction, the learner has some autonomy as the tasks provide the learner a choice in the sites he or she accesses and explores. Task types usually include comparisons, gathering factual information, descriptions, and short summaries. The outcome of the student assignments is clearly defined, but open-ended. The teacher's role can best be described as a guide and facilitator. The students follow the teacher's lead but get to explore the contents themselves. The approach to integrating Internet-based resources in a foreign language curriculum as outlined above can be supported by many arguments. One major difference between lesson type 1 and 2 above has to do with the degree of control of the reading process, in other words, how the learners are to approach the reading text. Although plenty of arguments speak in favor of a structured and guided approach to decoding a text, ultimately students need to learn this by themselves. There is some evidence that students who rely excessively on instructional help are not learning as much as those who try to solve problems themselves. Pederson (1986), for example, demonstrated differences in cognitive processing between students who had access to help on their reading comprehension to those you did not. "The results indicate that passage-unavailable treatment always resulted in comparatively higher comprehension rate
91
Klaus Brandl
than occurred in counterpart passage-available treatment regardless of the level of question or level of verbal ability" (p. 39). In other words, "greater benefit was derived from the subjects' being aware that they were required to do all their processing of the text prior to viewing the question" (p. 38; cited in Cobb & Stevens, 1996, p. 133). The approach to exploring information in a nonlinear (hypermedia) structure on the Web may have additional potential to enhance students' reading skills. Spiro and Jehng (1990), for instance, suggest that the design of hypertexts should be based on a "cognitive flexibility theory," allowing the reader to access information in various sequences and to return to the same place on different occasions, coming from different directions. A central claim of the theory is that revisiting the same material, in rearranged contexts and from different conceptual perspectives, aids in advanced knowledge acquisition" (cited in Chun & Plass, 2000, p. 163). For example, many learners have the tendency to approach and read a text linearly rather than holistically. In this way, they often fail to draw inferences from outside the context as one might be expected to do when reading a text (Cobb & Stevens, 1996). The hypertext organization of information on the Internet that asks them to jump around between texts, may thus help them with the development of more holistic strategies. This structure and the access to immediate information presented by difference sources (e.g., news topics, or newspaper ads) also allows for comparisons of texts, which can teach students to become critical readers (Walz, 2001). As also suggested by the recent National Standards (1999), the objective of foreign language learning should be to teach students how to read critically on their own, especially with the Internet, which often involves independent reading (Walz, 2001). Above, I have pointed out several arguments in favor of integrating authentic materials from the Web, in particular with regard to the availability of and access to non-linear resources. Yet, the abundance of information and the hypertext and hypermedia environment can be detrimental if not controlled or if little guidance is provided. Common problems that students may encounter in hypermedia environments as the Web include difficulties in navigation and cognitive overload. The literature provides numerous accounts of students' complaints about Web-based learning activities, including taking too long to accomplish, getting lost, and feeling overwhelmed (M. Bansleben [personal communication], January 30, 2002; Lee, 1998; Osuna & Meskill, 1998). The potential source of cognitive overload and navigational problems is the structure of the hypermedia environment of the Internet itself. Each time students navigate from one hyper-linked site to the next, they encounter new information within an unfamiliar environment. In addition, there is the burden of the language that requires learner to decode not only the different structure of the information, but the basic vocabulary and syntax of the text itself (Chun & Plass, 2000). When pre-screening and selecting sites and designing exploration tasks, instructors need to pay special attention to the linguistic complexity and cognitive processes involved in processing the instructional materials. As pointed out above, through a clearly focused task design and carefully chosen sites, the instructor can control the navigational scope that helps the learners from getting lost or overwhelmed. A teacher-facilitated approach has the highest potential, especially with learners at the beginning and intermediate level, or when the exploration of the selected materials no longer requires a close intervention by the instructor to ensure the comprehension process. Furthermore, as the open-ended structure of this type of lesson design makes the students' answers less predictable than in a text-specific approach, the instructor must be prepared for a wide variety of student answers. Therefore, it is recommended that some assessment criteria be in place to indicate how students are evaluated. Being able to estimate and control students' time on task makes this approach well suited for short-term assignments to be integrated in any curriculum at the intermediate level and above.
92
Klaus Brandl
Technological Considerations The development and preparation of teacher-facilitated, Internet-based lessons as described in this approach is fairly minimal. The pre-screening and selection process of the Internet sites may constitute the most time-consuming part, which makes knowledge about search engines and how to use them imperative. Usually the Web sites run by the individual American Associations of Language Teachers3 (e.g., the American Association of Teachers of French) list the most popular search engines and a list of resources particular to their languages. As far as technological skills are concerned, however, this makes the approach integrating Internet-based materials the most attractive approach for the intermediate foreign language classroom. Some experience with an HTML editing program is required if instructions and activities are to be provided online, although most word processors allow for the translation of a text file into an HTML document. An alternative strategy to provide instructions and learning tasks online is to make this information available by means of a worksheet. One of the drawbacks of using authentic sites is that the instructor needs to keep track of the functionality of the links. URL addresses constantly change and sites do disappear. Therefore, it is recommended that alternative sites be provided, in case some sites are no longer accessible. APPROACH 3: LEARNER-DETERMINED LESSONS Pedagogical Perspectives Learner-determined lessons follow an approach to integrating Internet-based resources that is entirely learner-centered. As seen from the examples in Appendix C, the learners determine the topics, reading materials, and the way they go about exploring the readings themselves. They decide on the process and the product, formulate the goals, identify Internet-based resources, and make a decision on how the outcomes should be evaluated. In this way, the students take on the roles of self-directed and autonomous learners, and take full charge and responsibility for their outcomes. The teacher only gets involved in the role of a facilitator offering support and guidance throughout the process as much as necessary. Types of assessment may include teacher-, self-, or group-assessment. Assessment of learner outcomes may be teacher-directed or student-determined. Examples are short writing assignments, essays, or mini-projects or presentations that show the students' analytical and interpretative skills of cultural readings and texts. Students may also document the process and stages of their projects through diaries or maintaining a portfolio. Internet-based projects can be carried out intensively over a short period of time or extended over a few weeks. Generally speaking, this approach of integrating Internet-based materials lends itself to long-term assignments with intermediate and advanced language learners in the target language. For integration at the beginner's level, the exploration of cultural readings may have to take place in the students' L1. This approach is based on the theory of project-based learning. Its benefits have been described at various places. For example, Stoller (1997) summarizes some of the pedagogical advantages in the following way: 1) Project work focuses on content learning rather than on specific language targets. Real-world subject matter and topics of interest to students can become central to projects. 2) Project work is student-centered, though the teacher plays a major role in offering support and guidance throughout the process. 3) Project work is cooperative rather than competitive. Students can work on their own, in small groups, or as a class to complete a project, sharing resources, ideas, and expertise along the way. 4) Project work leads to the authentic integration of skills and processing of information from varied sources, mirroring real-life tasks.
93
Klaus Brandl
5) Project work culminates in an end product (e.g., an oral presentation, a poster session, a bulletin board display, a report, or a stage performance) that can be shared with others, giving the project a real purpose. The value of the project, however, lies not just in the final product but also in the process of working towards the end point. Thus, project work has both a process and product orientation, and provides students with opportunities to focus on fluency and accuracy at different project-work stages. 6) Project work is potentially motivating, stimulating, empowering, and challenging. It usually results in building student confidence, self-esteem, and autonomy as well as improving students' language skills, content learning, and cognitive abilities. Project-oriented work embraces principles of learning that are promoted by various theories, approaches, and philosophies of learning. For example, project learning is in accordance with the principles of communicative language learning (Omaggio-Hadley, 2001). Students apply their knowledge in real-life situations by exploring authentic materials. The learning activities resemble real-world tasks. The students strive for an end product, whose goal they accomplish by collaborating with their peers in order to ultimately share what they have achieved with others. Project-oriented work also lies at the heart of autonomy in language learning. As Holec (1981) claims, autonomy is the "ability to take charge of one's learning" which is a skill "to be acquired by 'natural' means or in a systematic, deliberate way." According to Holec, learners alone are responsible for deciding what is to be learned, when, how, in what order, and by what means. It is also their responsibility to set their own goals and measure the degree to which they have been effective in attaining them. In other words, a project-oriented approach provides the passage towards these goals. The students learn about the decision-making process about topics and content, about learning and the management of it (Legutke & Thomas, 1991). The major strength of this approach lies in its constructivist approach to learning. According to Chun & Plass (2000), "Constructivist approaches to learning advocate allowing learners not only to interact directly with information to be learned, but also to add their own information and construct their own relationships" (p. 160). Learning is seen as a process in which the learner is cognitively involved in seeking answers, making generalizations, and testing the hypotheses they have generated. By taking a major role in planning and negotiating course content, the students become active contributors to their language learning rather than being passive recipients of knowledge. An Internet-based approach to project learning also lends itself well to the teaching of specific skills required to conduct research. For example, Gaspar (1998) used McKenzie's (1995) "Iterative Research Cycle" consisting of the different stages of the research process with her advanced language students. These stages are Questioning -- Decide what information is lacking or what problem needs solving. Planning -- Develop a strategy to efficiently locate valid information. Gathering -- Locate the best sources, Internet and other, and collect needed information. Sifting -- Select from what was found that information most pertinent to the research question. Synthesizing -- Sort the information into a meaningful pattern. Evaluating -- Assess progress in answering the research question, and if needed, return to the first step in this cycle (cited in Gaspar, 1998, p. 72). Such an instructional practice underscores and supports the development of higher-order thinking skills like "synthesizing" and "evaluating" which students need when conducting research. As Gaspar (1998) notes, students must be able to sort through the myriad of information available seeking out only that, which is pertinent to the project at hand.
94
Klaus Brandl
The use of the Internet for research purposes requires a variety of searching skills. It asks for knowledge of different search engines and how they work, such as whether they are case sensitive or not. Furthermore, it assumes the user has some information-seeking skills. Fidel et al. (1999) showed that being somewhat knowledgeable of the topic being searched is necessary for learning how to search the Web, and that being somewhat knowledgeable about Web searching is necessary for exploring new topics. It is often assumed that, because most adolescent learners are familiar with searching the Internet, they know how to do so effectively. Several studies which have investigated students' searching behavior have found that students are often lacking searching skills (Fidel, et al.1999; Nahl & Harada, 1996; Neuman, 1993). In conclusion of their findings, most of these researchers agree and recommend the need for formal training in Web searching, for teachers and students alike. Fidel et al. points to "the need for training beyond the technical competencies required for Web searching, and thus emphasize the importance of integrating information-seeking skills into the curriculum" (p. 34). The open-ended approach to exploring Internet-based resources requires language learners to have a solid foundation in their language proficiency skills. This makes the project-based approach most appropriate for intermediate and advanced language learners. The exploration of such Internet-based materials or readings is best assigned in stages on a long-term basis. Similar to a teacher-facilitated approach, the open-ended structure of a student's product makes the assessment process subjective and time consuming. Therefore, assessment rubrics are recommended to indicate how a student's product is evaluated. Technological Considerations The technological skills required to implement this approach are minimal. If the teacher is to provide guidance to his/her students on searching the Internet, then knowledge about Web browsers, search engines and their effective use are indispensable. INSTRUCTIONAL GUIDELINES In the section above, I have provided a pedagogical rationale of three different approaches to using an online environment to explore Internet-based resources. I have discussed pedagogical issues such as the degree of teacher-centeredness, learner control of contents and learning processes, level of proficiency, the scope of Internet resources, and text types that need to guide the design of Internet-based reading lessons and task design (see Table 1 for overview). In the next section, I will conclude with a set of guidelines summarizing those pedagogical and instructional design issues that need to be considered during the planning and development process of any of the three approaches to lesson design.
95
Klaus Brandl
Table 1. Overview of Pedagogical and Instructional Design Issues

Teacher -centered approaches 1. Teacher-determined 2. Teacher-facilitated high medium low high medium low Pedagogical issues Degree of teachercenteredness Instructor's control of contents, learning tasks, and processes Potential anticipation of student answers by instructor Learner autonomy (contents, Web environment and process) Potential use for cooperative learning Development Degree of pedagogical expertise (development of reading tasks, e.g., comprehension and text management strategies) Preparation time (e.g., choice of materials, prescreening materials) Degree of technological expertise (e.g., HTML programming, Web design) Preparation of students Need for students' level of proficiency in using the Internet (e.g., doing Internet search) X X X X Student -centered approaches 3. Student-determined high medium low X X
X X
X X
X X
Teacher-Centered Approaches This section provides a set of guidelines pointing out pedagogical and instructional design issues that need be taking into account to avoid some of the pitfalls and to make the learning activity a successful experience for the learner. Does the design of your reading lesson justify the use of its medium, that is, do the learning tasks take full advantage of the potential of the medium? Needless to say, asking students to fulfill learning tasks online should entail pedagogical advantages to the learner and the instructor. Otherwise, it may be difficult to justify the development time and potential challenges that are involved in using this medium. The decision of having student do Internet-based activities should be based on a clear rationale that justifies its use. For example, are students to explore at least two or three different sites and/or multimedia resources. Do students have a choice in selecting the content? If a print out of an Internet-based resource can be made and used in the classroom, sending students online may not be the best instructional practice. Are the reading materials and learning tasks appropriate for the students' level of proficiency? As Walz (2001) reminds us, "To make the critical reading of authentic texts from the Internet feasible for students at the lower levels of proficiency, independent readings as well as those with pedagogical
96
Klaus Brandl
support must have tasks aimed at the reader's level" (p. 1202). As a general guideline, text type, reading tasks and the learner's level of proficiency are criteria that need to be taking into account in the approach to and choice of contents of Internet-based reading resources. Do the activities engage the learners in real-world and meaningful tasks as well as in a variety of skills (e.g., communicative, reading, cultural explorations, writing)? As pointed out above in Osuna and Meskill's (1998) study, students feel more engaged when the purpose of their tasks simulate real-world tasks. The exploration for any available multimedia resources should also have a purpose and be associated with a meaningful task. For example, instead of having students provide general descriptions of images or photos, asking them to identify specific cultural aspects and compare them to their own cultural background makes a task more purposeful and focused, and thus enhances their awareness and understanding of cultural differences. How do students demonstrate what they have learned? There are many instructional practices to assess what students have learned. Traditional examples include true-false types, matching, comprehension questions, filling in charts, summaries, comparisons, reactions to the texts, comments, and so forth. By and large, they depend on the approach, the type of materials and texts, and the students' level of proficiency. Furthermore, as the use of the open-ended structure of the Internet lends itself in particular well to make use of authentic exploratory tasks, the students' assessment can be based on the degree and quality of the fulfillment of these tasks. Examples may include a presentation of an end product, such as a report, a description of an itinerary, a food menu, and a prepared meal. The presentations can also be easily integrated into the classroom. In this way, students can exchange and compare information with each other, while getting engaged in the application of oral communicative skills. At the same time, this allows the teacher to further clarify or follow up on linguistic and cultural issues. Are all the instructions clearly stated? Not only is it easy to get lost, but also stuck in a hypertext environment. This often has to do with lack of instructions or dysfunctional hyperlinks that one encounters when surfing the Internet. Therefore, precise instructions are necessary on how to navigate or what navigational path to take when exploring Internet sites. Ask yourself, when students navigate between sites, do they know what to do and how to return to your home page? Are precise instructions or examples provided, online or on a worksheet, telling students what to do? Are all the hyper links functional? URL addresses change and sites often disappear. One strategy to guarantee functionality is to thoroughly test your own lesson making sure all URL addresses are correctly stated and the sites and links work when you access them. Another strategy is to provide alternative sites, in case some sites are no longer available. Student-Centered Approaches Are your students prepared to do project-oriented work? Provide clear guidelines to your students on the process and nature of project-oriented work. You may allow your students to select their own topic, materials, end product, and form of assessment. This does not mean that the instructor becomes redundant. On the contrary, the teacher plays an important role, that of a guide and coach. At the same time, the students may be required to follow a certain timeline and other stipulations built into the projects. That means, students need to know when it is important to consult with the their teacher. They need to have a clear understanding of the procedures and any rules.
97
Klaus Brandl
Are your students familiar with the process on how to conduct research? The preparation phase for project learning may also include information on the process of conducting research. As suggested by Gaspar (1998), a useful model to teach might be McKenzie's "Iterative Research Cycle" consisting of questioning, planning, gathering, sifting, synthesizing, and evaluating. Despite the open-ended nature and student-centered approach, it most likely is necessary to provide examples and models of student projects to demonstrate on how to go about planning and conducting projects that result in entirely different end products. Do the students know how to search the Internet? Internet-based project learning involves gathering and identifying information. This requires knowledge about how to use search engines. Most students are familiar with the basics of using Web browser (e.g., Internet Explorer or Netscape) search engines. In the last few years, however, search engines have become more sophisticated allowing searches to be specified, for example, based on foreign languages or multimedia contents. Students may require additional training in the use of such features as well as information-seeking skills in general. CONCLUSION At the beginning of this article, I raised the question regarding the design of reading-based learning activities for Web-based environments that differ from the design of text-based or multimedia stand-alone systems. In response, I have presented three different approaches to lesson design that engage foreign language learners in developing reading skills by exploring authentic Internet-based materials. None of these examples is absolute, that is to say, different variations of lessons may fall at different places along a continuum from being teacher-determined or -facilitated to student-determined. They may vary in areas such as the choice of the learning materials, the scope of the learning environment, the learning process, and the degree of teacher guidance. In this sense, the sample lessons provide teachers with general direction in the design process. There is no doubt, the vast amount of authentic resources on the Internet provides learners an opportunity to immerse themselves in a plethora of cultural readings. Yet, to make the integration of WWW-based activities a successful learning experience, it requires effective organization and presentation of that information. The use of the WWW for delivery of reading instruction or the integration of Internet-based readings needs to go beyond what the teacher can offer in the classroom to justify its use. The decision, whether and how to use it, must be based on a clear pedagogical rationale, while technological and developmental issues need to be carefully considered.
98
Klaus Brandl
APPENDIX A. SAMPLE OF TEACHER-DETERMINED LESSON4 (clicking on an image links you to a translation)
99
Klaus Brandl
100
Klaus Brandl
TRANSLATION OF ITEMS IN APPENDIX A

You are going to read about work and leisure in Germany. Then do tasks 1-3. 1. Find the appropriate meanings of German key words. 2. Read a text and determine if statements based on this text are true or false. 3. Analyze two diagrams. Hand the print-out to your instructor. Work and Leisure Task 1: Task 2: What do the following words means? Look up the words in your dictionary (see contents of bottom half of split screen below). Read the following text and then do the exercise.
Interview with Otto Mller:

Question: Let me ask you a question regarding the topic of work. It is said: "The Germans work a lot." Is this true? Mller: Yes and no. The work output has been continuously increasing, whereas the working hours have been getting fewer in the last few years. An eight-hour day and a forty-hour week are normal everywhere. Some work even less than 40 hours. Yes, the unions ask for even more reductions of work. Question: Interesting. And, what about vacation? Mller: Vacation consists on an average of six weeks. In addition, there are state holidays. And we have more of these than other countries. Question: Well, then the Germans don't work so much. Mller: Regarding work hours, this is correct. From an international point of view, we work less than other countries. Our attitude towards work has changed. Many Germans do not consider work the only purpose of life.
NOTE: Italicized words are glossed in the German text. Task 1: What do the following words mean? Look them up in your dictionary. Leisure time; vacation; school holiday; holiday; closing time (time to stop work) Task 2: You are reading the text. Are the following statements true or false? 1. The Germans keep working less. 2. They work 40 hours per week. 3. They have six weeks of vacation. 4. The holidays are part of their vacation. 5. People work less in Germany than in other countries. 6. Germans live to work. True True True True True True False False False False False False
Task 3: How many hours do the people work? How long is their vacation? Look at the pictures. Compare the situation in Germany with the USA. Write a short paragraph in English.
101
Klaus Brandl
APPENDIX B. SAMPLE OF TEACHER-FACILITATED LESSONS (clicking on "hot" text links you to a translation) Example 1: La Comida Mexicana5 Part one: In pairs, explore the following site of the restaurant Danubio in Mexico. Look at the menu card (click on carta) and answer the following questions. Note: Try to speak only Spanish as you navigate the sights and answer the questions with your partner. You have about 10 minutes to complete this task. 1) 2) 3) 4) Cunta cuesta el helado en el restaurante Danubio? ____________________ Cunta cuesta el postre ms barato? Cunta cuesta el postre ms caro? ____________________ Qu son las horas del restaurante Danubio? ____________________ Puedes tomar un capuchino en el Restaurante Danubio? ____________________
Now visit Retablo, another restaurant in Mexico and see what kind of food is served there. Click on Menu to access the menu card. 1) Qu son las horas del restaurante del Retablo? ____________________ 2) En la carta de El Retablo, hay "seafood"? S o no? Qu palabra usa aqu para "seafood"? ________ 3) Cunta cuesta el postre ms barato? Cunta cuesta el postre ms caro? ____________________ *Part two* Actividad: "Vamos a comer" Estn en vacaciones en Mxico y t y tu amigo/a solamente tienen dinero para una sola cena afuera. Tienen que comparar los precios de los dos restaurantes y decidir si van a comer en el D. F. esta semana o en Chihuahua la semana que viene. Probablemente van a comer el sbado, a las nueve o diez de la noche. Tu amigo/a quiere comer sopa, pescado y un postre. Tambin siempre quiere tomar un refresco y un caf. Es necesario que el o ella coma y tome estas cosas. T puedes comer lo que quieras pero tienes hambre tambin! Juntos Uds. tienen 210 pesos. Ya gastaron todo tu dinero. Recuerden que hay que dejar una propina tambin. Qu van a comer y tomar? Hay varias opciones pero tienen que planear y escoger el restaurante ms barato, y la comida menos cara para que los dos puedan comer no? Escriben la comida y los refrescos que quieren debajo. COMIDA (Danubio) ____________________ COMIDA (Retablo) ____________________ REFRESCOS (Danubio) (ej. Refresco = $10.00) ____________________ REFRESCOS (Retablo) ____________________ Es posible comer en El Danubio con $210 pesos? En el Retablo? S S No No
Cul de los dos prefieren Uds.? Por qu? ____________________
102
Klaus Brandl
Example 2: Exploring German Cities6 Visit one of the following cities and fill out the chart below. Be prepared to share your findings with other students of your group. When finished, print out your answers. Use the back button of your browser to move back and forth between the city homepage and this activity. A. Berlin B. Dresden C. Hamburg D. Leipzig E. Mnchen Die Stadt ____________________ Sehenswrdigkeiten (Museen, usw.) Klima/Wetter Sport/Fitness/Freizeit Einkaufen (wo?, was?) Hotels/andere Unterknfte (wie teuer?, wo?) Zahl der Bevlkerung Verkehrsmittel (welche?, wie teuer?) Unterhaltung (Kino, Karneval, usw.) Restaurants/Gaststtten (welche?, wie teuer?, wie viele?, was kann man da essen?) Vorteile Nachteile
TRANSLATION OF ITEMS IN APPENDIX B The Mexican Meal Part one In pairs, explore the following site of the restaurant Danubio in Mexico. Look at the menu card (click on carta) and answer the following questions. **Note: Try to speak only Spanish as you navigate the sights and answer the questions with your partner.** You have about 10 minutes to complete this task. 1) How much does ice cream cost in the restaurant Danubio? ____________________ 2) How much does the cheapest dessert cost? How much is the most expensive? __________________ 3) When is the restaurant open? ____________________ 4) Do they have cappuccino on the menu? ____________________ Now visit Retablo, another restaurant in Mexico and see what kind of food is served there. Click on Menu to access the menu card. 1) When is the restaurant open? ____________________ 2) Do they serve "seafood"? If yes, what word do they use for "seafood"? ____________________ 3) How much does the cheapest dessert cost? How much is the most expensive? __________________ *Part two* ACTIVIDAD: "VAMOS A COMER" You are on vacation in Mexico, and you and your friend have enough money to go out for dinner for only one meal. You need to compare the prices of the two restaurants and decide if you are going to eat out in
103
Klaus Brandl
D.F. this week or in Chihuahua the following week. Probably you will go out to eat on Saturday night at 9 or 10 in the evening.] Your friend wants to eat soup, fish and dessert. You also want to have a soft drink or coffee. It is necessary that he or she eats and drinks these things. You can eat whatever you want, but you are also hungry. Together you have 210 pesos. You already spent all your money. Remember that you need to leave a tip as well. What are you going to eat and drink? There are a variety options, but you need to plan and select the cheapest restaurant, and the least expensive meal so both of you can eat. Below, describe the meal and drinks that you want. meal (Danubio) ____________________ meal (Retablo) ____________________ drinks (Danubio) (e.g. drink = $10.00) ____________________ drinks (Retablo) ____________________ Is it possible to eat with $210 pesos in the restaurant El Danubio? Is it possible to eat with $210 pesos in the restaurant Retablo? Which of the two do you prefer? Why? ____________________ Yes Yes No No
Example 2: Exploring German Cities Visit one of the following cities and fill out the chart below. Be prepared to share your findings with other students of your group. When finished, print out your answers. Use the back button of your browser to move back and forth between the city homepage and this activity. A. Berlin B. Dresden C. Hamburg D. Leipzig E. Mnchen
City ____________________ sightseeing (museums, etc.) climate/weather sports, leisure time shopping (where?, what?) hotels, other accommodations, price, location size of population transportation (kind, and how expensive) entertainment (movie theaters, etc.) restaurants (kind, how expensive, how many, what can you eat there?) advantages disadvantages
104
Klaus Brandl
APPENDIX C. SAMPLE OF LEARNER-DETERMINED PROJECTS The following examples and short descriptions of student projects are adapted from Christine Gaspar (1998, p. 73). Following the principles of project-oriented learning, students make their own choices of the end product. Thus, the examples of student projects demonstrate the exploration of Internet-based resources including text-based and multimedia information. The subsequent 7-minute presentations (with 3 minutes allowed for questions) were as diverse as the students themselves and ranged from a simulated tour of the Loire Valley chateaux; a report on the political platforms of prominent French politicians; a presentation of the Roland Garros tennis championship (known in the U.S. as the French Open) including an up-to-the minute posting of each player's standing and information on the day's matches; a description of the various geographical regions of France; to a multi-media extravaganza treating the life and music of the Canadian singer, Cline Dion.
The incorporation of multi-media accompaniments elicited much enthusiasm on the part of both the presenters and their audience. For instance, the presentation of the Roland Garros tennis tournament was enhanced by images of the courts, the players, and their latest tournament standing, all of which were downloaded right before class from the Internet. With regard to the presentation on the singer, Cline Dion, the class was treated to a Powerpoint demonstration that assembled -- in a visually appealing manner -- information including the life of the singer, a discography, and a vocabulary list of musical terms (which was followed by a short in-class quiz!). Nevertheless, even though sound files of Dion's songs were in fact available on the Net, the presenters chose instead to work from a tape player for better volume. In another advanced-level course, the members of the class tracked the daily developments in the 1995 French presidential campaign. Students successfully assembled and presented biographical information and sketches of each candidate's professional life, the main concerns of the constituencies, and the latest statistical data and interpretations gleaned from the various media, including daily satellite viewings of French news broadcasts. Much valuable information came from the Internet and included not only textual and visual materials, but also one-on-one participation in discussion groups with French voters.
NOTES 1. There are many other ways of using the WWW as well, such as for synchronous or asynchronous communication and delivery of audio and video-based materials. Until limitations on interactivity and bandwidth have improved, such applications will not become common practice in the standard language classroom. 2. Half-Baked Software (1999) is produced by M. Holmes and S. Arnell at the University of Victoria. 3. Internet resources promoted through the AATs can be found on the following Web sites: American Association of Teachers of French, American Association of Teachers of German, and American Association of Teachers of Spanish & Portuguese. 4. Source -- M. Bansleben, Department of Germanics, University of Washington. 5. This lesson was designed by Sharon OKeefe as part of her class project in TEP 589 at the University of Washington in 1998. 6. This lesson was designed by Donna Hood as part of her class project in TEP 589 at the University of Washington in 1998.
105
Klaus Brandl
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to Ali Moeller for her comments on an early version of this article. In particular, I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Klaus Brandl, PhD, University of Texas, Austin, is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Scandinavian Studies at the University of Washington where he teaches courses in language teaching methodology. His main research areas are second language acquisition, language teaching methods, teacher training, and computer-assisted language learning. E-mail: brandl@u.washington.edu REFERENCES Bansleben, M. (2002). [Students' attitudes toward online learning activities in Ger 101]. Unpublished raw data. Barnett, M. (1986). Syntactic and lexical/semantic skill in foreign language reading: Importance and interaction. Modern Language Journal, 70, 343-349. Brandl, K. K. (2002). Taking language instruction on-line: A comparative study of a classroom- and Web-based language course. Manuscript submitted for publication. Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 80, 183-198. Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (2000). Networked multimedia environments for second language acquisition. In M. Warshauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 151170). New York: Cambridge University Press. Cobb, T., & Stevens, V. (1996). A principled consideration of computers and reading in a second language. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. 115-136). Houston, TX: Athelstan. Davis, J. (1989). Facilitating effects of marginal glosses on foreign language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 41-48. Furstenberg, G. (1997). Teaching with technology: What is at stake? ADFL Bulletin, 28(3), 21-25. Fidel, R., Davies, R. K., Douglass, M. H., Holder, J. K., Hopkins, C. J., Kushner, E. J., Miyagishima, B. K., & Toney, C. D. (1999). A visit to the information mall: Web searching behavior of high school students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(1), 24-37. Gaspar, C. (1998). Situating French language teaching and learning in the age of Internet. The French Review, 72(1), 69-80. Grellet, F. (1981). Developing reading skills. New York: Cambridge University Press. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press for the Council of Europe. Hudson, T. (1982). The effects of induced schemata on the short circuit in L2 reading: Non-decoding factors in L2 reading performance. Language Learning, 32, 1-31. Kellogg, G. S., & Howe, M. J. A. (1971). Using words and pictures in foreign language learning. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 17, 87-94.
106
Klaus Brandl
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Lee, L. (1998). Going beyond classroom learning: Acquiring cultural knowledge via on-line newspapers and intercultural exchanges via on-line chat rooms. CALICO, 16(2), 101-120. Legutke, M., & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experience in the language classroom. New York: Longman Group. Martnez-Lage, A. (1995). Benefits of keeping a reading journal in the development of second language reading ability. In R. Terry (Ed.), The future is now. Dimension: Language '95 (pp. 65-79). Valdosta, GA: Southern Conference on Language Teaching. Martnez-Lage, A. (1997). Hypermedia technology in teaching reading. In M. D. Busch & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Technology enhanced language learning (pp. 121-163). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. McKenzie, J. (1995, May/June). Beforenet and Afternet. MultiMedia Schools, 2, 6-8. Nahl, D., & Harada, V. H. (1996). Composing Boolean search statements: Self-confidence, content analysis, search logic, and error. School Library Media Quarterly, 24, 199-207. National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. (1999). Standards for foreign language learning in the twenty-first century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press. Neuman, D. (1993). Designing databases as tools for higher-level learning: Insights from instructional systems design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 41, 21-46. Omaggio, A. (1979). Pictures and second language comprehension: Do they help? Foreign Language Annals, 12, 107-116. Omaggio-Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rded.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Osuna, M. M., & Meskill, C. (1998). Using the World Wide Web to integrate Spanish language and culture. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 71-92. Retrieved April 29, 2002, from http://llt.msu.edu/ vol1num2/article4/default.html Pederson, K. M. (1986). An experiment in computer-assisted second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 70(1), 36-41. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J.-C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163-205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stoller, F. L. (1997). Project work. A means to promote language content. Forum, 35(4), 1-10. Walz, J. (1998). Meeting standards for foreign language learning with World Wide Web activities. Foreign Language Annals, 31(1), 103-114. Walz, J. (2001). Critical reading and the Internet. The French Review, 74(6) 1193-1205. Warshauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81, 470-481. Warshauer, M. (2000). On-line learning in second language classrooms: An ethnographic study. In M. Warshauer & R. Kern (Eds.). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 41-58). New York: Cambridge University Press. Zamel, V. (1992). Writing one's way into reading. TESOL Quarterly 26, 463-485.
107
Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/egbert/
THE IMPACT OF CALL INSTRUCTION ON CLASSROOM COMPUTER USE: A FOUNDATION FOR RETHINKING TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHER EDUCATION
Joy Egbert Washington State University Trena M. Paulus Indiana University Yoko Nakamichi Indiana University ABSTRACT This purpose of this study is to examine how language teachers apply practical experiences from computer-assisted language learning (CALL) coursework to their teaching. It also examines ways in which teachers continue their CALL professional development. Participants in the study were 20 English as a second language and foreign language teachers who had, within the last 4 years, completed the same graduate-level CALL course and who are currently teaching. Surveys and follow-up interviews explored how participants learn about CALL activities; how what they learned in the course interacts with their current teaching contexts; the factors that influence whether or not they use technology in their classrooms; and how they continue to acquire and master new ideas in CALL. The findings support previous research on technology teacher education as it suggests that teachers who use CALL activities are often those teachers who had experience with CALL prior to taking the course; that lack of time, support, and resources prohibits the use of CALL activities in some classrooms; and that colleagues are the most common resource of new CALL activity ideas outside of formal coursework. Implications for teacher education are that teachers learn better in situated contexts, and technology courses should be designed accordingly.
INTRODUCTION While teacher education is in some ways still an "unstudied problem" (Freeman, 1996; National Center for Research on Teacher Education, 1988), there is a large body of literature describing and examining what happens in teacher-education technology courses and programs. The majority of studies on teacher technology education explore the following issues: what teachers are and/or should be learning in technology courses (Hargrave & Hsu, 2000; Johnson, 1999); teacher-education students' knowledge of and attitudes toward technology (Atkins & Vasu, 2000; Milbraith & Kinzie, 2000); and how teachers think about and use computers in the classroom (Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, & Woods, 1999; Levy, 1997a; Pilus, 1995; Walker, 1994). Much of this research shows that teacher-education technology courses and programs have a limited impact on how teachers think about and implement technologysupported teaching (Cuban, 1996; Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996). Within this body of literature, however, few studies explore transfer from the practical content of teachereducation technology courses to the classroom. There is also a gap in the literature specific to the relatively new area of computer-assisted language learning (CALL; Lam, 2000). In order to help language teachers learn about and use technology effectively, we need to know more about the transfer of CALL coursework to the classroom. More specifically, we need to ask
108
Joy Egbert, Trena M. Paulus, & Yoko Nakamichi
The Impact of CALL Education on Language Classroom
How do teachers learn about CALL-based activities? How does what they learned in their coursework impact their current teaching contexts? What factors influence whether they use computers in their classrooms? How do participants continue to acquire and master new ideas in CALL after formal coursework ends (professional development)?
If we discover that learning about technology integration does not occur as well through coursework as by other kinds of experiences, teacher educators will need to reexamine the opportunities they provide teachers learning about CALL. This study begins to address this gap in the literature by describing how language teachers use the practical knowledge and experience gained in graduate coursework on computer integration in their teaching. The authors then examine ways in which teachers continue their professional development in CALL. More specifically, this study explores how the teachers learn about computer-assisted activities; how what they learn in their coursework interacts with their current teaching contexts; the factors that influence whether they use computers in their classrooms; and how they continue to acquire and master new ideas in CALL. The results of this study can help teacher educators better understand the impact of CALL coursework on classroom computer use and rethink ways to facilitate pre- and in-service teachers' continued development in the area of CALL. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Pre- and in-service language teachers should clearly learn about computer use. When integrated appropriately, CALL technologies can support experiential learning and practice in a variety of modes, provide effective feedback to learners, enable pair and group work, promote exploratory and global learning, enhance student achievement, provide access to authentic materials, facilitate greater interaction, individualize instruction, allow independence from a single source of information, and motivate learners (Lee, 2000; Warshauer & Healey, 1998). The promise of computer technologies, supported by both research and practice, underlies the emergence of technology classes across teacher-education programs and a sharp increase in courses specifically aimed at language teachers (Johnson, 1999). However, the appropriateness of technology for student learning is only one factor in understanding teachers' use of CALL. Teacher educators need to design CALL courses that teach what language teachers really need to know. Course content should also be readily transferable to school settings across language contexts and language teachers should continue to learn and grow in the technology area as practicing professionals. Understanding the impact that coursework has on practice can enable teacher educators to plan technology-related courses that are authentic and "generative" (McKenzie, 2001). The literature review below includes four separate but not mutually exclusive foci: how teachers learn technology, the interaction between coursework and the classroom, factors affecting technology use, and professional development in technology use. Together, these overlapping foci present a picture of the relationship between teachers and technology learning and use. How Teachers Learn Technology Research in teacher technology use shows that preservice teachers gain confidence in the use of computer technologies through formal teacher-education coursework (Knezek, Chiristensen, & Rice, 1996) and that their attitudes towards computers improve through such coursework (Lam, 2000). Although this research shows changes in perceptions that are often correlated with classroom technology use, it does not explain what preservice teachers take away from the courses and actually use in their classrooms. Galloway (1996) stresses the need for research that addresses questions about what computer experience teachers need to gain, how they actually use computers, and how they learn to use and adopt computers. The
109
literature to date that attempts to answer such questions suggests two overarching themes: first, that teachers learn what they actually need to use; and second, coursework does not always address teachers' or students' needs. These two points are explained further. While the emergence of a great variety of technology courses for teachers suggests a belief that teachers can learn about education technology theory and practice through coursework, some researchers have found that coursework seems to have little or no impact on teacher-education students' beliefs about their abilities or use of what they have learned in their teaching. For example, Grau (1996) found that after a semester-long technology course, only 22% of the preservice teachers rated their computer skills as being above average, and the same percentage rated them below average. Twenty-five percent of his participants did not use computers at all in their first year of teaching. McMeniman and Evans (1998) conclude that language teachers alter their practices and beliefs (or "learn") when "presented with evidence that shows positive effects of the new teaching method on quality of learning outcomes" and "develop expertise in the new method" (p. 1). In other words, since they do not perceive that there is sufficient evidence of any positive effects of technology-enhanced teaching, many teachers may not change their practice to incorporate technology. Even when teachers do believe that technology has "empowering potential," they do not always know how to make this happen in the classroom (Debski, 2000). Langone, Wissick, Langone, and Ross (1998) also discovered that although teachers do learn new skills as a result of instruction, they do not necessarily use those skills in their daily practice or change their instructional practice in the long run. Levy's seminal study (1997a) suggests that there should be a fit between teachers' philosophies of language teaching and learning and what they see as the capabilities of technology to facilitate teacher use of the technology in their classrooms. Along the same lines, Galloway (1996) and Smerdon et al. (2000) found that most teachers learned to use computers outside of coursework. While this helps to prepare teachers for CALL coursework in the use and integration of appropriate technologies, it also has other implications for teacher education in CALL. The important trend noted in both of these studies is that the majority of respondents learned to use those applications that they needed to use in their lives outside of school. Galloway explains this trend by noting that the most-used computer application among his participants was word processing. This is because teachers use word processing for both personal and professional work. Galloway also found that few teachers actually used telecommunications, hypermedia, or even other business programs such as databases and spreadsheets because they did not need to use these technologies in their lives outside of the classroom. He suggests that we show teachers how their personal and professional knowledge and experience with computers can also be used in the classroom. The United States Department of Education (Smerdon et al., 2000) similarly reports that teachers use technology most frequently to prepare or supplement instruction rather than for instructional delivery, thereby working to save themselves time or to enhance student learning beyond the classroom. Keirns (1992) concurs, noting that "the practical experience of learning computer skills which are personally useful has a positive effect" on teacher technology use (p. 34). This implies that, for CALL coursework to have an impact, it should focus on the needs of individual teachers and their contexts. Currently, what teachers are learning in coursework might not be what they need (or perceive they need ) to know. Abdal-Haqq (1995) argues that teachers are not integrating new and advanced technologies into their syllabi, possibily because teacher education in computers often focuses on "older and simpler instructional applications of computer technology" rather than multimedia, problem-solving applications, and other newer tools. In short, teachers cannot implement what they do not know about. Grau (1996) also found that the first-year teachers in his study who used computers most frequently used a word processor and a grade book, and Levy (1997a) also commented on the pervasiveness of word processing. Strudler, McKinney, & Jones (1999) note that first-year teachers, when they use computers at all, "rarely venture beyond word processing and/or drill and practice games" (p. 117). Findings indicate that even more experienced teachers use the computer mainly for word processing, spreadsheets, drills, and to some
110
extent Internet research and problem-solving (Smerdon et al., 2000). Teachers are more likely to use these programs for creating worksheets, tests, and forms to supplement their practice. This suggests that teachers are using technology in ways that fit their current practice, rather than transforming their practice through the use of technology. What seems to have more of an impact on teacher learning is peer collaboration in situated learning contexts (Smerdon et al, 2000; Fisher, 1999). Programs like those described by Fisher and Ringstaff, Yocam, and Marsh (1996) seem to have a greater impact on teachers' personal use and on their instructional delivery because the technology is situated in the context where it will be used, and learning takes place during their actual teaching. During these programs, teachers apply technology in their own classrooms and plan with real students and colleagues. It should be noted that teachers in these programs still experienced barriers to implementing technology, and those who did experience such barriers made fewer changes in their thinking and instruction. This review of the literature suggests that coursework alone, devoid of the opportunities to practice, apply, and see evidence of student improvement, may lead to technology learning but not necessarily to its use. Cuban (1986) remarks that "teachers will alter classroom behavior selectively to the degree that certain technologies help them solve problems they define as important" (p. 70). However, the structure of CALL coursework and professional development experiences are rarely built on a model of teacher inquiry, and Langone et al. (1998) found that even with a set of courses and school-based practica, there were still barriers to teacher technology infusion. Interaction Between Coursework and Classroom A second focus of this literature review is the interaction between teacher-education coursework and the classroom. Although it is difficult to find research on the interaction between technology coursework and the teaching context, the existing literature shows that even when teachers are willing to integrate technology in their classrooms, their coursework may not facilitate doing so. Wentworth (1996) found in her study of teacher-education students that they could not use projects they developed in their technology class in their teaching because the schools did not have the proper facilities. Her participants also felt that they did not have enough time to adapt their projects to their specific teaching and school contexts. Grau (1996) compared the transfer between traditional one-course computer training for teachers and a year long on-site implementation program, and found that mentoring and site-based application led to transfer, as suggested in the previous section. He also concluded that it takes a minimum of 3 years to cause considerable change in teacher practice and that a one-shot course is not effective in doing this. Keirns' (1992) study of coursework transfer supports this conclusion, noting that although participant practice may not be significantly altered by one course in technology, the course can help teachers develop a positive attitude toward technology and encourage them to "think about the integration of computers into their personal teaching situations" (p. 34). Parr (1999) agrees, noting that slow integration might also be due to the lack of a collaborative culture supporting computer use in the schools. This research indicates that a single, non-site-based technology course will likely not have much direct immediate impact on teachers' classroom uses of computers (Hargrave & Hsu, 2000) because this type of course does not prepare teachers for the realities of their classrooms. Other factors influencing transfer are described in the next section. Factors Influencing Technology Use The next focus of this literature review is the influences on teachers' use of technology. A wide range of factors have been found to influence teachers' use of computers. Debski (2000) found that teachers in his study, offered the chance to join an innovative computer-enhanced project, did so for reasons ranging from pressure to use computers in their courses to the opportunity to learn new technical skills. Other factors seen as facilitating teacher computer use are pre-service use, perception of the usefulness of
111
technology for teaching, and overcoming technology-related anxiety (Knezek, Chiristensen, & Rice, 1996). Reed, Anderson, Ervin, and Oughton (1995) agree that even one computer course can positively affect teachers' attitudes toward computers, giving them more confidence and convincing them that technology is a valuable tool. Fisher (1999) found that teachers' attitudes were strongly related to their success in using technology. Lam (2000) also notes that teacher confidence is crucial, and adds that other factors in the complex decision by teachers of whether to use computers include whether the technology is useful for job performance and how easy it is to use. The current uses of the technology in their schools and having a computer at home may also influence teacher computer use (Yildirim, 2000). However, a positive attitude toward technology does not ensure that teachers will be able to use it in the classroom. Educators are prevented from using technology in many ways. These include time pressures both outside and during class (Lam, 2000; Levy, 1997a; Reed et al., 1995; Smerdon et al., 2000; Strudler, Quinn, McKinney, & Jones, 1995); lack of resources and materials (Loehr,1996; Smerdon et al, 2000); insufficient or inflexible guidelines, standards, and curricula (Langone et al., 1998); lack of support or recognition for integrating computers (Grau 1996; Strudler, McKinney, & Jones, 1999); a clash between new technologies at universities and older ones in schools; lack of leadership (Smerdon et al., 2000); and inadequate training and technical support (Abdal-Haqq, 1995; Lam, 2000; Langone et al., 1998; Levy, 1997a; Smerdon et al., 2000). Other factors that may influence technology use are age, gender, attitudes toward technology, and teaching experience, but the results are mixed as to what extent these variables are related to teacher use of technology (Lam, 2000). Levy (1997a) also suggests that the rate of technological change poses a barrier to technology use. In addition, Lam (2000) notes that the top-down implementation of technology by authorities may cause resentment and avoidance by teachers. He adds that the lack of perceived legitimacy of the computer as an educational tool has an influence on teacher adoption of the technology. Lam also suggests that language teachers do not use computers in their classrooms not because they are technophobes, as some suggest, but because institutions and programs overlook the importance of training teachers and matching their goals with the tools they hope to employ. Similarly, Cuban (1986, 1996) notes that technology advocates have ignored realities such as the social organization of classrooms that serve as an inhibitor of classroom technology use. He also observes that "innovations for solving productivity problems defined by nonteachers invariably were mandated into use by district policy makers, not teachers" (1986, p. 54). He adds that "views of teaching and organizational compliance ill-fitted to schools and classrooms and married to feckless strategies aimed at coercing teachers to use the innovation explain limited use of the new technologies" (1986, p. 56). Teachers' attitudes and philosophies toward teaching and technology, regardless of their basis, can both support and prohibit the use of technology in the classroom. It is important to note that some teachers implement technology in spite of the barriers listed above. Reed et al. (1995) found that "those able to overcome some of these hindrances included teachers who had had prior experience with computing" (p. 2). If this conclusion were true, we would expect to see a relationship between teachers' previous experience with computers and implementations in the classroom. In fact, studies show that technology-using teachers are those more likely to have more teaching experience in the classroom. Professional Development in Technology Use A final focus of this literature review is professional development for technology-using teachers. Levy (1997b) addresses the link between CALL coursework and further professional development in CALL by proposing that a CALL course should be looked at from a more holistic view than whether or not teachers become computer experts during a course. That is, teachers can learn additional skills after their coursework on their own if they receive a firm grounding in CALL theory through their coursework. Levy argues that it is nearly impossible to cover every piece of technology in a course. However, if
112
teachers understand the underlying theories and perspectives of technology integration, they can continue to learn and develop their materials according to their future needs. Little empirical research has been conducted on computer-using language teachers' professional development. Grau's (1996) participants noted that it was hard to continue learning about technologies because the school had no resources to help teachers do so. This may be the case for many language teachers. Studies have found, though, that "teachers who spent more time in professional development activities were generally more likely to indicate they felt well prepared" to teach with technology (Smerdon et al., 2000, p. iv). Although CALL professional development materials and resources in the form of books, Web sites, electronic discussion lists, journals, and courses exist, it is unclear which of these provide the most effective development and which provide theories and activities that directly transfer to classroom implementation. We may take a cue from the Apple's "Classrooms of Tomorrow" project (reported in Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997), where hands-on, active learning by teachers allowed exploration, experimentation, and most important, reflection; these "situated teacher development" activities, in turn, supported many different kinds of change in classrooms. In sum, this review of the literature indicates that technology coursework can change teachers' attitudes toward and confidence with technology and can also provide them with skills that they did not previously have. It also suggests that one course alone is probably insufficient to change teachers' practice either immediately or over time. Furthermore, it shows that teachers learn many of their technology skills on their own and use technology specifically to support their current teaching practices. In addition, teachers have different reasons for using or avoiding technology, but those who have more experience in teaching and in technology use, especially in practice, are more likely to integrate technology in their classrooms. More important, teachers need to have specific needs met during their technology learning. Finally, barriers to classroom use may also prevent the professional development of technology-using teachers. If these conclusions hold true for language teachers, they hold important implications for the design of CALL coursework. The purpose of this study is to examine how language teachers learn about CALL activities, how they apply the knowledge and experience gained in one graduate-level CALL course to their teaching, and what factors influence their use of technology in their classrooms. It also investigates language teachers' pursuit of opportunities for professional development after the CALL course. Finally, it outlines implications for teacher educators. METHODS Participants Participants in the study were 20 English as a second language (ESL) and foreign language (FL) teachers who had taken the same graduate-level CALL course (L530) within the past 4 years (1996-2000) and who were currently teaching. Participant data are included in Table 1.
113
Table 1. Participant profile (N=20) First language Urdu Spanish Mandarin English 0-1 1-5 5-10 more than 10 Pre-K K-6 6-12 College Adult Other (Special Education) ESL Teacher education Content FL Other Interested Required Looks good on resume Other 1 1 1 17 2 5 8 4 1 5 5 8 6 1 6 3 3 8 4 17 1 3 2
Years of experience
Current teaching level (n>20 due to participants teaching in more than one level)
Current teaching area (n>20 due to participants teaching more than one area)
Reason for taking the L530 course (n>20 due to participants marking more than one answer)
Participants were fairly evenly divided between K-12 (n=11) and postsecondary education contexts (n=14) with some teachers working in both contexts. There were a variety of teaching areas represented, although no participants were currently teaching English as a foreign language. Participants ranged from more experienced (more than 5 years experience, n=12) to less experienced (5 or fewer years of experience, n=7) teachers, and the majority of participants (n=17) took the class because they were interested in the topic. CALL Course L530: Computer-Assisted Language Learning is a graduate course offered at a large midwestern university in the United States. The course serves as an elective course for several graduate degree programs at the university. According to the course syllabus, This course is intended to give participants a broad general view of computer-enhanced language learning. It will involve participants in exploring a working theory of language learning environments, using and discussing existing and potential applications of computer technology in the language classroom, and creating projects to use and test knowledge gained through reading, discussion, and hands-on experience. (Yalcin, 2001) The syllabus was founded on the principle that, as Erben (1999) notes, "teachers learn best how to use technologies for educational purposes if their own learning takes place through such technologies" (p. 230). Offered twice yearly, the course has used a relatively consistent framework of activities since its inception in 1996, although the content of some of the activities has changed to reflect changes in technologies, theories, or available software. Participants in this study had completed either the Web-based or oncampus version of the course. Both the Web-based and on-campus versions of the course consist of the same activities and were designed by the same faculty member. When both versions of the course ran
114
simultaneously, participants in both versions participated in discussions together in an asynchronous Web forum. Data Collection A paper-based survey questionnaire was developed based on the literature review and the content of the L530 course. The instrument was pilot-tested with several students who had completed the L530 course, but who were not currently teaching. Revisions were made based on the findings from the pilot test. The six-page survey was mailed to all students who had completed the L530 course within the past 4 years. The mailing included a cover letter, the survey instrument, and a stamped, addressed return envelope. The students who were not currently teaching were asked not to respond. Eight surveys were returned as undeliverable. Of the 81 domestic surveys mailed, 20 completed surveys were returned, making the return rate 25%. This falls within the 10-33% average survey return rate as outlined by Sommer & Sommer (1991). As in Keirns' (1992) study, the pool was limited in part due to the lack of forwarding addresses available and those potential participants who were currently not teaching. Nine of the participants volunteered to be contacted for follow up interviews. These participants answered structured interview questions by electronic mail (e-mail). Instruments The survey instrument was developed to address the research questions stated in the previous section. Parts 1 and 2 of the survey asked participants to identify which activities they participated in during the L530 course, which of those activities they had participated in prior to taking the course, and which activities they are using in their current teaching contexts. Participants were also asked to identify other CALL activities they used in their teaching and where they learned about these CALL activities. In part 3, participants who indicated that they do not use CALL activities in their teaching were asked why they do not use them. They were also asked to identify which factors would make them more likely to use CALL activities in their teaching. Finally, in part 4 participants noted what they wish they had learned during the L530 course. The e-mail interviews asked participants to clarify, further explain, or supply additional information. Interviews included the following questions: 1) You indicated that you use some CALL activities in your teaching now. What motivates you to use CALL activities when you do? 2) You indicated that you had already used previously some of the CALL activities that were presented in the L530 class. Where did you learn these activities? 3) What, in retrospect, would be more appropriate activities for L530, considering the teaching job you have now? 4) You didn't indicate whether you have resources where you find information about CALL activities. Do you? If so, what are they? OR You indicated that you have resources where you find information about CALL activities. Can you describe one activity that you have used recently and discuss where you heard about it and what motivated you to try it? Several of the participants were also asked to supply missing information in sections of the survey that they had overlooked in their initial responses. Data Analysis The results of surveys and follow-up interviews were compiled and analyzed according to the four research questions:
115
1) How do participants learn about computer-assisted language activities? 2) How does what they learned in the L530 course interact with their current teaching contexts? 3) What factors influence whether they use computers in their classrooms? 4) How do participants continue to acquire and master new ideas in CALL (professional development)? During the analysis, patterns that emerged from the data were grouped into categories that addressed the issues raised in the research questions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Research Question 1. Learning About CALL Activities Table 2 illustrates the activities the participants completed in the L530 course and whether they had had previous experience with those CALL activities. During the course, participants worked through the activity and the relevant principles supporting its use in language classrooms. Column A shows the number of participants who participated in each CALL activity as part of the L530 course. Column B shows the number of participants who already had participated in these activities before taking the L530 course. Table 2. CALL Activity Use. CALL activity Creating an external document E-mail mystery activity Presenting software to the class Using content based software Developing a Hyperstudio stack Creating a Web address book Participating in a professional listserv Creating a WebQuest Creating an instructional Web page for students or teachers Creating a personal Web page Developing computer enhanced lesson plans Reviewing software/Web sites Developing a technology solution for an inquiry project Using an electronic conferencing system E-mailing activity Other: Using a MOO Other: Taking a personality test on the Web A. Completed in the course (n=20) 12 5 11 15 7 9 13 7 12 11 14 17 4 13 18 1 1 B. Had previous experience with (n=20) 6 0 4 8 1 5 8 2 4 5 9 7 1 6 16 0 0
First, these findings illustrate the types of activities designed into the L530 course. The L530 course presented participants with an opportunity to learn about many new activities that involve technology and
116
the underlying pedagogical principles that support them. There was a focus on both professional and personal uses of technology included in the course. E-mail, reviewing software, developing computerenhanced lessons, and using content-based software were the applications most frequently covered during the course. A majority of participants created personal and/or instructional Web pages, used an electronic conferencing system, and participated in an electronic discussion forum (such as a listserv). Several of these applications used state-of-the-art technologies, while others employed pedagogically sound strategies for using older technologies in classrooms. However, it is important to note that except for new applications of familiar technology, such as the email Mystery project or creating a Hyperstudio (Knowledge Adventure, 2001) stack, from 25% to 89% of the participants had already participated in each of the activities prior to the course. This indicates that they were not learning about these activities for the first time in this course. When asked how they had learned about these activities prior to the L530 course, interview results revealed an almost equal distribution of participants who said that they had learned about the activities in a different course and those who indicated they learned it by themselves (such as on listservs, at conferences, or by playing with the software at their schools). Learning new technologies on their own is consistent with findings of Smerdon et al. (2000) who found that 93% of teachers prepared themselves for using new technology. E-mail, reviewing software, developing computer-enhanced lessons, and using content-based software were the applications that the greatest number of participants had previously used; three of these were also activities that the most participants took part in during the course. According to the literature (e.g., Keirns, 1992), this extra "practice" on previously learned skills should lead to a more positive attitude and greater implementation of these activities in classrooms. Research Question 2. CALL Coursework Transfer Of the participants in this study, 70% (n=14) currently use at least one CALL activity in their classrooms. Table 3 presents findings regarding coursework transfer. Column A shows how many of the 14 computerusing participants currently use the various CALL activities in their classrooms. Column B presents the number of participants who had used the activity prior to the course and also currently use it in their classrooms. Table 3. Transfer of CALL Activities CALL activity Creating an external document E-mail mystery activity Presenting software to the class Using content based software Developing a Hyperstudio stack Creating a Web address book Participating in a professional listserv Creating a WebQuest Creating an instructional Web page for students or teachers Creating a personal Web page Developing computer enhanced lesson plans A. Use it now (n=14) 5 1 3 5 2 1 2 1 6 3 7 B. Did it before and do it now (n=14) 5 0 1 5 1 1 2 0 4 2 6
117
Reviewing software/Web sites Developing a technology solution for an inquiry project Using an electronic conferencing system E-mailing activity Web portfolios Internet research Word processing Skill-building activities
2 1 2 12 1 1 1 4
1 0 1 12 0 0 0 0
These findings follow a pattern similar to that in the previous section. E-mail, developing lessons, and creating instructional Web pages are among the most frequently used CALL activities. Participants also noted other CALL activities that they currently use that were not part of the course, such as portfolios on the Web, Internet research, word processing, and skill building activities. These activities are consistent with the findings of Smerdon et al. (2000) who found that teachers assigned students to use word processing (61%), Internet research (51%), and practicing drills (50%). The frequency of the use of activities such as e-mail and Web page building in the classroom range from daily to monthly. An example of using the Internet as a teacher resource tool is described by one participant: I usually search the Internet daily looking for new and different ideas for the integration of technology in the classroom. I recently contacted Learning Systems for evaluation software Kidspiration. Though I don't like it as well as Inspiration, the second graders I worked with loved it. We did a unit on "Where in the World Are You?" The youngsters used the software to mindmap their location from house to planet. Using e-mail to facilitate communication with native target language speakers was described by another teacher: I recently had my German III/IV class begin an email project with a group of students in Germany. We're using the site epals.com, which has been wonderful in that it allows me to monitor my students' incoming and outgoing email, so that I may assess their writing and provide tips for both content and mechanics. Best of all, my students have very much enjoyed writing to Germans first-hand to learn more about the culture and to share with them information about their own. My desire to make the German culture and the study of the German language more personalized for my students led me to do this activity. The use of presentation software to teach oral communication skills was mentioned by this participant: I use [PowerPoint] as the final activity in the speaking class here. Students teach their classmates and teacher about their specific area of interest. They are required to put together an 8-10 minute speech with PowerPoint, with their research done in English (for vocabulary support). Q & A sessions follow. These comments show how participants have integrated a variety of activities into their classrooms, including technologies such as Web pages and e-mail. Their reasons for going beyond simple programs such as word processing are suggested in answers to the e-mail interviews. For example, when asked what motivated the participants to use CALL activities, participants responded that they use CALL to enhance student learning, motivate students, and teach skills students will need in the future: "I use CALL only if the learning is enhanced by the technology and engages students." Another participant responded "I use computers for teaching when 1) they seem to be the most effective way of getting the point across and 2) when I think they will have to use the computer skill in their academic and/or professional careers." This demonstrates a sound theoretical understanding of how technology should be used in teaching.
118
Foreign language teachers in particular use CALL to connect their students with native speakers of the target language. Two participants remarked: "I find that I am usually motivated to use CALL activities when I want my students to connect with native speakers of German" and "I found the e-mail mystery project very exciting and great for practicing Spanish, since all the interaction was going to be in the target language." Participants also cited their personal motivation to keep up with current instructional innovations and using CALL to have students develop their language skills "through means beyond those offered in a traditional classroom." Those participants who use CALL activities are more frequently those who used those activities in their teaching before they took the L530 course. E-mailing is the most frequently used CALL activity, and one which all of the participants had engaged in before taking L530. Almost all those who developed technology-enhanced lesson plans, created an instructional Web page, and used content -based software previous to the course were using them in their classes after the course. This supports previous findings that teachers use what they know well, and that much of what they learn is driven by personal exigency rather than by coursework. In many cases, it does seem that previous teaching experience is a good predictor of implementation (Reed et al., 1995). Other CALL activities that participants said would be useful, retrospectively, in the L530 course and that would help them perform more effectively in their current positions fell into several general categories. These included strategies for applying CALL techniques to a variety of teaching situations (including business, large multi-section university courses, and K-12 environments); use of Internet applications for language teaching (including asynchronous discussions, teaching online, and Web page creation); innovative technologies such as translation software and virtual 3D worlds; and technical skills (such as using content-specific software or tools such as word processing skills, Web editors and XML.) Previous research has suggested that transfer might be more effective if coursework dealt with the needs and circumstances surrounding specific teaching situations (Fisher, 1999; Ringstaff et al., 1996). One participant eloquently expressed what she felt teachers need (and would transfer) from CALL courses: They need strategies and tools on how to sort through what is there, how to do so efficiently within time constraints that they typically work under, and how to guide their students in becoming judicious users of technology. As a part of a larger emerging trend in classroom management and instruction, teachers also need strategies and confidence-building practice in 'loosening-control' on their students -- allowing students to take more leadership and initiative in creating and discovering learning experiences for themselves. This teacher's feelings reflect Levy's (1997b) call for coursework to more strongly emphasize a theory of technology integration in addition to teaching how to use the technology itself. These findings reinforce the need not only for theory and skills to be taught directly in relation to CALL, but also for more practical classroom management and good pedagogy in general. There is also a need for classroom-based teacher training in how to transfer personal uses of computers into their classrooms. It would be difficult to address each of these issues deeply enough in one course to have the impact that teacher educators hope to have, underscoring the need for new ideas about the process of teacher education in CALL. Research Question 3. Factors Influencing CALL Use The 6 participants who did not use CALL activities in their current teaching position cited lack of time, administrative or curricular restrictions, and lack of resources as the top reasons. Participants were asked to check all factors that applied to their situation. Results are shown in Table 4.
119
Table 4. Influences on Lack of Computer Use Factor Lack of time Administrative or curricular restrictions Lack of resources Not currently teaching language Lack of knowledge Lack of confidence Lack of interest Number (n=6) 6 4 3 3 1 0 0
These findings support previous research on factors that limit the use of technology in the classroom (e.g., Lam, 2000; Reed et al.; 1995; Strudler, et al. 1995). Time was the most important factor in lack of technology use, cited by all six of the participants and found as well by Levy (1997b). One participant specifically mentioned that "the students only get 6 hours of ESL at each level. Too much to cover, and I have 6 preps." Administrative and curricular restrictions were the second most important influence on lack of technology use by these participants. Two participants responded that they had rigid curricula which left them with no time or support to integrate CALL: "We also have a curriculum to follow and, since we use block scheduling at our school, we already struggle to find enough time to complete the required agenda each year. There never seems to be enough time to incorporate CALL activities." Regarding lack of resources, the third most influential barrier to technology use, one participant stated, "Although we have several computer labs in our school, they are often crowded and it is hard to schedule time for students to work in the lab. Also, not all students have access to computers in their homes." None of the participants who do not use technology remarked that it was due to a lack of confidence or interest. This is in keeping with previous findings of Keirns (1992) that coursework can make a difference in teachers' attitudes and confidence. For those participants who were unable to integrate CALL activities, Table 5 presents factors identified as being most likely to enable CALL use. These included more time, more resources and better support. Whether and how these teachers try to overcome these barriers, and what actions they would take if these barriers were not present, are interesting questions for future research. Table 5. Factors Enabling Greater Use of CALL Factor More time More/better resources Better support Better training Better rewards More flexibility in the curriculum More student interest Number (n=6) 6 4 3 1 1 1 0
Participants indicated that time, resources, and support would enable technology use in their classrooms. These participants felt that right now CALL activities take time away from what teachers need to do. In fact, one of the criteria for effective CALL integration is that it be efficient (Egbert & Hanson-Smith, 1999; Egbert, 2001), but these participants were not able to efficiently use CALL in their classrooms. This is an issue that should be addressed in the design of CALL courses.
120
Research Question 4. Professional Development in CALL Participants were asked where they have learned about CALL activities since the completion of L530. Table 6 outlines the resources identified as useful. Table 6. Resources for CALL Activities Resource Peers/Colleagues Web browsing Books (Egbert & Hanson-Smith, 1999; Ryan, 2000) Conferences Journals (TESOL Journal, Educational Technology) Courses Electronic discussion lists (TESL-CA list, AATG) Self AskEric Publisher promotions Number (n=14) 7 5 4 4 4 2 2 2 1 1
Participants cited their colleagues as the most commonly used resource for finding out about new activities. This supports previous findings (Smerdon et al., 2000). Teachers seem to "learn best by seeing methods used in actual classrooms, by trying out new techniques and getting feedback on their efforts, and by observing and talking with fellow teachers" (U.S. Congress, 1995, p. 80). If this explanation is accurate, it builds a strong case for developing networks of CALL teachers during coursework. This can include assignments such as consulting with experts, participating in fieldwork, or working with mentors on inquiry projects. Participants also used Web resources to find more CALL activities. One participant shared, "I engage frequently in web-browsing, usually springboarding from items/links I encounter in the NCBE online newsletter and Multilingual Matters online. From this surfing, I have located sources such as 'Teachers guide to international collaboration on the internet' which lend themselves to a variety of classroom uses." Helping learners develop a list of sites for professional development might be a useful course activity to build a foundation of resources that can be quickly accessed for future technology integration ideas. One surprising finding is that even though 13 of the participants participated in a professional listserv (TESLCA-L) during the course, only two mentioned that they learned about CALL activities that way. One participant said "I have unsubscribed now I did not have time to keep track of all the discussion in the field, and also because it did not directly relate to my own field of interest." Facilitating course participants in choosing personally meaningful methods for professional development might result in more lasting connections for CALL teachers. Limitations of the Study There are several limitations to this study. First, because of the small sample size and the diversity of participant teaching contexts, these findings cannot be generalized to the greater language teaching population. However, the findings from this study support the conclusions from the literature closely enough to suggest trends that can be noted. Second, the participants in the study were all at one time graduate students who chose to take the L530 course because they already had an interest in technology. This certainly is not the case with most teachers in the field. These findings are useful, however, because we expect these participants to be the ones who infuse technology into their classes, and yet this was not always found to be the case. Finally, in using self-report data there is always the potential for error in recall. Similarly, in using questionnaires and structured interviews, details such as what other courses
121
participants had taken since L530, links between coursework in CALL theory and classroom practice, and other useful information proved beyond the scope of this study. CONCLUSIONS Most of the participants had already used many of the CALL activities in their teaching prior to taking the L530 course. They had learned about the activities in a different course or had learned them by themselves. After the course, 70% currently use at least one CALL activity. These are more frequently those participants who used the activities in class before they took the L530 course, providing evidence that previous experience may be a good predictor of CALL use. Participants use colleagues and Web resources as their primary source for ongoing learning about CALL activities. It is not due to a lack of confidence or interest in CALL that teachers do not use CALL activities; rather, it is due to a lack of time, administrative or curricular restrictions, or lack of resources. The findings point to the need for more contextualized instruction directly related to the teaching environments in which language teachers will be practicing. What are the goals of CALL coursework? In the main, teacher educators hope to help language teachers to understand and apply CALL activities to promote student achievement. The data suggest that the course provided some of the participants with skills that they did not previously have, while reinforcing those skills for others. Findings also suggest that one course like L530, if not situated in authentic learning contexts, is probably insufficient to directly change teachers' practice. Furthermore, our participants learned many of their technology skills on their own, and interview evidence shows that they use technology to facilitate their current practice and beliefs. The participants had different reasons for using or avoiding technology, but those who had previous experience with technology use were more likely to implement technology in their classrooms. These results hold important implications for the design of formal CALL coursework. IMPLICATIONS FOR COURSE DESIGN Teacher educators need to address the theoretical underpinnings of CALL and present guidelines for effective technology use in context-based situations. For example, Strudler et al. (1999) proposed that we link novice teachers with experienced computer-using teachers, develop networks of experts, and find school sites that use technology and incorporate these into our courses, providing evidence that teaching and learning can change through the use of technology. To help our teachers overcome obstacles to technology use, we might do what teachers in Langone et al.'s (1998) study suggest, including helping teachers use technology efficiently, demonstrating ways to secure financial support, and assisting our students in developing arguments for school support of technology and technology-using teachers. We might also address the barriers of time constraints and limited access and demonstrate ways to teach around these barriers. Perhaps we should free teachers from the constraints of guidelines and rules, as Fisher (1999) suggests, while they come to their own understandings of the uses of technology in their classrooms. Our findings support a shift away from isolated coursework in CALL to the development of a sequence of situated technology experiences for teachers. Freeman (1994) supports this view, using Lave and Wenger's (1991) theory to suggest that legitimate peripheral participation in discourse/practice communities leads to transfer, as does Erben (1999), who suggests that teachers who learn through technology also learn the theory and pedagogy of technology. In the same vein, Koet (1999) and Hatasa (1999) remind us that the locations where practical experiences occur and the contexts in which our teachers practice may not only be quite different from each other but may differ greatly from our views of what schools should be doing with technology. McKenzie (2001) agrees that a focus on "teaching and learning strategies that make a difference in daily practice" will influence how teachers use technology,
122
noting that "learning is the goal. Technologies are mere delivery systems" (p. 2). Langone et al. (1998) suggest that ongoing field coaching for several years after graduation might be one way to support teachers in technology implementation in specific contexts. Debski's (2000) findings support the need for CALL coursework situated in the contexts in which teachers will actually use it. It is crucial that future research examine these possibilities more closely, and that coursework take into consideration individual students' knowledge and experience. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH This study underscores a great need for "studies of how teachers gain subject-matter and pedagogical content knowledge; studies of how teachers learn ambitious forms of teaching on their own and in the company of other teachers; studies of teachers' practical knowledge and how it develops" (FeimanNemser & Remillard, 1996, p. 21). Studies that examine whether in-service courses are more useful than pre-service graduate courses are one possible approach. Examining the usefulness of a sequence of CALL education courses and experiences, as opposed to one course, could also shed light on this area. Furthermore, we might investigate whether and what theories of learning with technology transfer from coursework to the classroom, and how this is evidenced by the applications that teachers employ. In addition, we should describe what teachers do with technology when freed from governmental, school, and classroom constraints. Ultimately, research in this area should continue to identify the needs of both language learning students and instructors and the role that effective technology education and integration can play in meeting those needs.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Joy Egbert is Assistant Professor of ESL and Technology at Washington State University, Pullman. Her research interests include computer assisted language learning, distance education, and teacher education. E-mail: egbert@wsunix.wsu.edu Trena M. Paulus is a doctoral candidate in Instructional Systems Technology at Indiana University. She holds an MA in Applied Linguistics from Ohio University and has taught EFL/ESL in Lesotho, Ohio, and Michigan. Her research areas are professional development, technology-enhanced language teaching, and online collaboration in distance education courses. E-mail: tpaulus@indiana.edu Yoko Nakamichi is a doctorate student in Speech and Hearing Sciences at Indiana University Bloomington. She holds an MA in Teaching Japanese as a Second Language from Ochanomizu University. Her research interests include bilingual development and technology enhanced language learning. E-mail: ynakamic@indiana.edu REFERENCES Abdal-Haqq, I. (1995). Infusing technology into preservice teacher education. ERIC Digest 389699. Retrieved November 26, 2001, from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed389699.html. Atkins, N., & Vasu, E. (2000). Measuring knowledge of technology usage and stages of concern about computing: A study of middle school teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 279302.
123
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Cuban, L. (1996, October 9). Techno-reformers and classroom teachers. Education Week on the Web. Retrieved November 26, 2001, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-16/06cuban.h16 Debski, R. (2000). Exploring the re-creation of a CALL innovation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4/5), pp. 307-332. Egbert, J. (2001). Choosing software for the English language classroom. ESL Magazine, JanuaryFebruary, 22. Egbert, J., & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Erben, T. (1999). Constructing learning in a virtual immersion bath: LOTE teacher education through audiographics. In R. Debski & M. Levy (Eds.), WORLDCALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning (pp. 229-248). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers. Ermter, P., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers' beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54-72. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator's handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 63-91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Fisher, T. (1999). A new professionalism? Teacher use of multimedia portable computers with Internet capability. Paper presented at SITE 99. (ERIC Document No. 432268) Freeman, D. (1994). Knowing into doing: Teacher education and the problem of transfer. In D. Li, D. Mahoney, & J. Richards (Eds.), Exploring second language teacher development (p. 1-20). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. Freeman, D. (1996). The "unstudied problem": Research on teacher learning in language teaching. In D. Freeman & J. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 351-378). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Galloway, J. P. (1997). How teachers use and learn to use computers. In Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1997, 857-859. Grau, I. (1996, January). Teacher development in technology instruction: Does computer coursework transfer into actual teaching practice? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Dallas, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED394949) Hargrave, C., & Hsu, Y. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 303-314. Hatasa, K. (1999). Technological literacy for foreign language instructors and a Web-based tutorial. In R. Debski & M. Levy (Eds.), WORLDCALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning (pp. 339-354). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers. Johnson, M. (1999). CALL and teacher education: Issues in course design. CALL-EJ Online, 1(2). Retrieved November 26, 2001, from http://www.clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/english/callejonline/4-2/johnson.html Keirns, J. (1992). Does computer coursework transfer into teaching practice? A follow up study of teachers in a computer course. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 8(4), 29-34.
124
Knezek, G., Chiristensen, R., & Rice, D. (1996). Changes in teacher attitudes during information technology training. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1996, 763-766. Knowledge Adventure. (2001). Hyperstudio [Computer software]. Geneva, IL. Available at http://www.hyperstudio.com/ Koet, T. (1999). ICT and language skills: an integrated course. ReCALL 11(1), 65-71. Lam, Y. (2000). Technophilia v. technophobia: A preliminary look at why second language teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 389-420. Langone, C., Wissick, C., Langone, J., & Ross, G. (1998). A study of graduates of a technology teacher preparation program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 6(4), 283-302. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lee, K-W. (2000). English teachers' barriers to the use of computer-assisted language learning. Internet TESOL Journal, 6(12). Retrieved November 26, 2001, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lee-CALLbarriers. html Levy, M. (1997a). Computer assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Levy, M. (1997b). A rationale for teacher education and CALL: The Holistic view and its implications. Computers and the Humanities, 30, 293-302. Loehr, M. (1996). Top ten media competency recommendations by teachers for teacher training. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1996, 474-476. McKenzie, J. (2001). How teachers learn technology best. From Now On, 10(6). Retrieved November 26, 2001, from http://fno.org/mar01/howlearn.html McMeniman, M., & Evans, R. (1998). CALL through the eyes of teachers and learners of Asian languages: Panacea or business as usual? On-CALL Online, 12(1). Milbrath, Y., & Kinzie, M. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 373-396. National Center for Research on Teacher Education. (1988). Teacher education and learning to teach: A research agenda. Journal of Teacher Education, November/December, 27-32. Parr, J. (1999). Extending educational computing: A case of extensive teacher development and support. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 280-291. Pilus, Z. (1995). Teachers' interest in CALL and their level of computer literacy: Some implications. OnCALL, 9(3). Retrieved November 26, 2001, from http://www.cltr.uq.edu.au/oncall/pilus93.html Reed, W., Anderson, D., Ervin, J., Oughton, J. (1995). Computers and teacher education students: A ten year analysis. Technology and Teacher Education Annual. Ringstaff, C., Yocam, K., Marsh, J. (1996). Integrating technology into classroom instruction: An assessment of the impact of the ACOT Teacher Development Center Project. (ACOT Report #22). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer. Ryan, K. (Ed.). (2000). Recipes for wired teachers. Nagoya, Japan: JALT CALL SIG. Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
125
Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J.(2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Sommer, B., & Sommer, R. (1991). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques. New York City: Oxford University Press. Strudler, N, McKinney, M.,& Jones, W. (1999). First-year teachers' use of technology: Preparation, expectations and realities. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 115-129. Strudler, N., Quinn, L., McKinney, M., & Jones, W. (1995). From coursework to the real world: Firstyear teachers and technology. In D. A. Willis, B. Robin, & J. Willis (Eds.), Technology and teacher education annual (pp. 774-777). Charlottesville, VA: AACE U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (OTA-EHR-616). Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. Walker, B. (1994). EFL teachers' attitudes about CALL. CLL Journal, 5(3), 12-15. Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71. Retrieved November 19, 2001, from http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/overview.html. Wentworth, N. (1996). Educational technology: From curriculum course to the classroom. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1996, 335-358. Yalcin, S. (2001). L530: Computer-assisted language learning syllabus. Retrieved May 9, 2001, from http://www.indiana.edu/~cell/spring2001/ Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational computing course on preservice and inservice teachers: A discussion and analysis of attitudes and use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 479495.
126
Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/doering/
PRESERVICE ENGLISH TEACHERS ACQUIRING LITERACY PRACTICES THROUGH TECHNOLOGY TOOLS

Aaron Doering and Richard Beach University of Minnesota ABSTRACT This study analyzes the uses of various technologies to enhance literacy practices within a multigenre writing project involving pre-service teachers and middle school students. Twenty-seven English pre-service teachers, simultaneously enrolled in a methods and a technology course, collaborated with middle school students using asynchronous Web discussion to develop hypermedia projects that fostered and promoted the use of technology as a tool. These tools mediated the uses of various literacy practices within the larger activity system of teacher education, whose object is to assist teachers to acquire those practices involved in working effectively with students. Qualitative data were collected through analyzing preservice teachers' development of Storyspace TM hypermedia projects, the use of asynchronous discussion with their middle school students, and participation on a WebCT TM bulletin-board discussion. The hypermedia productions with middle school students helped the preservice teachers learn how to model the literacy practices of making intertextual or hypertextual links. The Web-based communication with students helped preservice teachers develop relationships with students in the absence of face-to-face interaction. And, through participation in the WebCT TM bulletin board, preservice teachers employed different literacy practices ranging from the display of spontaneous thinking to engaging in word/role play.
LITERACY PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGY TOOLS A preservice teacher and a middle-school student are exchanging messages on a Web-based bulletin board about a biography project they are working on together on the topic of Princess Diana. The student posts the following message: Last night I went on the Internet and found alot of stuff like her will, and her divorce papers and some poems some people wrote about her. I also found some pictures of when she was younger. The preservice teacher responds: Last night I bought a couple of books about Princess Diana that were on sale at the bookstore. One contains a bunch of short little memories of her written by all sorts of people that knew her in her lifetime. I will also print at least 2 articles from the Internet that will be helpful (not too long) for us to think about what we want to write about. See you Wednesday. This on-line exchange was part of a project involving preservice English teachers working in a semesterlong practicum experience with a group of middle-school students, a project that involved extensive uses of technology. Their on-line exchange entails uses of literacy practices such as sharing information and planning activities, practices central to a co-inquiry writing project. This project represents the increasing use of technology as a tool for linking adults with students in schools, an approach that is highly relevant to teacher education. In many teacher education programs, in addition to their student teaching, preservice teachers are required to complete practicum experiences that involve minimal face-to-face interaction with students.
127
Aaron Doering and Richard Beach
Preservice English Teachers Acquiring Literacy Practices
Technology can enhance preservice teachers' ongoing interaction with students, as well as providing students with positive learning experiences through technology. For example, in the "Fifth Dimension" after-school computer-mediated program operated by the University of California, San Diego, participation in an elaborate set of computer games and activities resulted in increased student engagement, participation, and learning within a community (Cole, 1999). In this program, University undergraduates serve as "wizards" who guide students through a "maze" of activities based on the students' zone of proximal development. Estes, Bronack, and Schoeny (1999) found when students and faculty use both synchronous and asynchronous discussions to communicate about topics within a given course, a "community of emergent professionals" developed along with positive "student-instructor relationships" that fostered growth within the class. In a graduate teacher education program at Ball State University, instructors wanted to move students from a passive into an active role in social communication within their classes and did so by utilizing asynchronous discussion. Eighty-eight percent of the students reported that online discussion helped them understand and master course concepts, and 93% indicated that the peer interaction was "very helpful" (Thompson & Nay, 1999). The asynchronous discussion page they employed increased the chances of student interactions as well as helping the students "dynamically establish a zone of proximal development anytime of the day by simply connecting to the page and asynchronously collaborating with others" (Thompson & Nay, 1999, p. 20). Through participating in these teacher/student exchanges, preservice teachers acquire strategies for interacting with students. In addition to teacher/student interactions, preservice teachers need opportunities to share reflections with each other in a supportive context. Teacher educators are employing Web-based tools to foster online discussions between preservice teachers regarding issues faced in their programs or in the classroom. The Inquiry Page housed at the University of Illinois is designed to help teachers share teaching successes and collective expertise (Bruce & Davidson, 1996; Bruce & Easley, 2000). Teachers engage in mutual inquiry through their access to resources on teaching and learning, articles, project links, curriculum units, and content resources. Users of the site are themselves the developers who reconstruct the tool as they use it. Participants may share video, photos, graphics, and texts showing people engaged in inquiry in different settings, and access resources involving a dynamic incorporation (using Digital Windmill) of the Open Directory category on Inquiry Based Learning. This site represents a new generation of Web design that serves the social needs of preservice teachers to mutually engage them in co-inquiry about problems, issues, or dilemmas. Research on uses of these sites indicates the importance of the quality of social interaction in this online co-inquiry. For example, Barab and Schatz (2001) analyzed the development of a Web-based learning site designed to foster sharing of inquiry-instruction ideas by Indiana math and science teachers in terms of the components of evolving activity systems. This Web site was initially designed as a tool by University educators to achieve the objective of more discussion/sharing about inquiry instruction, with the intended outcome being improved understanding of inquiry-based instruction. However, given the lack of participation, the University educators, along with teacher participants, shifted the focus of the Web site to emphasize participants' mutual collaboration at the site around inquiry-based math/science instruction. Online interaction also has certain limitations compared with face-to-face interactions (Beach & Lundell, 1998). Analysis of interactions between teacher education candidates and supervisors indicated that online interaction was a "cool" medium in that it avoided the more direct exchanges of feelings inherent in face-to-face interactions (Clift, Mullen, Levin, & Larson, 2001). On the other hand, the anonymity inherent in such interaction allowed for more candid feedback than is often the case in face-to-face interactions. While such research demonstrates the efficacy of technology tools in fostering or mediating problemsolving communication about specific tasks, for example, completion of student teaching, it is also important to recognize that through technology-mediated experiences, preservice teachers are learning
128
various literacy practices associated with literacy development in English instruction. It is primarily through active participation with technology as opposed to receiving instruction about technology that preservice teachers learn to recognize the value of technology tools. In this report, we examine the various literacy practices that were fostered within a multi-genre writing project involving pre-service teachers and middle school students through the use of Web-based bulletinboard exchanges and hypermedia productions. We hope to demonstrate that technology tools can serve to mediate and foster the development of a range of different literacy practices within a teacher education program. TECHNOLOGY TOOLS AS MEDIATING LITERACY PRACTICES Social-cultural activity theory of learning (Cole, 1996; Engestrom,1987; Wertsch, 1998) posits that learning occurs through social uses of various tools: language, signs, images, and texts, as well as technology tools. Activity theorists believe that people learn the uses of these tools by learning how they are linked to the objects or outcomes driving a specific activity within an "activity system." Russell (1997) defined an activity system as, "any ongoing, object-directed, historically conditioned, dialectically structured, tool-mediated human interaction. Some examples are a family, a religious organization, a school, a discipline, a research laboratory, and a profession" (p. 510). Central to activity theory of learning is the idea that these tools function to mediate the learning of literacy practices (Bruce & Levin, 1997). Students learn to use a range of tools to engage in these literacy practices. Work in the field of "distributed cognition" (Hutchins, 1995) posits that certain practices associated with an activity become embodied or "distributed" in tools. For example, navigational instruments are used to capture what is known about navigating the seas. They then serve as tools that guide a ship based on human knowledge about navigation. Similarly, expert computer systems are built on experts' knowledge about a certain phenomena such as diagnosing a particular disease. Tools are therefore used within an activity to function as extensions of certain practices involved in an activity (Vygotsky, 1978). Defining Intertextual Connections Leading to Intermediality One basic literacy practice involves defining intertextual links between texts. Intertextual links are used to define connections between language, images, characters, topics, or themes based on similarities in languages, genres, or discourses (Fairclough, 1992; Van Dijk, 1998). These links reflect connections associated with establishing and reifying institutional power. For example, characters in Dickens' novels employ discourses of mechandizing, law, religion, science, and government which evoke connections to the institutions represented by these discourses, what Fairclough describes as "interdiscursivity." Intertextuality may also involve connections built on social meanings in which participants make intertextual links in order to build social relationships or connections (Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993). For example, participants in conversation may allude to shared experiences to foster a social bond or an insider reference to exclude others. Participation in on-line chat exchanges engages early-adolescents in using intertextual links to foster social interaction (Beach & Lundell, 1997; Lewis & Fabos, 2000). Making intertextual links between disparate text types or genres helps students engage in what Semali and Watts-Pailliotet (1999) define as "intermediality": the ability to construct connections between different sign systems, concepts, and technology tools. Students are engaged in making intertextual links through multi-genre writing about a topic, an approach currently popular in secondary writing instruction (Romano, 2000). Multi-genre writing involves using a range of different types of genres -- reports, poems, letters, diaries, stories, advertisements, field notes, photos, drawings, and so forth -- to explore different aspects of and perspectives on a topic. Connecting these disparate genre types requires the
129
ability to determine how different types of texts yield different perspectives on the same topic or phenomenon. One technology tool that mediates the practice of making these multi-genre intertextual links is hypermedia. Hypermedia functions as a tool by combining hypertext (texts linked together by multilinear nodes) and multimedia (photos, video, art, audio, text, etc.) to produce an interactive media experience for participants (Jonassen, 2000; Landow, 1997). Because hypertext allows participants to choose optional paths through multimedia, participants can both construct and respond to hypermedia interactively. Students often respond positively to hypermedia texts because it is consistent with their everyday experiences with multi-modal environments that combine images, animation, video, music, and texts (Beach & Myers, 2001; Myers & Beach, 2001). Learning to produce and read hypermedia requires new, alternative ways of processing texts (Fastrez, 2001; Rouet & Levonen, 1996). In an essay about the pedagogical implications of this shift towards hypermedia, Bolter (1998) argues that hypermedia challenges the traditional emphasis in literacy instruction on understanding or producing unified, coherent texts based on a definitive, single perspective. He calls for teaching a "rhetoric of expectations and arrivals" (p. 10) that help students understand where certain links may take them and how they should respond to where they arrive. And, given the important role of graphic representations in hypermedia, he posits the need for often-marginalized art and videoproduction instruction to help students respond critically to images. These uses of hypermedia also require students to engage in what Kress and van Leeuwen (1996, 2001) have defined as new modes of verbal and visual communication, requiring an ability to know how verbal and visual texts function to enhance each other's meaning. Producing hypermedia texts using tools such as Storyspace TM, HyperStudioTM, HyperCardTM, and various Web authoring programs, involves defining intertextual and hypertext links between a range of different types or genres of texts (McKillop & Myers, 1999; Myers, Hammett, & McKillop, 1998, 2000).1 These tools serve to mediate the construction of intertextual and hypertextual links (Jonassen, 2000). For example, StoryspaceTM (Bolter, Smith, & Joyce, 2001) provides users with visual maps of written and visual texts linked together with lines; produced hypertexts contain hot-links to other texts. Middle-school (McKillop & Myers, 1999), high school students (Beach & Myers, 2001), and college students (Myers, Hammett, & McKillop, 1998, 2000) employed StoryspaceTM to represent their responses to literature through links between photos, music, video clips, and texts. Analysis of the nature and types of links constructed in these hypermedia productions indicated that the level and sophistication of links varied according to grade level and ability to engage in critical thinking, as well as the social motivation to construct these links within the classroom as an activity system. In one of the studies, 16 seventh graders and 18 preservice teachers used StorySpaceTM to combine original poems, images, and QuickTime TM movies to explain the various literacy devices used in poetry (McKillop & Myers, 1999). The types of links employed were analyzed in terms of their functions: An "iconic function" was used to illustrate another text, an "indexical function" was used to extend a text to show shared meaning, and a "symbolic function" was used to question the meaning of a text. Most of the seventh graders' links served as iconic illustrations of ideas in poems. There were far fewer instances of links reflecting critical analysis, for example, when students juxtaposed texts to generate contested meanings. The undergraduates were more likely to employ links serving a "symbolic function" that involved critical analysis of texts. This study suggests that users employ links for different purposes representing different levels of critical thinking. Other research indicates that, with sufficient training, early adolescents are able to use StoryspaceTM to construct relatively sophisticated links (Patterson, 2000) based on research on American history and culture (http://angelfire.com/mi/patter/america.html). Students created hypertext narratives with links to information about slavery. The results (http://www.npatterson.net/mid.html) suggest that working with
130
StoryspaceTM shifted students away from simply rehashing information about persons to understanding people and events as shaped by historical and cultural forces. Hypermedia can also assist in organizing links around central themes or topics in writing instruction. Analysis of first-year college writing class students' construction of hypertexts indicated that students structured information around central ideas and illustrated those ideas through links to other texts or graphics (Duguay, 1999). Using the hypertext as a tool helped students define links between diverse parts of their hypertext because the links made it visually easier to connect the ideas. Ryan (1999) examined college students' construction of hypermedia links using HyperCardTM to write a "Literary Journal" biography of an American author based on a range of different sources and information about that author's life, as well as comments on other students' work and supplementary material. In contrast to the essay format that often constrains exploration of alternative, conflicting perspectives, the hypertext format fostered exploration of alternative, conflicted perspectives about an author's life that resisted closure. Analysis of the effectiveness of hypertext or hypermedia production requires going beyond comparisons of linear versus nonlinear productions to consider the particular contexts, user characteristics, design options, and types of tasks involved in the production (Rouet & Levonen, 1996). The quality and nature of hypertext links may be a function of participants' sense of the larger object or outcome driving their participation in an activity (Barab & Schatz, 2001). This suggests the need to examine hypertext or hypermedia production in terms of the larger context or activity constituting that production. Posing Questions and Collaborative Exploration of Issues Another literacy practice involves posing questions related to the collaborative, inquiry-based exploration of issues (Beach & Myers, 2001; Short & Harste, 1996; Smithson & Dias, 1996). In teacher/student journal dialogue exchange, teachers pose questions designed to encourage students to elaborate on their answers or explore other perspectives, modeling heuristics for exploring topics (Peyton & Staton, 1993). Over time, students internalize these questions and employ them in their own writing, resulting in increased elaboration in their writing. Synchronous computer-mediated written communication between middle-school students involved in responding to issues portrayed in stories fostered elaboration of responses in responses to peers' questions (Beach & Lundell, 1998). Students were also making intertextual connections to other texts and experiences that served to build social bonds between the students. The success of these exchanges requires the ability to adopt a collaborative, exploratory stance that serves to invite mutual exploration from participants. This requires participants' willingness to be open to entertaining others' beliefs as valid and rational, something that Davidson (1984) refers to as the "principle of charity" (p. 126). As Porter (2001) notes, "because communicators cannot assume shared meanings, they must assume a shared world; if they assume that they share neither a language nor a world, there would be no possibility for communication" (p. 586). It also requires the ability to frame statements of beliefs or opinions as tentative hunches or hypotheses, what Davidson refers to as "passing theories" (p. 45). The concept of "passing theories" refers to the idea that participants are willing to modify their established "prior theories" to be open to entertaining and integrating others' beliefs into one's own beliefs (Dasenbrook, 2001). In classroom discussions of literature, when students framed a new topic in a tentative, exploratory manner, other students were more likely to follow up on that topic than when the topic was framed in a definitive manner (Beach & Phinney, 1998). In the middle-school students' synchronous computer-mediated classroom interaction (Beach & Lundell, 1998), as well as on AOL Buddy Chat exchanges (Lewis & Fabos, 2000), early adolescents learn to adopt a tentative, brainstorming stance; adopting a rigid, hard-line stance is often socially unacceptable in these exchanges. In preservice teachers' on-line discussions, how discussions are initially framed has a strong influence on the level of substantive exchange of ideas (Harrington & Quinn-Leering, 1996).
131
Adopting a collaborative, exploratory stance also involves recognizing differences in social status. Engaging in on-line tutoring requires preservice teachers to balance their status as authority figure with the need to establish a collaborative, working relationship with students (Brecke & Gebhardt, 2001). As Tannen (1984) notes, in this negotiation, participants may use conversation as "symmetrical," to maintain equal status, or, as "asymmetrical," to establish a dominant/subordinate relationship. On-line discussions serve to minimize some of the nonverbal aspects, therefore reducing "asymmetrical" status differences in face-to-face interactions (Walther, 1996). Differences in uses of "asymmetrical" practices may also be related to gender stances (Bergvall & Remlinger, 1996; Gonzales, 2001), with, in some cases, males assuming a more dominant stance (Kramarae & Taylor, 1993). Analysis of differences in college students' engagement with synchronous versus asynchronous exchanges is that, without the time pressure to post messages immediately, participations had more time to reflect on their messages, resulting in longer, more thoughtful comments than in a synchronous mode (Reed et al., 2001). One limitation of on-line exchanges in an asynchronous mode is that participants may simply post messages without explicitly seeking a response or reply, even when an instructor attempts to facilitate discussion (Topper, 2001). Or, participations may never receive a response or reply, leading them to opt out of the discussion. Without models of effective on-line discussion or a sense of obligation to participate in a discussion, participants may not engage in substantive exchange of ideas. All of this suggests that the successful participation in on-line exchanges requires preservice teachers to employ the literacy practice of adopting tentative, exploratory stances and attending to status differences between preservice teachers and students. Adopting Multiple Voices and Perspectives Another basic literacy practice involves adopting multiple voices and perspectives through making "double-voice" intertextual references or evoking or mimicking the languages or styles from other texts or worlds (Bakhtin, 1981; Knoeller, 1998). Speakers and writers employ these intertextual references to establish social relationships and identities (Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993). Through interaction with others, participants construct identities by performing in ways that position them in relation to others' positions -- "it is in the connection to another's response that a performance takes shape" (McNamee, 1996, p. 150). As Bakhtin argued in his concept of "answerability," people's utterances reflect their relationships with others' potential, anticipated reactions to their utterances. In participating with a range of diverse perspectives and voices in a computer-mediated context, students learn to consider alternative perspectives different from their own (Taylor, 1992). The more open students are to experimenting with alternative ways of being and knowing, the more open they are to entertaining alternative values, as opposed to a rigid, monologic perspective on the world (Lewis & Fabos, 2000). Middle-school students engaged in synchronous exchanges employed parodies of peers, teachers, and school discourses, for example, mimicking the pedantic language of textbook "discussion questions" (Beach & Lundell, 1998). This research indicates that a range of different literacy practices can be fostered through uses of technology tools. This raises the question as to whether technology tools associated with on-line exchanges and hypermedia production can be used to foster various literacy practices involved in a project in which preservice teachers were working with middle-school students. PRESERVICE ENGLISH TEACHERS' PARTICIPATION IN A CO-INQUIRY MULTI-GENRE WRITING PROJECT This research project examined the following questions related to preservice teachers' uses of technology tools to acquire various literacy practices involved in working with middle-school students in a multigenre writing project.
132
The participants in this project were 27 preservice English teachers enrolled in a composition-methods course taught by Beach and an instructional technology course taught by Doering in the Fall Semester, 2000 at the University of Minnesota. Preservice teachers (hereafter "teachers") in the composition methods course learned various strategies for engaging in inquiry-projects and for teaching multi-genre writing. The purpose of the instructional technology course was to help teachers acquire a set of technology tools they could employ in teaching English. In conjunction with these courses, participants were engaged in a semester-long practicum experience in a magnate middle school that draws a highly diverse student population from a wide range of both urban and suburban districts in the St. Paul, Minnesota area. The school curriculum is organized around interdisciplinary inquiry projects in which students are engaged in constructivist exploration of topics across different subjects. The students represented a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds and ability levels, with many students testing at a relatively low reading level. The teachers each worked during weekly visits with one or two students in each of two different class periods. A Multi-Genre Writing Project The teachers and middle school students worked together on a multi-genre project involving writing a biographical sketch, a newspaper report, and a narrative about famous people ranging from Martin Luther King Jr. to Princess Diana. They employed Inspiration TM as a tool for creating visual maps of different aspects of their writing and links between these aspects. They conducted research about their person using the Web and other sources based on questions posed about the person, generating information they used to write a biographical sketch. Students then wrote a newspaper article about some aspect of the person's life employing ClarisWorksTM to create a news article format. The project concluded with students writing a fictional narrative about their person in which they adopted that person's or another person's first-person point of view to describe some event in the person's life. This required students to imagine the person's subjective experience in an event, along with descriptions of dialogue; setting; and the person's feelings, attitudes, and beliefs about the event. For the final presentations of their multi-genre projects, the students shared the results of their work in short 10-minute presentations in small groups. Students employed a range of multi-modal presentations acting out a scene from their lives, a skit, interviewing the person, a piece of art in the person's form, an overhead, slide presentation, news report/sportscast, and dramatic reading. Hypermedia Production As part of their instructional technology class, the teachers created their own hypermedia production based on their students' multi-genre writing. They used StoryspaceTM (Bolter, Smith, & Joyce, 2001) as a tool to develop and link multimedia material within windows that can include or be embedded in other hierarchical windows. (Given the lack of access to computers in the middle school and the expense of the StoryspaceTM software, the teachers, in discussion with their middle-school students, developed the hypermedia versions of the multi-genre writing at their University site. In an ideal situation, the teachers and the students would have developed the hypermedia at the middle school site.) Constructing the hypermedia production to share with their students involved teachers in a constructivist approach to teaching in that they had to draw on the information about the individual to construct their own interpretation of the person's life through making intertextual links between texts, images, and sounds. This change in learning when using hypermedia sometimes causes problems as learners struggle to integrate information, themes, and stances into a hypertext document (Jonassen, 2000). To explore their knowledge as related to their audience, they initially developed concept maps using InspirationTM to represent their knowledge prior to creating the hypermedia production. These concept maps were used as guides to help the teachers choose what links they believed were important as well as what types of media they may have wanted to employ (graphics, video, sounds) to represent their knowledge in StorySpaceTM.
133
The hypermedia productions were analyzed by the investigators in terms of the types of texts -- images, written texts, sounds, and so forth -- teachers included in their productions, as well as the types of links they employed in connecting these texts. Web-Based Teacher/Student Communication As part of a federally-funded technology-development program, an asynchronous Web-based teacher/student communication site was created to foster communication between the teachers and students during the time when they were not working with each other in school. To address potential security and privacy issues, the middle school students would click on the name of their assigned preservice teacher and then engage in conversation about their projects or personal matters. Only the pupils assigned to the teachers could access those particular teachers. Because the communications were asynchronous, teachers and the middle school students could post and respond to questions relating to their cooperation on the project at any time. These exchanges served to create a sense of "situatedness," commonality, interdependency, and infrastructure essential for creating a computer-mediated community of practice (Hung & Chen, 2001). The middle school students and the preservice teachers were able to participate in the "sociocultural practices of a community" (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 29), as they were situated in a rich context of practice that involved sharing information about each other while working on completing the biography project. They were therefore sharing in a common activity that required their joint efforts in completing the project. They were dependent on each other: the students providing the materials for the projects and the teachers providing the technical support involved in the hypermedia production. And, they were operating within an infrastructure that involved a sense of accountability to completing the project. Transcripts of the Web-based communications were analyzed in terms of the amount of participation as determined by the number of comments employed, defined in terms of a complete "thought unit," a procedure employed in research on on-line communication (Schallert, Reed, Dodson, Benton, & Boardman, 2001; Reed et al., 2001). Each "thought-unit" was defined as constituting reference to one particular idea or thought. A constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was employed to guide the development of the significant categories and patterns in the data in terms of the types of topics discussed and the literacy practices employed. The types of topics and practices were then cross-checked with an experienced English teacher for further verification (Merriam, 1998). The interjudge-agreement rate was 92 % confirming the selection of the topics and practices. WebCT TM Bulletin-Board Discussion The teachers also participated in an asynchronous discussion on the course WebCT TM site. For this site, teachers were asked by the course instructor to make at least one posting a week; they were told that they could respond to topics or issues in the course discussions, readings, or practicum experiences, as well as other topics outside the course. Other than these minimal requirements, the instructor did not attempt to direct the discussion through specific assignments. The instructor hoped that through participation in this bulletin board exchange, students would gain some experience with uses of a bulletin board as a learning tool for use in their own future teaching. The instructor also hoped that the students would acquire an understanding of how writing is driven by social purposes or needs related to participating in a community constituted through a bulletin board exchange. Transcripts of the WebCT TM discussion were analyzed in terms of the types of literacy practices employed in the exchanges using the same analysis methods employed with analysis of the teacher/student interactions. RESULTS Hypermedia Productions
134
Development of the Initial and Following Nodes Analysis of the hypermedia productions based on the students multi-genre writing projects indicated that 80 % of the teachers began their multimedia development with a picture of the person with links to the "major nodes" or events of the person's life. It was these major events that lent themselves to links where the students explained the person in more detail using various media. For example, one student studying Martin Luther King, Jr. began his multimedia development with a picture of Martin Luther King, Jr. with four links underneath the picture leading to nodes about "Enemies and Resistance," "Awards and Supporters," "Biographical Information," and "Civil Rights Efforts." Each one of these four major nodes had a short written description that explained Martin Luther King, Jr.'s relationship to each node. In the "Civil Rights Efforts" node, the teacher developed five sub-nodes that described Martin Luther King Jr.'s efforts. These nodes were "Sit-in Demonstrations," "Passive Resistance," "Montgomery Bus Boycott," "Writings," and "Marches and Speeches." Within each of these nodes, the teacher used images, texts, or clips to represent the civil rights theme. Within the "Writings" node, the teacher listed and included writings from Martin Luther King, Jr.'s books. These writings were obtained through searching the Internet and incorporated within a separate "exploding" StoryspaceTM node. To represent the "Montgomery Bus Boycott," the teacher decided to use a video clip she also obtained from the Internet. And to represent the "Passive Resistance" theme, she scanned in pictures that were obtained through a family trip. She further expanded the node as she made links to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s quote in Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954-63 (Branch, 1988) where he stated, "We're going to work with grim and bold determination -- to gain justice on buses in this city." The quote was followed by a timeline to illustrate the relationship between Dr. King's request for justice and the events that followed. Through the development of these links, the teachers were placing a wide range of media texts into a historical/cultural context within their productions that allowed them to adopt a critical stance. The teacher showed a clear pattern of critical thinking as nodes illustrated the teacher's thinking surrounding the topics John F. Kennedy, Fidel Castro, Cuba, Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Links to text and images were developed to show how relations between the United States and Cuba worsened when Castro's government took control of oil refineries owned by American and British firms. This node development was further refined as images and sounds were employed to show when Eisenhower granted the CIA permission to secretly train Cuban exiles for an invasion of Cuba and how Kennedy learned of this operation 9 days after his election. The analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis was shown as students linked from the Cuban Missile Crisis node to a map showing where Cuba's missiles were located and the extent in miles they could have reached within the interior United States. This is just one example how teachers integrated a wide range of media texts into their productions, frequently selecting texts most readily available from the Internet using multiple sources from both United States and world perspectives. Other teachers chose to limit their biography to detailed portrayals of a specific period in a person's life because information about that period was more available and they preferred to develop a specific aspect of a person's life. As one teacher indicated in her learning log, she would rather research the person's life "using depth, rather than breadth, and develop an understanding that was more meaningful." All teachers used digital pictures copied from the Internet or scanned from books. Thirty percent of the teachers also used QuickTimeTM movies obtained from the Internet that showed the event in detail. As they indicated in their learning logs, teachers believed that these video clips effectively conveyed ideas they wanted to portray about their person. In addition to pictures and movies, 20% of the teachers used sound clips that they prerecorded using SoundEdit Pro TM or that they captured from the Internet to add narration to their project. Through these hypermedia productions based on the students' writing, the teachers were using multimedia links to model uses of technology for their students as a tool for portraying a range of different biographical elements of their subjects' lives. Because the clips were extracted from related historical or
135
cultural contexts and events, teachers were going beyond simply presenting biographical information to examining individuals' lives as constituted by participation in larger historical and cultural contexts. Drawing on material portraying these contexts, for example, the world of the segregated South in portraying Martin Luther King, teachers represented individuals in terms of the forces shaping their lives. This led them to interrogate individuals' practices as challenging or failing to acknowledge these prevailing historical or cultural forces. For example, students who looked at the Montgomery Bus Boycott did not look only at why Rosa Parks did not give up her seat, but they made links to the larger activity system reflecting the many events surrounding the Civil Rights Movement such as the Civil Rights Act, Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, and Lyndon B. Johnson being elected president. Analysis of the Links Employed The 27 projects indicated that the most common link use was directly from a picture or words placed under a picture that described themes for analysis. For example, when placing a picture of the "Montgomery Bus Boycott" in a node, a reader would click on the picture to move to an explanation of the boycott and then link back to another node with another theme when finished. Sixty-five percent of the teachers used this approach of simply linking images and texts without use of hypertext links from individual words. The other 35% of the teachers used hypertext links in which certain words were linked to other words or texts. One teacher described the life of John F. Kennedy and made links to words that he found most difficult for a reader to outside nodes that either described the word through text, a graphic, or both. These were words teachers believed would improve the students' reading experience. Of the 35% that used hypertext links for development, over 80% of them had five or more links within each biographical description. The words that were most commonly linked were those that the teacher believed would provide background knowledge for readers assumed to have no previous knowledge of the person. For example, the links in the nodes on John F. Kennedy included the Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs, Marilyn Monroe, Fidel Castro, and Camelot. These words were linked to additional nodes that explained John F. Kennedy's relationship to each of these nodes. This reflects a rhetorical awareness of their middle-school student audience's level of prior knowledge. While some of the links represented what McKillop & Myers (1999) describe as "iconic" or "indexical" functions in that they were used simply to illustrate a text, the teachers more commonly employed links for a "symbolic function" to interrogate or challenge idealized or mythic biographical versions of individuals' lives. This demonstrates that creating hypertext links as a literacy practice can contribute to developing a critical stance. In making connections, teachers created dissonant comparisons between positive versus negative aspects of an individual's life, connections that implied contradictions or problematic aspects of their lives. For example, links to the "Bay of Pigs" or "Marilyn Monroe" served to challenge the idealized image of John F. Kennedy. Creating these links juxtaposed disparate texts in ways that reflected a critical analysis of individuals. Web-Based Communications Between Teachers and Students Analysis of the Web-based communication between teachers and students indicated high levels of participation. The students expressed a high level of engagement with this site, expressing disappointment when they did not receive responses from their teachers. Given the infrequency of face-to-face meetings during the practicum, this Web-based communication served to enhance the quality of teacher/student relationships and provide for frequent collaboration on the project. Through their exchanges, teachers and students were acquiring a number of literacy practices. Building Personal Relationships Analysis of the Web-based communication between teachers and students indicated that the teachers initiated all the comments on the asynchronous discussion board. The initial conversations during the first two weeks of the semester typically began with three-to-five sentence personal anecdotes that served to help establish a personal relationship between the teacher and students. The interaction and writing style during these initial exchanges was relatively formal.
136
Many of the middle school students described how they enjoyed the ability to communicate on-line to build a better relationship with the teacher before they started the co-inquiry multimedia project. One student said, "because we're able to communicate online, it was easier to get to know the practicum teacher because it gave me more time to think about what I would want to know from them and how I might want to answer their questions." Another student said, "I was always excited to check the discussion area when I got home so I could see if my practicum teacher had sent me a message back." The middle-school students expressed some disappointment to their teachers when the teacher did not respond immediately to their posting, an indication of their interest in hearing from their teacher. In the following example, a teacher and student used the discussion board to establish a personal relationship. Getting to know you From: Middle School Student A Date: 9/13/00 Time: 2:12:02 PM Comments 1. How old are you? 2. What subject of teaching do you want to teach? 3. Why do you want to teach that subject? 4. When did you decide to be a teacher? 5. Whats your favorite animal? Why? 6. Whats your favorite color? Why? Re: Getting to know you From: Teacher A Date: 9/13/00 Time: 6:00:47 PM Comments This year I hit the big 3-0. I am sure to you 30 sounds really old, but in some ways I feel like high school ended just moments ago. I am planning to teach high school English. My 1st college degree was pre-med, but I realized by the time I was ready to graduate that I didn't really want to become a doctor. I wanted to become a teacher. Both of my parents teach, so perhaps it rubbed off on me somehow. Surprisingly, both of them told me not to go into teaching. Why English? I think it is because I love reading and write fairly well and want to help others get enjoyment from these two things. Also, I want to stay in touch with young adults and look forward to having summers off to relax and spend time with family. My favorite animal...dogs. My very favorite animal... my old silver schnauzer named Gretzky. My family had to put him to sleep a couple of years ago because his kidneys were failing, but now we have his son Max. Gretzky is probably one of the coolest things about my life so far. Favorite color...lately it has been orange. I used to hate orange but now I really like the brightness and energy it emits. I have a concert t-shirt from the Oasis show that is orange and I really want to order a pair of orange leather pants from a catalog, but perhaps that would be a bit much. Now tell me some things about you. What is your name? If you could go to another country where would you go and why? Who is your favorite musician? What do you do for fun? Nice chatting with you.
137
These exchanges served the important function of building a social relationship between the teacher and student, a relationship essential for both their face-to-face and on-line collaboration. When responses were elicited on research progress, 85% of sharing included Internet addresses where students had found information they believed could contribute to the final project. Teachers and students were learning the literacy practice of using intertextual links to establish social relationships (Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993). In the example above, the teacher makes references to experiences with pets, t-shirts, and a rock band, references that serve to build a social relationship based on what the teacher assumes are familiar, shared experiences. And, in sharing Internet addresses, teachers and students were defining ways to establish a social working relationship. Moreover, in formulating their messages rhetorically within an early-adolescent's zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978), teachers were learning the literacy practice of framing communication in ways that are consistent with their audience's developmental level. Planning and Development As illustrated by the initial example of work on the Princess Diana project, as the semester progressed, the conversations focused more on planning and developing the multi-genre writing project. While the students normally posed a topic that was directly related to the media and the popular culture, many of the teachers encouraged students to select topics that they found, as one teacher noted, "would be more meaningful and easier to obtain quality information" on. During these exchanges, the sentences became much shorter than during the initial exchanges, with incomplete one to two sentence responses. The interaction and writing style also became more informal as participants were mutually engaged in a shared activity designed to produce a final report. The discussion board served to support the teachers and students in sharing ideas about the content of their multi-genre writing project, and this sharing involved literacy practices such as posing questions. In the exchanges, teachers frequently posed questions to students regarding further elaboration about their projects, questions that they may then have internalized to think about different aspects of their projects. In this case, the teachers were learning to stretch the borders of the students' zone of proximal development by challenging them to develop novel ways of thinking about their writing topic. The assignment of working with two to four students, each of whom was creating a different project was a bit overwhelming for the teachers. The teachers often did not have time during their face-to-face meetings to respond to all of their students' questions. They and their stuents therefore used the discussion board to address questions related to the projects. The discussion board also helped the teachers monitor the students' progress on the project to insure that they completed it on time. Some of the teachers commented on the convenience of being able to send multiple messages to the middle school students and determine their progress through their responses. As one teacher noted, "I am able to keep in constant communication with them up to the days I meet with them. We are then able to get much more accomplished as we have been communicating and know what the plan is when we will see each other." In sharing message, teachers and students were also creating a paper trail that allowed them to refer back to decisions about work on their projects. In the exchanges about the multi-genre project, the teachers were more likely to dominate the discussion. Seventy percent of the conversation focused on direction and control comments where the teachers were guiding the students in their research, asking them about the progress they were making on research, or reminding them what was due the next time they were able to meet. One possible explanation of this disparity was that the students had minimal access to computers in their school and simply did not have the time to write extensive answers. While students could also access the site from their homes, many students did not have computer access in their homes. Another factor may have been that some students had minimal writing skills, limiting the amount they were able to write. The fact that the students wrote longer entries when they were discussing their own lives and shorter entries when they were discussing their projects suggests that teachers considering employing this tool need to include a focus on autobiographical topics, as well as topics related to tasks.
138
Analysis of the exchange based on gender differences indicated that male and female students who collaborated with female teachers had a 35% greater quantity of discussions overall than with male teachers. Students were also 52% more likely to employ what was categorized as "personal" topics with female teachers than with male teachers. There was also a difference within the student group; female students communicated more frequently and also contributed more project-related information than their male counterparts. Analyzing all of the asynchronous discussions, teachers employed 73% of "thought units," while students contributed only 27%. Overall, the focus of the discussions moved from initial personal conversations to project-related conversation during the middle of the semester to personal conversation at the end of the semester. In the middle of the semester, the fact that the participants were mutually engaged in working on the biography project provided some reason for sharing messages regarding their joint efforts on completing the project. From an activity theory perspective (Cole, 1996; Engestrom, 1987), participating in a shared activity designed to achieve the outcome of completing the project provided a reason for using the exchanges: The teachers and students recognized the value of a technology tool for accomplishing their purposes. They learned to perceive the value of Web-based communication as a tool for engaging in collaborative co-inquiry. Rather than having to wait for their weekly visits, they could contact each other at any time regarding issues associated with completing the project. This suggests the importance of organizing Web-based communication around a shared activity. Teachers' WebCTTM Bulletin Board Communication Analysis of the topics addressed in the WebCTTM class bulletin board exchanges between teachers indicated that teachers used the exchanges to discuss a range of different issues, particularly those associated with education: teachers as role models, vouchers, censorship, testing, and so forth. And, teachers shared their experiences with working in the middle-school practicum, as well as personal experiences. In doing so, they employed a number of literacy practices that served to foster productive exchanges such as spontaneous thinking, inviting others' participation, engaging in word/role play, and self reflection. Display of Spontaneous Thinking Teachers used the postings to openly think through a topic or issue, creating a written record of their unfolding thought. Rather than formulate their ideas prior to writing and then write an organized statement, teachers were spontaneously writing out their thoughts in a freewriting mode. They would then entertain alternative, even contradictory perspectives as they formulated their thoughts in a posting. For example, in discussing the issue of teaching expository versus narrative forms to middle-school students, one teacher, responding to another teacher's belief in the value of narrative writing, noted, As we discussed in class earlier, there is clearly something going on with my middle-school student that makes the narrative form a richer expressive medium for him. I will, of course, take a look at your link. Also, I would like to see more of the research on this. The stuff we've gotten in the program points specifically to class-differentiated processing. But your post suggests that there is also research pointing to a broader conclusion. But before I do I wanted to affirm your idea about narrative processes superseding linear logical processes in decision-making. I know for myself that the work that I do when I am reflecting on a difficult problem often resembles a conversation more than a reasoned, bulleted list. I wonder where conversational dialogue fits in this paradigm? The spontaneous nature of his thinking is evident in the fact that he poses questions to himself ("I wonder where conversational dialogue fits in this paradigm?") which then stimulate him to further thinking about the issue. He also openly reports that "I shouldn't say more 'til I've read some," implying that he will continue to think further about the topic.
139
The fact that these teachers explicitly shared how they are grappling with an issue provided other participants with a window on the reasoning employed, allowing others to react to that reasoning. The informality that characterized much of exchanges provided a window into how teachers were thinking about issues, revealing the conflicting perspectives shaping their decisions. While such informality is certainly found in face-to-face conversations, the Web-based exchanges allow participants to reflect on written records of each other's thinking, reflecting that leads to substantive reactions often lacking in faceto-face conversation (Walther, 1996). Inviting Others' Participation The teachers commended each other for their comments and invited others to participate or to respond to their postings. The positive comments and invitations implied that they valued the need for others' perspectives as useful, rational beliefs about a topic, an enactment of Davidson's (1984) principle of charity. For example, in discussing the topic of future employment in the job market, one student reacted to another student's description of an interview with a school administrator about her hiring practices: I liked what you said here. First of all, way to ask a relevant questions [sic]. Along with finding hope in her answer, I'd like to pose an equally practical question. When and how should we be going about searching out opportunities for our own future employment. I am lucky to have a few friends in high places when it comes to the job-search issue, but I think it would be wonderful to be getting some direction on this subject in class. Anyone else have any insights or information for me??? By framing their postings in a tentative, exploratory manner -- as "passing theories" (Davidson, 1984) -teachers were more likely to evoke responses than if they posted messages in a definitive mode. Adopting a tentative stance invited or evoked the need for further verification -- agreements or disagreements -from their peers. For example, in discussing the topic of grading writing, one teacher formulated his position on the need to provide feedback during the entire composing process: So, my two cents: I kind of see grading as a process that begins when the paper is assigned and ends when we hand back that last draft. Plus, it bears great weight (some insist that grading should be done away with in comp classes) in terms of the whole process, their process, of addressing and completing a writing assignment. Does this make sense to anyone? In his positing, he hedges his comments with words such as "my two cents" and "kind of see." He also notes that others hold different perspectives on grading. And, his final invitation, "Does this make sense to anyone?" implies that he himself is trying to "make sense" out of his own ideas about evaluating writing. His invitation evoked a number of reactions in which teachers mutually explored the issue of evaluating writing. Again, the informality of a Web-based exchange served to encourage participants to adopt more tentative, exploratory stances that invite or evoke reactions from others (Beach & Phinney, 1998). Engaging in Word/Role Play The teachers also frequently engaged in "double-voiced" word play (Bakhtin, 1981), mimicking or parodying persons or discourses. Within the course, the teachers had also participated in a large-group role-play based on the 2000 Presidential election in which they adopted various roles and exchanged written memos with each other. They compared their WebCTTM exchange with this role-play session in terms of using written texts to engage in verbal play through writing. As one teacher noted, The experiences with WebCT has [sic] really opened up my ideas on communication and possibilities thereinI think both WebCT and the role play offer something priceless to learning, i.e., play. It's learning of and appreciation for multiplicity. There were so many contexts overlapping in that classroom that multiple uses and abuses are inevitable, and, I think, productive. The same is true for the WebCT.
140
This dialogic word-play included intertextual references to stances and discourses operating in the group and the teacher education program. By mimicking or parodying the language of these stances or discourses, student were formulating oppositional stances reflecting their own beliefs and ideas about teaching and learning. All of this served to enhance their appreciation for the complexity of teaching. Self-Reflection on the Process Teachers also explicitly reflected on or described their stances or attitudes adopted in their postings. In some cases, they apologized for repeating themselves, making overlyassertive statements, or sharing complaints. For example, one student noted: "Whoops, I just browsed back up the thread and realized I'm repeating myself!" After posting a long message, one student commented, "Sorry to drop such a wide load here on the CT, but it was cathartic." They also valued the fact that they could openly express their opinions within their group without necessarily being concerned about offending others. One student noted, "could you just imagine if we were afraid of speaking our souls for fear of offending someone. Our class would be pretty damn quiet if that were the case." An international student from Korea noted that the site served to foster development of open expression, something she finds lacking in her Korean student peers: "we are too concerned about hurting others people's feelings to think out loudI think Korean students have to learn to be more assertive in order to exchange their thoughts." She noted that she was more intimidated by-face-to-face large-group discussion and less intimidated by sharing her emotional concerns on the bulletin board. Teachers also noted some of the difficulties specific to participating on a bulletin board discussion. One teacher commented on the difficulty of conveying her attitudes: "I don't know exactly how or why, but threaded discussions transform words. Unless the writer is incredibly skilled, the tone is hard (if not impossible) to communicate. Perhaps it is the instantaneous nature of it that is its main draw and downfall? Her comment reflects one of the limitations of on-line communication: the lack of the nonverbal components inherent in face-to-face conversation (Walther, 1996). Construction of a Student-Driven Site The teachers therefore used their exchanges on the WebCTTM bulletin board discussion as a tool for sharing and coping with various issues associated with teaching. Teachers could garner perspectives and advice on issues from a range of different perspectives. They then began to value the site as a support system for coping with problems. All of this occurred with little or no deliberate intervention by the instructor, who assumed that by having the teachers pose their own questions and problems, they were more likely to perceive the bulletin board as driven by their own framing of issues and problems. While there is considerable debate about the need for instructor control and intervention in on-line discussions (Topper, 2001), this suggests that for some groups, such intervention may not be necessary. It may be the case that when participants perceive a site as constructed primarily by themselves, they experience a sense of commonality and interdependency (Hung & Chen, 2001) not found in a teacher-led site. SUMMARY The results of this study indicate that the teachers and middle-school students were employing the technology tools of hypermedia production and Web-based communication to engage in literacy practices involved in their multi-genre writing project and in communicating with each other (see Table 1). These tools served to mediate the uses of various literacy practices within the larger activity system of teacher education, whose object is to assist teachers to acquire those practices involved in working effectively with students.
141
Table 1. Literacy Practices Through Technology Tools Literacy Practice defining intertextual connections posing questions & collaborative exploration of issues adopting multiple voices and perspectives Adopting a collaborative, inquiry stance Technology Tool(s) hypermedia based tool = storyspace, hyperstudio, Web development, inspiration computer-mediated written communication between students and teachers - synchronous or asynchronous asynchronous computer-mediated written communication between students asynchronous computer-mediated classroom interaction
The teachers used the InspirationTM and StoryspaceTM tools to define intertextual and hypertextual connections between the texts included in their multi-genre writing project. These hypermedia tools allowed teachers to combine written texts, images, sounds, and video to portray the characteristics of a person in a Web-based production for sharing with others, including their students. Teachers and students learned to employ links to historical and cultural contexts leading them to critical interrogation of biographical information (McKillop & Myers, 1999). They were also learning the literacy practice of using intertextual links to establish social connections with others. Knowing how to communicate in a multi-modal format using computer tools is becoming an essential literacy practice (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996, 2001). Students also need to know why they are using these tools to achieve certain objects or outcomes in an activity (Cole, 1996; Wertsch, 1998). They are more likely to acquire an understanding of the uses of these tools as participants in a community of practice organized around a shared activity such as the biography co-inquiry project described in this study. The teachers and students used the Web-based communication site as a tool for establishing social relationships and for planning their multi-genre writing projects. This site provided teachers with continuous, on-going interaction with their students, something often lacking in practicum experiences with infrequent school visits. The written exchange allowed teachers to model a range of literacy practices -- building personal relationships through intertextual links, mutual planning and development based on shared information and question-asking -- practices students then demonstrated in their own responses. One problematic aspect of the exchange was the fact that the teachers dominated the interactions by a ratio of four to one. While this may have been a function of student access to computers or their level of writing ability, it may also have been simply a function of novice teachers' working with students for the first time in their careers in a relatively unfamiliar computer-mediated site. There were also marked gender differences, with female teachers eliciting more participation from students than male teachers through uses of "personal" connections, suggesting the need for teachers of both genders to employ such connections. This suggests the need for training teachers to conduct on-line exchanges as equally important to training in leading and facilitating oral discussions. Such training should examine issues of teacher domination, especially as related to gender. And, the training should help teachers define the range of literacy practices students are acquiring through participation in the interaction. Through their participation on the WebCTTM bulletin board, teachers employed the literacy practices of displaying spontaneous thinking, inviting others' participation, adopting an exploratory stance, engaging in word/role play, and reflecting on the process. They were also recognizing how participating in an active, on-line community helped them explore issues and concerns related to education. And, they also perceived the site as constructed through their own participation without the need for instructor direction,
142
enhancing their sense of communality and interdependency (Hung & Chen, 2001) as a community of practice. Given this experience, they may then be more likely to participate in similar Web sites or employ such sites in their own teaching. And, through that participation, they were employing a number of literacy practices that they could model as participants in teacher/student Web-communication. All of this points to ways in which technology serves to mediate both preservice teachers' acquisition of teaching strategies and the development of literacy practices. NOTE 1. One of the issues, however, in the uses of these commercial hypermedia tools is that of access. StoryspaceTM and HyperStudioTM, for example, are relatively expensive commercial products. Furthermore, sophisticated hypermedia production often requires access to high-end computers, scanners, or digital recording equipment. These financial considerations remain a major challenge for implementing wide-spread use of these tools in schools.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Aaron Doering is a Lecturer of Instructional Systems and Technology at the University of Minnesota. His research focuses on preservice teacher education with emphasis on teaching and learning with hypermedia and geographic information systems. His most recent publications include Impact of Asynchronous Discussion on Preservice Teacher Education. E-mail: adoering@umn.edu Richard Beach is Professor of English Education at the University of Minnesota. He is the co-author of Inquiry-Based English Instruction and Writing to Learn, Using Journals in the Classroom; and author of A Teacher's Introduction to Reader Response Theories. His reasearch focuses on response to literature and the media. E-mail: rbeach@umn.edu REFERENCES Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. Barab, S., & Schatz, S. (2001). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize theory. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Beach, R., & Lundell, D. (1998). Early adolescents' use of computer-mediated communication in writing and reading. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 93-112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Beach, R., & Myers, J. (2001). Inquiry-based English instruction: Engaging students in life and literature. New York: Teachers College Press. Beach, R., & Phinney, M. (1998). Framing literary text worlds through real-world social negotiations. Linguistics and Education, 9(2), 159-198. Bergvall, V., & Remlinger, K. (1996). Reproduction, resistance and gender in educational discourse: The role of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 7(4), 453-479. Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in a classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 304-333.
143
Bolter, J. D. (1998). Hypertext and the question of visual literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 3-14). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bolter, J. D., Smith, J., & Joyce, M. (2001). Storyspace. Cambridge, MA: Eastgate Systems Inc. Branch, T. (1988). Parting the waters: American in the King years, 1954-63. New York: Simon and Schuster. Brecke, C., & Gebhardt, N. (2001). Fear and teaching on the hybrid network. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Baltimore, MD. Bruce, B. C., & Davidson, J. (1996). An inquiry model for literacy across the curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(3), 281-300. Bruce, B. C., & Easley, J. A., Jr. (2000). Emerging communities of practice: Collaboration and communication in action research. Educational Action Research, 8(2), 243-259. Bruce, B. C., & Levin, J. (1997). Educational technology: Media for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 79-101. Clift, R., Mullen, L., Levin, J., & Larson, A. ( 2001). Technologies in contexts: Implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 33-50. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cole, M. (1999). Cultural psychology: Some general principles and a concrete example. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 87-106). New York: Cambridge University Press. Dasenbrook, R. W. (2001). Truth and consequences: Intentions, conventions, and the new thematics. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Davidson, D. (1984). Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. Duguay, K. (1999). The pedagogical and electronic contexts of composing in hypermedia. In C. DeWitt, & K. Strasma (Eds.), Contexts, Intertexts, and Hypertexts (pp. 15-38). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. [Online]. Available at http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/ Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm Estes, T., Bronack, S., & Schoeny, Z. (1999). Creating optimized learning environments: A course using interactive Web elements. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, San Antonio, TX. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Fastrez, P. (2001). Characteristic(s) of hypermedia and how they relate to knowledge. Education Media International, 38(2/3), 101-110. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing. Gonzales, M. (2001). Networking gender, voice, and technology. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Baltimore, MD. Harrington, H., & Quinn-Leering, K. (1996). Considering teaching's consequences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 591-607.
144
Hung, D., & Chen, D. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought and learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the design of Web-based e-learning. Education Media International, 38(1), 3-12. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall. Knoeller, C. (1998). Voicing ourselves: Whose words we use when we talk about books. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Kramarae, C., & Taylor, H. (1993). Women and men on electronic networks: A conversation or a monlogue? In H. Taylor, C. Kramarae, & D. Ebben (Eds.), Women, information technology and scholarship (pp. 52-61). Urbana, IL: Center for Advanced Study. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York: Routledge. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodel discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold. Landow, G. P. (1997). Hypertext 2.0: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, C., & Fabos, B. (2000). But will it work in the heartland? A response and illustration. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(5), 462-470. McKillop, A. M., & Myers, J. (1999). The pedagogical and electronic contexts of composing in hypermedia. In S. DeWitt & K. Strasma (Eds.), Contexts, intertexts, and hypertexts (pp. 65-116). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. McNamee, S. (1996). Therapy and identity construction in a postmodern worlds. In D. Grodin & T. Lindlof (Eds.), Constructing the self in a mediated world (pp. 141-155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Myers, J., & Beach, R. (2001). Hypermedia authoring as critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(6), 538-546. Myers, J., Hammett, R., & McKillop, A. M. (1998). Opportunities for critical literacy and pedagogy in student-authored hypermedia. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 63-78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Myers, J., Hammett, R., & McKillop, A. M. (2000). Connecting, exploring, and exposing the self in hypermedia projects. In M. Gallego & S. Hollingsworth (Eds.), What counts as literacy: Challenging the school standard (pp. 85-105). New York: Teachers College Press. Patterson, N. (2000). Weaving a narrative: From teens to string to hypertext. Voices from the Middle, 7(3), 41-47. Peyton, J., & Staton, J. (1993). Dialogue journals in the multilingual classroom: Building language fluency and writing skills through writing interaction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
145
Porter, K. (2001). A pedagogy of charity: Donald Davidson and the student-negotiated composition classroom. College Composition and Communication, 52(4), 574-611. Reed, J., Boardman, A., Coward, F., Beth, A., Benton, R., Dodson, M., Kim, M., & Schallert, D. (2001). Perceptions of psychological engagment when technology enters the classroom. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX. Romano, T. (2000). Blending genre, altering style. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Rouet, J., & Levonen, J. (1996). Studying and learning with hypertext: Empirical studies and their implications. In J. Rouet, J. Levonen, A. Dillon, & R. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 9-24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504-554. Ryan, G. (1999). "Epistemic Conversations: Creating Socratic Dialogue in Hypertext," In S. DeWitt & K. Strasma (Eds.), Contexts, intertexts, and hypertexts (pp. 65-116). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Schallert, D., Reed, J., Dodson, M., Benton, R., & Boardman, A. (2001). What does it mean to be psychologically engaged in an electronically- mediated classroom discussion. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Semali, L., & Watts-Pailliotet, A. (1999). Introduction: What is intermediality and why study it in U.S. Classrooms. In L. Semali & A. Watts-Pailliotet (Eds.), Intermediality (pp. 1-30). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Short, K., & Harste, J. (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and inquirers, 2nd ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Smithson, J., & Dias, F. (1996). Arguing for a collective voice: Collaborative strategies in problemoriented conversation. Text, 16(2), 251-268. Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Taylor, P. (1992). Social epistemic rhetoric and chaotic discourse. In G. Hawisher & P. LeBlanc (Eds.), Re-imagining computers and composition (pp. 131-148). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Thompson, J., & Nay, F. (1999). Distance interaction through the World Wide Web in graduate teacher education: A follow-up analysis of student perceptions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Assoication, Chicago, IL. Topper, A. (2001). Merging technology, teaching and learning: Developing and using learning environments supported by technology. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of high psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
146

Vol 6 Num 3

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Vol 6 Num 3

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Search LLT:

Volume 6, Number 3 September 2002

Technology and Teacher Education Feature Articles

About Language Learning & Technology

Sponsors, Board, Editors, and Designers

Advisory and Editorial Boards

Information for Contributors

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/editors.html

May 2002, Volume 6, Number 3 pp. 1

FROM THE EDITORS

Mark Warschauer & Dorothy Chun

Copyright 2002, ISSN 1094-3501

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/speceditors/

May 2002, Volume 6, Number 3 pp. 1-4

FROM THE SPECIAL ISSUE EDITORS

Copyright 2002, ISSN 1094-3501

Yong Zhao and Seppo Tella

From the Special Issue Editors

Language Learning & Technology

Yong Zhao and Seppo Tella

From the Special Issue Editors

Language Learning & Technology

Yong Zhao and Seppo Tella

From the Special Issue Editors

Language Learning & Technology

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/net/

September 2002, Volume 6, Number 3 pp. 4-7

ON THE NET Foreign Language Teacher Education Resources

Copyright 2002, ISSN 1094-3501

Jean W. Le Loup and Robert Ponterio

Language Learning & Technology

Jean W. Le Loup and Robert Ponterio

Language Learning & Technology

Jean W. Le Loup and Robert Ponterio

Language Learning & Technology

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6numX3/emerging/

September 2002, Volume 6, Number 3 pp. 10-14

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES Technology for Prospective Language Teachers

Copyright 2002, ISSN 1094-3501

Language Learning & Technology

Language Learning & Technology

Language Learning & Technology

Language Learning & Technology

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/news/

September 2002, Volume 6, Number 3 pp. 13-18

NEWS FROM SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS

University of Hawai'i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC)

Copyright 2002, ISSN 1094-3501

News from Sponsoring Organizations

Language Learning & Technology

News from Sponsoring Organizations

Australian Technology Enhanced Language Learning Consortium (ATELL)

Apprentissage des Langues et Systmes d'Information et de Communication (ALSIC)

Language Learning & Technology

News from Sponsoring Organizations

Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota (CARLA)

The Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)

Language Learning & Technology

News from Sponsoring Organizations

Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO)

Language Learning & Technology

News from Sponsoring Organizations