CALL-ing the learner into focus:
Towards a learner-centred model for CALL
Debra Hoven
Abstract
With the extension of the presence of computers in learning environments to include computer-mediated communications (CMC), such as electronic mail or the Internet, we must now devise models for computer-enhanced pedagogy to encompass these new interlocutors (Chapelle, 1994). In devising such models, it is important that we keep in mind the theories and findings from mainstream second language pedagogy. The presence of new technology and new means of using it entail the development of new models. However, the introduction of multimedia and communication capabilities to computers in language learning does not necessarily imply that a whole new set of pedagogical models needs to be devised. Rather, we should look to findings in more ‘traditional’ areas such as classroom interaction, task and instructional design, self-directed learning, and the use of audio and video in language learning to ground our models of ‘good practice’ in the areas of multimedia and CMC in language learning.
In the model and examples presented here, the framework for the allocation of control to learners is provided in software by structuring and presenting the available language learning resources in a manner that is easy for learners to navigate, while at the same time providing the information necessary for making informed decisions about their learning paths. Sociocultural pedagogy provides the framework and the rationale for incorporating learning styles and strategies into the conceptualisation of both task and instructional design.
Keywords: learning styles, learning strategies, learner-centred instructional design, sociocultural pedagogy
1.0 Introduction
Over
the past several years, an increasing number of multimedia language learning
software packages has been developed and marketed, while, to date, only
preliminary attempts have been made to evaluate the effectiveness of such
software in general, or of more specific features within the packages which may
or may not contribute to improved learning (Brandl, 1995; Liou, 1995; Bradin,
1996; 1998). Simultaneously, the proliferation of mechanisms for
computer-mediated communication has emphasised the notion of the computer as an
interlocutor in the communication process. Many administrators, teachers,
researchers and users of computers in language learning have asked questions
about the effectiveness of computers in the language learning process
(Pederson, 1987; Luff et al. 1990;
Dunkel, 1987; 1991; Johnson, 1991; Chapelle, 1994). However, as Papert, (1987)
and Chapelle (1994) have pointed out, it is not so much the computer but the
kinds of tasks and activities that learners do on the computer that can make
the difference. As Chapelle comments:
CALL texts are produced in any language learning context where the computer takes an interactive role. Such contexts may be comprised of learners working individually with a computer, of learners working in pairs or larger groups with a computer or multiple connected computers, or of learners working with teachers or other experts. In each of these cases, the participants – one of which is the computer – contribute to an emerging text which is affected by the nature of the context and which both affects and provides evidence for the quality of the learning experience.
(Chapelle, 1994: 38)
Chapelle
draws on Halliday (1977) and Halliday and Hasan (1989) for her extension of
‘context’ to include not only ‘features of the activities, topics,
participants, and language that comprise the text and in which the text is
embedded’ (Chapelle 1994: 43), but also features outside of the computer
program such as ‘learners, their purposes, and the setting of the instruction’.
In addition, she mentions other features which are created by the instructor or
teacher. These include the ‘types of CALL materials and the parameters for
using the materials’ (ibid.), all of which influence, and are influenced by,
the learning environment.
Jonassen
also stresses the point that:
Technologies do not directly mediate learning. That is, people do not learn from computers, books, videos, or the other devices that were developed to transmit information. Rather, learning is mediated by thinking (mental processes). Thinking is activated by instructional interventions, including technologies. Learning requires thinking by the learner. In order to more directly affect the process, therefore, we should concern ourselves less with the design of technologies of transmission and more with how learners are required to think in completing different tasks.
(Jonassen, 1992: 2)
These
observations set the scene for the framing of learner-centred CALL design in
terms of a sociocultural methodology, by effectively highlighting the
importance of various features of context in creating the texts produced, the
negotiated, mediated, and interactive nature of the creation of these texts,
and the important role learners’ cognition and mental processes play in the
language learning process.
This
incorporation of cognition in the design model is exemplified by the potential
for the learner to make decisions about the content, mode, order, pace, level,
and level of self-direction of the presentation of the package. In addition, it
can also be taken to refer to the capacity a software package provides for the
learner to interact with, interpret, negotiate, and make meaning from the texts
available, whether these are written, audio, audiovisual, or visual texts.
2.0 Features of learner-centredness for CALL
We
now turn to a discussion of those features of a learner-centred CALL model that
bring the learner into focus. Given the current state of our knowledge and
research in instructional design, CALL, and second language pedagogy, what are
the essential characteristics of a model that embody
learner-centredness? The following five principles are proposed as a starting
point:
1.
sociocultural methodology provides an appropriate
paradigm
2.
consideration of the critical features of learner-centredness includes the
recognition of features that are less amenable to change, awareness raising
among learners of features somewhat amenable to change, and accommodation of
those features more amenable to change;
3.
allocation of control to learners needs to be
accompanied by awareness-raising in how to manage this control;
4.
task-based pedagogy provides a useful framework for the instructional design of
the lesson material;
5.
consideration of models of good practice from both
mainstream second language pedagogy and CALL needs to be incorporated.
2.1 Sociocultural
methodology seems to be the most appropriate paradigm to use for the framework
of the design of a learner-centred CALL model as it incorporates negotiated,
mediated creation of meaning among learners, between learners and teachers, and
between learners and computers.
Further,
the adoption of a sociocultural approach allows the inclusion of learning
strategies in the instructional design and anticipated implementation of the
model. As mentioned above (Jonassen, 1992: 2), investigating how learners
acquire and use thought and mental processes help to make the learning process
more effective. How this can be achieved is best discussed in terms of the four
major concepts of sociocultural theory. These are (1) mediation, (2)
goal-oriented or situated learning, (3) the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD),
sometimes termed ‘apprenticeship learning’ (Warshauer, 1996), and (4) and the
‘community of practice’ proposed by Donato and McCormick (1994).
2.1.1 Mediation
By
mediation, whether physical or symbolic, is meant the employment of some
catalyst which allows connections to be made between humans and their own
(internal) mental world, or the (external) physical world. In Vygotskian terms,
the most important symbolic tool for this mediation process is language, which
can be used to organise, plan, and maintain the environment both internal and
external to the individual.
Within
this paradigm, communication strategies and social strategies, often excluded
from language learning strategies by researchers within the interlanguage and
psycholinguistic paradigms, can be incorporated as sets of language learning
strategies. In other words, communication strategies are used to communicate,
while at the same time improving communication. That is, the mediation process
of employing communication and social strategies to communicate improves both
the communication and the learning.
The
level of success of communication can be judged by the learner on the basis of
the appropriateness of the response to the learner’s expectations. Thus
learning is effected through of communicative and social strategies since the
language and strategies used are modified on the basis of response
appropriateness. Unlike cognitive and social psychological theories, in which
strategies in language learning are seen to be relatively static, and
generalisable from tasks and contexts, sociocultural theory focuses on the
influence of language tasks and contexts in bringing about the dynamic
emergence of strategic approaches in individual learners.
2.1.2 Goal-oriented or situated learning
Within
this sociocultural paradigm, then, education or awareness-raising in the use of
more desirable or effective strategies is achieved through the mediation of
situated activities that allow learners to model, appropriate and achieve
self-mediated processing, rather than by direct instruction. However, as
Gillette (1990) reminds us, it is important that strategies implemented in the
classroom culture are actually directed towards language learning goals.
Similarly, Donato and McCormick (1994) stress that these
strategies are situated in the higher levels of mental processing, which are
not uniformly developed. Their 1994 study, in fact, shows
that a sociocultural approach encourages a more strategic task orientation,
where ‘strategic activity is seen as inherently goal embedded’ (Stone, 1989:
36). This reinforces the point made by Gillette above, that because the one
strategy may be employed with several (and possibly conflicting) goals in mind,
it is important to focus on constructing strategic tasks which provide the
context for, and foster the use of, higher level mental processes – the
metacognitive and higher cognitive strategies of researchers in other paradigms
(O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Victori & Lockhart, 1995).
In
a CALL context, this implies that in order for a software package or program to
foster in learners the development of higher mental processes, it must provide
an environment based on making available a range of strategic tasks, while also
providing information on the purposes of these tasks, to encourage
self-reflection and new strategic orientations in learners’ actions. Ideally,
learners using such a package should be able to choose their own tasks on the
basis of information provided about them, on the basis of their own language
learning (and other) goals in using the materials. In other words, the choices
they make mediate their interaction with the materials. They should thereby be
able to identify for themselves those areas in which they need more practice.
This perspective on strategy development would allow learners to take an
‘active task approach’, identified by Naiman and his colleagues (1978) as one
of the characteristics of a good language learner.
2.1.3 The Zone of Proximal Development
Within
a sociocultural paradigm, selection of, or access to, progressively more
detailed feedback or help within a CALL package can also be framed in terms of
the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) proposed by Vygotsky (1978). In an
interesting study to investigate the role of negative feedback on regulation
and second language learning in the ZPD, Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994)
identified three characteristics of effective intervention mechanisms. They
found that intervention should be graduated,
contingent (offered only when
needed), and dialogic, or negotiated
between the expert and the novice (1994: 468). Thus, the help is offered by a
more experienced member of the joint activity, and begins at a highly implicit
level. It is subsequently graduated
down to the level of specificity needed by the novice member.
This
help is also contingent, in that, as
the novice becomes more able to function independently, the level of
directiveness and specificity in the help is progressively reduced. This
progressive assessment of the learner’s needs, and tailoring of help to meet
them, is only possible through the ‘dialogic
activity that unfolds between more capable and less capable individuals’ (1994:
468). Thus, the process of learning as exemplified through the concept of the
ZPD can also be described as ‘scaffolding’, in which, as learners become
progressively more adept, the expert or mentor is able to dismantle the
scaffolded environment. This is possible because the learners themselves have
already internalised the necessary problem-solving processes (Donato, 1994:
41).
Implications
of these findings for feedback in CALL packages are supportive of the notion of
self-managed access to the help and feedback facilities, and a ‘layered’
construction of these features. By this is meant that individual learners (the
novices) need to be able to determine when they want to have access to any of a
range of help facilities available, and that these facilities are designed as
successive layers, the deeper and more extensive or explicit help only being
accessible from the layer above. Thus, at the top level, a learner may only
need access to whether an answer is correct, or to the meaning of a word, while
more comprehensive help such as transcripts or grammar notes may be provided at
a deeper level.
2.1.4 The ‘community of practice’
As
a final note towards the sociocultural framework for the development of a CALL
model, it is useful to review the concept of interactivity as employed in this
paradigm as the ‘community of practice’. In a study by Platt and Brooks (1994),
for example, on the validity of the term ‘acquisition-rich environment’, it was
found that the learner’s interaction with the language,
and the dynamic creation process are just as important as the language itself.
It is these strategies of interaction with the target language, and creation of
meaning that enable learners to participate in the target language culture. In
their study of on- and off-task language of learners participating in
problem-solving tasks, they found that learners were not so much ‘in an acquisition-rich environment’ as
‘they created or constructed a context through their use of the target language to solve a problem’ (Platt &
Brookes, 1994: 504).
For
the purposes of an instructional design framework within the sociocultural
paradigm, the concept of learners creating and constructing meaning implies
that learner choice and self-management of activity is critical, both in the tasks
to be done, and in the navigation through the feedback and help facilities. On
another level, since ‘learners need opportunities to engage in analogous kinds
of problem-solving tasks in order to become better at doing them’ (Platt &
Brookes, 1994: 509), it is important to provide several tasks of each kind at
each level for learners to use.
2.2 Features internal to the learner
Numerous studies have shown that individual learners differ
in their approach to language learning in numerous ways, including their
preferred channels of perception, the learning processes they activate, their
background experience and education, their aptitude and motivation for language
learning or learning in general, and their age and level of maturity (Skehan,
1989; Larson-Freeman & Long, 1991). These differences in turn affect
choices made by both learners and their teachers as to which materials,
resources, teaching and learning approaches, and forms of interaction are most
effective for language learning to proceed.
Broadly speaking, these differences can be classified as
being either internal or external to the learner, though there are areas of
obvious cross-over such as learning styles where external features of tasks,
for example, can influence features of perception which are essentially
internal to learners. The extent to which learner choices and differences can
be accommodated within a learning environment has a critical influence on the
level of success in language learning that individual learners achieve.
Individual differences can be defined as those features or
factors within individual learners which influence differential success in
language learning among learners, or which can be identified as accounting for
such differences. As will be discussed in more detail below, some of these
features can be changed, modified, or developed through instruction and
awareness-raising, whereas others are less amenable to change. Furthermore, in
order for learners to take advantage of multiple channels of perception, they
need to be aware of their preferred styles of perception, the extent to which
the available media correspond to these, and how best to exploit this
correspondence.
2.2.1 Features less amenable to change
The aspects of individual difference listed below have been
identified in the literature as being unchangeable or less amenable to change
(Larson-Freeman & Long, 1991; Hoven 1997a; b). The factors or
characteristics referred to here are specific to individual learners, and
include age and maturity, developmental features, sex, aptitude for language,
hemispheric processing orientation, previous language learning experience, and
L1 proficiency.
It
is necessary for us to be aware of the existence of these factors and the
influence they have in order to choose more appropriate materials, or to direct
learners to make use of available materials in certain ways. In addition,
through education and awareness-raising in a range of learning strategies, it
is possible to help learners compensate for less desirable or less effective
characteristics which they may have. However, within learning materials
themselves, and within a program of instruction or learning little change can
be effected in learners with regard to these features. A learner may, for
example, be beyond an age when language learning can easily be achieved through
the use of certain techniques, but she/he can be made aware of, and encouraged
to employ, other techniques or strategies which have been shown to be more
effective for older learners.
2.2.2 Features somewhat amenable to change
Certain
other individual characteristics are discussed in the literature as sometimes,
or under certain conditions being amenable to change. These include:
personality (introversion/extroversion,
self-esteem, anxiety, risk-taking, sensitivity to rejection, empathy,
inhibition, and tolerance of ambiguity); socio-psychological
factors (motivation and attitude); learning & cognitive style; sense
modality preference; sociological preference (preferred level of social interaction
– pair/group etc.).
Proposals have been made by teachers and researchers about
the desirability of matching teaching style and the nature of classroom
interaction with the personality characteristics of individual learners. While
it is proposed that such matches will promote learning, little evidence has
been provided for any consistency in the findings (Hamayan et al.; 1977; Wong-Fillmore, 1982).
In addition, personality and aptitude are both features
which are relatively difficult to influence or change (Skehan, 1989: 38 - 39;
71 - 72) within a language programme. Nevertheless, despite these difficulties,
studies of personality and aptitude provide us with valuable information on the
range of influencing features in the learning process, and which characteristics
might be more desirable in the promotion of learning than others, particularly
as they relate to individual learning. This information then enables us to make
provision in language learning programs and materials for the range of
characteristics that learners bring to them.
2.2.3 Cognitive styles, learning styles and
strategies: changeable or not?
In order to determine whether, or to what extent changes can
be effected in the cognitive styles, learning styles and learning strategies of
learners, it is firstly necessary to understand what these terms mean.
Cognitive style, for example, has been defined as the:
general characteristics of
intellectual functioning that influence how one approaches a learning task
(Brown, 1987); the manner in which people perceive, conceptualize, organize and
recall information (Ellis, 1986).
(Wenden, 1991:
36)
Learning style, however, includes:
cognitive, affective and
physiological behaviors that indicate learners’ characteristic and consistent
way of perceiving, interacting with and responding to the learning environment;
more concrete than cognitive style (Willing, 1988).
(Wenden, 1991: 36)
It is important that learning or cognitive styles, which refer to ‘the student’s
preferred way of tackling learning tasks in general’ be distinguished from
learning strategies which ‘concern
the way a student elects to tackle a particular learning task’ (Watkins, 1982:
78). Learning or cognitive styles, therefore, while they can be varied somewhat
by learners, are not easily influenced by external factors such as learning
materials. Learners can, nevertheless, be made aware of their own preferred
styles, and some more sophisticated learners are also able consciously to
modify their style according to the tasks they encounter (Brumby, 1982).
As Scarcella and
when left to their own
devices, and if not overly pressured by their environment to use a certain set
of strategies, students typically use learning strategies that reflect their
basic learning style (Ehrman & Oxford 1989). They can, however, learn to
develop additional learning strategies and test the value of ones they already
use.
(Scarcella & Oxford, 1992: 63–4)
To reframe this discussion of individual differences within
a sociocultural framework, it is also useful to consider the reflection of
Peirce (1995), that individuals differ, not only from one another, but also
within themselves from one point in time to another,
and from one context to another.
Three critical elements which emerge from this wide-ranging
discussion are summarised as follows:
1) learners can be assisted in compensating for
characteristics less appropriate to successful language learning through help
in developing stronger characteristics in other areas;
2) learners need to move out of
their individual ‘comfort zones’ in order to participate productively and
effectively in the learning process, and to carry the learning beyond the
immediate task to novel situations;
3) learners need information,
support, and the infrastructure to negotiate this development – they need not
only to be given control, but also to be provided with the means by which to
take control on their own terms.
The
last of these elements above brings us to a discussion of the third principle
of a learner-centred model introduced at the beginning of this section – the
issue of control.
2.3 Allocation of learner control: control of
what?
An
essential issue in the design of a learner-centred CALL model is the allocation
of control of both the navigation through the software, and the learning
engendered in the software. In order to make the most of control in a CALL
context, learners need to understand their own learning processes, to be able
to make informed choices about the paths their learning takes, and to be
pro-active in managing and directing their own learning. All of these facets of
allocation of control to the learner revolve around learners being able to use,
and develop within themselves, effective language learning strategies. In the
design of a learner- and learning-centred CALL package, the software interface
and instructional design also need to provide support and information for
learners to assist them in the development of the necessary strategies. It
becomes clear, therefore, that the central goals of learner-centred design are
to help learners both to recognise their own uniqueness and to realise their
full language learning potential (Ely & Pease-Alvarez, 1996: 5).
In
addition, the integration of new media, such as multimedia, into our existing
teaching and learning programs, needs to remain modelled on existing principles
of good practice in the use of other media. As Bickel and Truscello have
recently emphasised:
The use of technology does indeed require gathering new and different kinds of resources, but our roles do not change qualitatively. We remain facilitators, guides, counselors, and information providers. The materials and pathways onto which we guide our students simply become electronic.
(Bickel & Truscello, 1996: 16)
Claims
for the advantages of using computers frequently include the capacity of
computers to allow learners to work at their own pace, and in their own time. A
corollary to these advantages is that learners often work in a self-access
context, and that this entails the need for learners to be able to manage or
direct their own learning. In addition, in a learning environment incorporating
the use of CALL software, learner differences in the area of preferred modes of
perception (visual, aural, or kinesic) need to be catered for. This latter can
be achieved by designing tasks to exploit different modes, through the
provision of a wide variety of text and media types, and by the use of a
variety of navigation modes. There is also evidence that learners can be
trained to use different and more effective strategies through
awareness-raising in their use in specific circumstances (Brett, 1995; Liou,
1995; Hoven, 1991; 1997b). However, most learners still need guidance and
guided practice in acquiring the skills and strategies involved in managing
their own learning (Wenden, 1995; Victori & Lockhart, 1995).
As
part of his report for the Council of Europe entitled Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning, Holec defined autonomy in
language learning as ‘the ability to take
charge of one’s own learning’ (1979: 3), where an ability was ‘a power or
capacity to do something’ (in contrast to a ‘behaviour’) and taking charge of
this entailed ‘to have, and to hold, the responsibility for all the decisions
concerning all aspects of this learning’ (1979). For Holec, in order to
formulate their own objectives and become strategy-using learners,
self-directed learners on the road to autonomy need to be informed of language
needs in society as a whole, the results of research into second language
acquisition processes, and dimensions of verbal communication. In other words,
learners need to know how to make these decisions strategically, but at the
same time the infrastructure of the learning institution must allow for these
decisions to be made by the individual learners concerned. This process of
acquiring autonomy requires a gradual
deconditioning of learners from the previously held judgements and
prejudices about both the target language and the language learning and
teaching process, and the gradual
acquisition of knowledge and skills in using the range of tools and
resources available, including such internal mental resources as
self-evaluation and monitoring, and external resources like teachers or native
speakers.
As
proposed here, a sociocultural approach focuses on language in use: how meaning
is extracted, negotiated, and maintained in interactions between learners,
contexts, and texts, whether these texts are spoken, written, monologues,
conversations, visual or graphic representations, or conveyed by means of a
computer. In fact, in a sociocultural perspective on strategic language
learning, computers are recognised as a mediation tool for transforming
‘natural, spontaneous impulses into higher mental processes, including
strategic orientations to problem solving’ (Donato & McCormick, 1994: 456).
When CALL is used in a self-access or private practice context, it is the
learners’ interaction with, and therefore management of, the learning
environment that determines the learner-centred or humanistic nature of
language learning. The incorporation of the development of learning strategies,
including those implicated in the exploitation of paralinguistic features of
language as well as metacognitive and cognitive strategies, into CALL program
design is therefore critical in the provision of a learner-centred CALL
environment which helps learners gain more control over their own learning.
In
a discussion of learners’ management of their own learning, Holec considers to
what extent learners are ready to take this management role. He urges teachers
to observe their learners to determine whether they are managing their learning
or merely ‘managing to learn’ (1987: 145). Here he is highlighting the
importance of allowing learners to ‘have the choice between taking full
responsibility for the process or simply submitting to
it’ (1987: 147).
Holec
goes on to propose the role of ‘the good studier’ as being the focus of
learning as a management process. In this sense he diverges from other language
learning studies discussed here, by separating language proficiency level and
language achievement from the strategic decisions that need to be made by
learners on objectives, content, techniques and methods, and assessment.
Several important points that emerge from the Centre de Recherches et d’Applications Pédagogiques en Langues (CRAPEL) studies, in which Holec has been involved, are
that learners can improve their ability to manage their own learning; learners’
increase in competence is variable; and there is no necessary causal
relationship between knowing how to self-direct and implementing this knowledge
in practical ways. The analogy that Holec draws is that of ‘someone who knows
how to drive a car [who] may sometimes prefer to be driven’ (1987: 156).
In
his commentary on the changing face of CALL, Stevens (1992) notes three
positive contributions of humanistic principles to teaching and learning
practices: the provision of environments conducive to learning; the move from
teaching-centredness to learning- or learner-centredness; and a reemphasis on
the worth of individual learners, and learners as individuals. He sees the
obvious product of these influences as being the focus, in modern software
design, on the development and fostering of learner autonomy as exemplified in
exploratory CALL such as multimedia applications, and problem-solving software
such as adventure games. As an earlier study has shown (Stevens, 1984),
‘learning is enhanced when choice and control are in the hands of the learner’
(Stevens, 1992: 23). However, bearing in mind the cautions of Holec, in the
CALL context Robinson (1991:158) also warns of the dangers of putting learners
in charge of their own learning when they have not yet developed the skills to
be in control or succeed at a language task
These
understandings lead us to the hypothesis that computers can best be
incorporated into language learning by allowing learners to make their own
choices about the texts they work on, the paths they take through these texts,
and the kinds of tasks and tools they use to access these texts. However, this
availability of choice by no means precludes a learner’s choice to allocate
control of her/his learning paths to the teacher/designer of the instructional
package. This flexibility in the level of control also entails the provision of
explicit information to learners on how to make the choice about what level of
control at which to work, as well as information on how to make efficient use
of this control in terms of both navigation through the package, and material
on which to work. We now turn to an examination of the characteristics of task
and instructional design that facilitate learners’ aquiring these skills and
strategies.
2.4 Task-based pedagogy and good practice in CALL
Kumaravadivelu
advocates a learning-centred, task-based pedagogy for language teaching and
learning on the grounds that it provides a comprehensiveness that other
pedagogies do not. This approach entails that the design of tasks
:
has to take into consideration minimally, the following psycholinguistic principles: language learning is a developmental process; it is a decision-making process; it is a process of negotiation; it is not linear and additive; it is primarily incidental; it is largely a subconscious activity; and it is a meaning-focused activity
(Kumaravadivelu,
1993: 81)
If
we examine the principles Kumaravadivelu lists here, we find several areas of
correspondence with the principles of a sociocultural methodology discussed
earlier.
In
other literature on task design and interaction, several features can be
identified among the various aspects of the classroom implementation of tasks
which contribute positively to second language acquisition. With regard to the
nature of the tasks themselves, the following have been found:
• problem-solving
(closed/convergent) tasks produce more questions in total, more questions per
subject, and more confirmation checks and referential questions in total than
debate (open/divergent) tasks (Duff, 1986; Long, 1989);
• information
exchange (closed/convergent) tasks produce more comprehension and confirmation
checks, clarification requests, repairs, preventive moves, reactions, and
self/other repetition (Doughty & Pica, 1986);
• modifying
language input of tasks is better done through interaction and negotiation than
by pre-modification to decrease complexity and increase quantity and redundancy
(Pica et al., 1986; Pica et al., 1987; Ross et al. 1991);
• negotiation
of input and output on tasks seems greatest on larger semantic units, with
little negotiation occurring in relation to syntactic elements such as time and
aspect (Ashton, 1986);
• 2-way
(‘jigsaw’) tasks produce more and better negotiation work than 1-way tasks
(Doughty & Pica, 1986; Pica et al.,
1989; Long, 1992);
• decontextualised tasks produce more negotiation than
contextualised ones (Snow, 1989; Long, 1992)
• ‘There-and-then’
(temporally and spatially removed) tasks produce more negotiation than
‘Here-and-now’ (local in time and place) tasks (Snow, 1989; Long, 1992); and
• more negotiation occurs when a feedback option is provided
than when it is not (Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1990; Tomasello & Herron,
1988, 1989).
With
reference to computer-enhanced listening and viewing comprehension, it would
seem, therefore, that tasks need to be designed to incorporate some elements of
negotiation of the texts (perhaps in the form of feedback and assistance
available as part of the software package), and that these texts need to be
authentic and possibly decontextualised. In addition, feedback needs to be
provided, and there should be elements of problem-solving and induction
involved in the task demands. Within a CALL environment, these criteria should
therefore be met, in order to provide tasks that promote the processes of
negotiation, and that encourage learners to develop negotiation skills with the
activities and facilities of a CALL software package.
2.5 Models of good practice: Strategies for taking control
In
a learning environment involving CALL, learner resistance to self-managed
learning can be addressed by providing learners with exposure to
awareness-raising activities across all parts of their language learning
program, including in the CALL software. In the initial stages, highly
structured (teacher-centred) materials need to be available to cater for the
needs of those learners with a strong dependence on teacher direction. However,
to cater for differentially rapid development in the direction of autonomy, it
is also necessary to provide the means whereby learners can take more control
if they feel capable. As alluded to earlier, this can be achieved by writing
into the design of a CALL software package several levels of entry,
or several modes of interaction based on varying levels of learner control.
Thus,
for example, novice learners or learners new to self-managed learning would
choose to work at the most structured lesson level. Learners with some
experience could work with more flexibility at a level where they choose the
kinds of tasks and texts to work on. Finally, more sophisticated or more
confident self-managed or self-directed learners could choose to work at the
least structured level. Here they are able to browse texts of different types,
explore and compare the language and paralinguistic features used, and call on
the various background and help facilities.
In
order to achieve the level of control proposed here, learners need to gain an
understanding of the strategies that are available to them, and the interaction
among them, the framework within which this interaction occurs, as well to
practise using effective strategies in context. The literature of both general
learning and language learning is informative here in formulating a
comprehensive model. Of the lists and inventories of strategies examined,
In
addition,
Firstly,
less self-directed learners who choose to work at the most structured level are
presented with an overview of the framework, with connections to tasks that
practise the various strategies listed. Secondly, tasks are designed such that
the more effective strategies are incorporated into the working of the tasks.
Thirdly, to assist with the development of metacognitive strategies, tasks are
labelled with their cognitive level and classification, and learners can go at
any time to the overviews of both the cognitive taxonomy and the strategy
overview.
As
discussed earlier, individual differences among learners, variations among
texts, contexts, and tasks, and the nature of learner interaction with the
software all contribute significantly to differential learner success in
language learning mediated by computers. In the model proposed here, meaning is
constructed by learners through their interaction with the tools and resources
available in the CALL software. At the same time that learners are negotiating
meaning through a listening and viewing comprehension task and the associated
help tools, they are also co-creating with the software their own individual
learning paths. Another essential element of the realisation of a sociocultural
paradigm through the software is allocation of control to the learner using it.
With the understanding that different learners need and desire different levels
of control and structure, the three-layered model allows learners to take
control in an informed and staged or ‘scaffolded’ manner. The location and
function of navigation tools, the content and design of tasks, and the whole
instructional design concept are all grounded in this understanding.
However,
such a software package should not be used in isolation. It is envisaged as
being used as just one tool in a complete learning environment (Hoven, 1992).
In such an environment, the incorporation of awareness-raising in language
learning strategies and a task-based approach reappear in other components of
the teaching and learning process.
Another
essential feature of the flexibility of this model to cater for individual differences
is realised through the inclusion of tools and tasks in the package which
highlight visual, aural and kinesic modes of perception and learning. At the
task level, for example, some tasks require simple yes/no decision-making
implemented by a mouse-click. Other tasks, however, allow more kinesic learners
to use their preferred mode by picking up objects with the mouse and moving
them to the appropriate locations.
3.0 Conclusion
Some
learners naturally prefer to manage their own learning; others can come to
prefer it when they have sufficient understanding of how to do it; while yet
others may never feel comfortable or successful when
required to manage their own learning. These findings point to the need in
self-access CALL packages for a flexibility of approach that caters for this
range of learner capacity for managing their own learning. As we have seen,
there is also the need to incorporate information that helps learners increase
their awareness of their own learning and their understanding of strategies and
approaches to improve this.
We
conclude therefore, that the help and feedback components of a CALL package are
critical in a sociocultural model for learner-centred CALL, and that the help
should include information on learning styles and strategies, and some context
or background information on the texts available, as well as the more common
language- or task-specific help. In addition, the design of tasks needs to
incorporate practice in the use of those strategies that have been shown to be
effective in language learning, and particularly in self-managed learning. In
terms of the interface design, the navigation elements similarly should
allocate to learners control over their paths through the package. The
three-layered approach to learner access suggested in the model represents one
practical approach to the implementation of the sociocultural paradigm in a
learner-centred CALL software package based on multimedia texts.
References
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P.
(1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the
zone of proximal development. The
Modern Language Journal, 78: 465-483.
Ashton, G. 1986. Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: the more the merrier? Applied Linguistics 7: 128-143.
Bickel, B. & Truscello, D. (1996). New opportunities for
learning: styles and strategies for computers. Tesol Journal, 6:
15-19.
Bork, A. (1982). Interaction in learning. In Proceedings of NECC ‘82.
Bradin, C. (1996) How second language learners utilize input
in CALL. In F. L. Borchardt, C. L. Bradin, E. M. T. Johnson & L. Rhodes (eds) Proceedings of
the Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium 1996 Annual Symposium:
“Distance Learning”.
Bradin, C. (1998). Utilisation
of input in CALL: A research study. In J. Gassin, M. Smith, & D. Cunningham
(eds) Proceedings
of the 1998 WorldCALL Conference.
Brandl, K. K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ preferences for feedback options and
responses. The Modern Language
Journal, 79: 194-211.
Brett, P. 1995. Multimedia for listening comprehension: the design of a multimedia-based resource for developing listening skills. System 23: 1: 77-85.
Brumby, M. (1982). Consistent differences in cognitive styles shown for qualitative biological problem-solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52: 244-257.
Chapelle, C. A. (1994). CALL
activities: Are they all the same? System,
22: 33-45.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering
research on learning from media. Review
of Educational Research, 53: 4: 445-459.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42: 2: 21-29.
Crockford, D. (1988).
Stand by for fun: experience and interaction. In S. Ambron & K. Hooper
(eds.) Interactive multimedia: visions of
multimedia for developers, educators, & information providers.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding
in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (eds) Vygotskian
approaches to second language research.
Donato, R. & McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective
on language learning strategies: the role of mediation. The Modern Language Journal, 78: 453-464.
Doughty, C. & Pica, T. 1986. Information-gap tasks: do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 20: 2: 305-325.
Duff, P. 1986.
Another look at interlanguage talk: taking task to task. In
Day, R. R. (ed.) Talking to learn:
conversation in second language acquisition.
Dunkel, P. (1987). The
effectiveness literature on CAI/CALL and computing: Implications of the
research for limited English proficient learners. TESOL Quarterly, 21: 2:; 367-372.
Dunkel, P. (1991). The effectiveness research on computer-assisted instruction and
computer-assisted language learning. In P. Dunkel (ed)
Computer-Assisted Language Learning and
Testing.
Ely, C. M. & Pease-Alvarez, L.
(1996).
Learning styles and strategies in ESOL: Introduction to the special issue. Tesol Journal, 6: 1: 5.
Gillette, B. K. (1990). Beyond
Learning Strategies: A Whole-Person Approach to Language Learning.
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1977). Explorations in
the Functions of Language.
Halliday,
M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1989) (Eds.) Language,
Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective.
Hamayan, E.,
Hedberg,
J. G. & N. R. Perry (1984). Design of
interactive video materials: problems and prospects. In R. M.
Russell (ed.), Proceedings of the
conference on computer-aided learning in tertiary education.
Holec, H. (1979). Autonomy and foreign language learning.
Hoven, D. (1991). Towards a cognitive
taxonomy of listening comprehension tasks. SGAV Review, 9: 2: 1-14.
Hoven, D. (1992). CALL in a language learning environment. CÆLL Journal, 3: 2: 19-27.
Hoven, D. (1997a). Instructional design for multimedia:
Towards a learner-centred CELL (Computer-Enhanced Language Learning) model. In
K. Murphy-Judy & R. Sanders (eds) NEXUS – The convergence of language teaching
and research using technology. CALICO Monograph Series
Vol. 4. Nth.
Hoven, D. (1997b). Improving the management of flow of control in computer-assisted
listening comprehension tasks for second and foreign language learners.
Doctoral dissertation,
Johnson, D. (1991). Second
Language and Content Learning with Computers: Research in the Role of Social
Factors. In P. Dunkel (ed) Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Testing.
Jonassen, D. (1992). What are
cognitive tools? In P. A. M. Kommers et
al. (eds) Cognitive
Tools for Learning.
Kahn, P. (1989).
Webs, trees, and stacks: how hypermedia system design effect hypermedia
content. In G. Salvendy & M. J. Smith (eds.), Designing and using human-computer interfaces and knowledge-based
systems.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will
media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42: 2: 7-19.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 1993. The name of
the task and the task of naming: methodological aspects of task-based pedagogy.
In Crookes, G. & S. M. Gass (eds.) Tasks
and language learning: integrating theory and practice.
Lantolf, J. P. & Appel, G. (eds)
(1994). Vygotskian
Approaches to Second Language Research.
Larson-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. 1991. An
introduction to second language acquisition research.
Liou, H-C. (1995). Evaluation of
interactive videodisc courseware: Effects of strategy training and
collaborative learning. In F. L. Borchardt, & E. M. T. Johnson (eds) Proceedings of
the Computer assisted Language Instruction Consortium 1995 Annual Symposium
“Computers and Collaborative Learning”
Long, D. R. 1989. Second language listening comprehension: a schema-theoretic perspective. The Modern Language Journal 73:1: 32-40.
Long, M. H. 1992. Input, focus on
form, and second language acquisition. Paper delivered at the PacSLRF
Conference,
Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. 1990. Creating structure-based communication tasks for
second language development.
Luff, P., Gilbert, N. &
Frohlich, D. (eds) (1990). Computers and Conversation.
Lumsdaine, A. A. (1963). Instruments and
media of instruction. In N. Gage (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching.
Mielke, K. W. (1968). Questioning the
questions of ETV research. Educational
Broadcasting Review, 2: 6-15.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H.
& Todesco, A. (1978). The
Good Language Learner.
Nielson, J. (1990). Hypertext and hypermedia.
O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning
strategies in second language acquisition.
Papert, S.
(1987). Computer criticism vs. Technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher,
January-February: 22-27.
Pederson, K. M. (1987). Research on CALL. In W. F. Smith (ed) Modern Media in Foreign Language Education: Theory and Implementation.
Pica, T., Dought, C., & Young, R. 1986. Making input comprehensible: do interactional modifications help? International Review of Applied Linguistics 72: 1-25.
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. 1987. The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly 21: 4: 737-758.
Platt, E. & Brookes, F. B. (1994). The ‘acquisition-rich
environment’ revisited. The Modern
Language Journal, 78: 497-511.
Reiser, R. A. (1994).
Robinson, G. L. (1991). Effective feedback
strategies in CALL. In P. Dunkel (ed) Computer-assisted language learning and
testing.
Ross, S., Long,
M. H., & Yano Y. 1991. Simplification or elaboration?
The effects of two types of text modifocations on foreign
language reading comprehension.
Ross, S. M. (1994). Delivery trucks or
groceries? More food for thought on whether media
(will, may, can’t) influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42: 2: 5-6.
Scarcella, R. C. &
Shrock, S. A. 1994. The media
influence debate: Read the fine print, but don’t lose sight of the big picture.
Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42: 2: 49-53.
Skehan,
P. 1989 Individual differences in
second-language learning.
Snow, C. E.
1989. Beyond conversation: second language learners’ acquisition of description
and explanation. In Lantolf, J. P. & A. Labarca (eds.)
1989. Research in second language
learning: Focus on the classroom.
Spencer, K. (1991). Modes, media and methods: the search for educational effectiveness. British Journal of Educational Technology, 22: 1: 12-22.
Stevens, V. 1984. Implications of research and theory concerning the influence of control on the effectiveness of CALL. CALICO Journal 2: 1: 28-33, 48.
Stevens, V. 1992. Humanism and CALL: a coming of age. In Pennington, M. C. & V. Stevens (eds.): 11-38.
Stone, A. C. (1989). Improving the
effectiveness of strategy training for learning disabled students: the role of
communicative dynamics. Remedial
and Special Education, 10: 35-42.
Tomasello, M. & Herron, C. 1988. Down the garden path: inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psychloinguistics 9: 237-246.
Tomasello, M. & Herron, C. 1989. Feedback for language transfer errors: the garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11: 4: 385-395.
Victori, M. & Lockhart, W. 1995. Enhancing
metacognition in self-directed language learning. System, 23: 2: 223-234.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner &
E. Souberman (eds & trans).
Warschauer, M. (1996).
Sociocultural learning theory and computer-mediated
communication. In F. L. Borchardt, C. L. Bradin, E. M. T. Johnson &
L. Rhodes (eds) Proceedings
of the Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium 1996 Annual Symposium:
“Distance Learning”.
Wenden, A. L. 1995. Learner training in context: A
knowledge-based approach. System, 23:
2: 183-194.
Wong-Fillmore, L. 1982. Instructional
language as linguistic input: second language learning in classrooms. In Wilkinson, L. (ed.) Communicating
in the classroom.
