A popular theory of education, referred to as Social Constructivism or Social Interactionism, emphasizes the importance of social interaction in learning. According to the theorist Vygotsky, knowledge is created through interactions in social situations. In terms of language learning, Vygotsky believes that humans are drawn to develop languages due to their need to interact socially. He also believes that language can only be fully developed by interacting in a variety of social situations.
In the 2003 article titled, "Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction," Anderson summarizes the importance of interaction in education (especially in distance education) and applications of interaction to a variety of educational settings. The article culminates with a model of interaction for online learning. This article presents a theory of interaction that goes beyond Vygotsky's simple idea that social interaction is important.
Anderson (2003) states that it is problematic to define interaction mostly because most definitions do not offer a definition of "meaningful interaction." Indirectly, the question is posed, "what constitutes meaningful interaction?" What is needed in a classroom setting, says Anderson (2003), is formal interaction (versus informal interaction). Anderson (2003) states, "interaction in formal education contexts is specifically designed to induce learning directed towards defined and shared learning objectives or outcomes" (p. 4). It is important that the interactions match the learning objectives and those interactions could be either teacher-centered, student-centered, or content-centered; it all depends on the desired learning outcomes.
Anderson (2003) provides a very interesting, and I would suspect, controversial statement about the three types of interaction. She states that as long as one of the types of interaction (teacher-student, student-student, student-content) occurs at a high level, students will be satisfied. I wonder if she also believes that students will learn. I would not rate all three types of interactions equally. In fact, I would argue that student-student interaction is by far the most important, and probably the most preferred, type of interaction in a classroom - especially in a language learning classroom. Despite any possible arguments against Anderson's (2003) statement, she does provide some useful information in the form examples of all three types of interaction. Additionally, she presents information on how to assess the appropriate level of interaction in the educational setting. Finally, Anderson (2003) provides examples of how to enhance the levels of interaction in popular educational delivery models: classroom, traditional (mail or email) distance education, audio and video conferencing, and web-based learning.
The model of online learning proposed by Anderson (2003) incorporates a variety of elements, including the object of interaction (teacher, student, content), the timing of interaction (synchronous or asynchronous), the content itself, and the type of web delivery (games, tutorials, chat, e-book, etc).
The theory proposed by Anderson (2003) is not revolutionary, but as she states in her conclusion, she did not aim to present a revolutionary theory. Her intention was to bring together a variety of thoughts about interaction into one model. She states that her main purpose was to encourage dialogue about the interactions in online education. Anderson wrote, "I hope this small theoretical piece encourages dialogue within our community of practice" (p. 19).
As a member of the "community of practice," I feel I must begin a dialogue on this topic. First of all, the model reminds me of the rhetorical triangle. In the rhetorical triangle, we have a triangle with the purpose in the center. On the three points of the equilateral triangle are author, audience, and subject. We can examine each of the elements in the triangle according to their interactions with one another and their interaction with the purpose.
Anderson's (2003) model is virtually the same thing. To better align her model, though, with the very familiar rhetorical triangle, I would propose this model. We would have a triangle with the learning objectives in the center of the triangle. On the three edges we would have teacher, student, and content. To the right of the triangle would be an error pointing to the modes of delivery (e-book, chat, WebQuest, etc, etc).
In my model, I propose that we first consider the types of interaction we desire based upon the learning objectives and then move to the right of the model where we chose the mode of delivery that best fits the learning objectives and the levels of interaction (teacher-student, teacher-content, student-content).
The problem with my triangle is that student-student interaction is not available. I wonder how this could be built in.
I would call my model the Output-based Interaction Triangle.
Well, it needs work, but it's what I can come up with at 11:45 pm on a Friday night. Please comment and let me know if you think I'm on the right track with a new model. Also, please comment on improvements I could make. I think that this is an idea I could/should actually develop into a paper!
Reference:
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4:2, 1-25.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Evaluating a Language Learning Blog
OK so there are numerous websites out there to teach people English. In a recent Google search, I found a number of these websites also have blogs on them. One such site is called "Learn English" and can be found at: http://kliktrans.com. This website is geared toward adult learners and provides a number of resources.
The main resource is the weekly blog giving tips and tricks on learning English. The most recent blog, titled "Understanding the Apostrophe," provides commentary about the difficulty of the English language and uses the apostrophe as an example. The blog is written is very difficult academic language using complex sentence structures and vocabulary. A beginning English language learner (ELL) would not be able to access this information. Rules regarding the use of the apostrophe are presented, but in paragraph form. I find it is much better to list rules numerically in a chart-like format making them easier for the ELL to compare the different rules. Additionally, the author gives very few examples of each rule.
Another resource on the site is the link to audio materials. The author links YouTube videos and resources provided from readers of the site. These videos are very appropriate for the ELL. The quality of the videos is good and the speakers on the video speak loudly, clearly, and slowly. The only problem here is that there are only seven audio resources provided and they do not provide a very large range of lessons.
The additional resources are not that exciting and are just more blogs or links based on a number of different categories of learning English. Within these links, the author talks about Google quite a bit as a tool for learning English. I don't know the relationship between the author/website and Google, but there could be.
One annoying thing about the website is that the author talks about losing his job and also makes a number of spelling errors. Also, the website is not very comprehensive, meaning it lacks a lot of information on basic skills and gives no sense of what needs to be learned first in order to learn a more difficult skill. It is a haphazard conglomerate of resources. Perhaps the author is not an expert in language learning, which makes me ask, why even build the site?
The main resource is the weekly blog giving tips and tricks on learning English. The most recent blog, titled "Understanding the Apostrophe," provides commentary about the difficulty of the English language and uses the apostrophe as an example. The blog is written is very difficult academic language using complex sentence structures and vocabulary. A beginning English language learner (ELL) would not be able to access this information. Rules regarding the use of the apostrophe are presented, but in paragraph form. I find it is much better to list rules numerically in a chart-like format making them easier for the ELL to compare the different rules. Additionally, the author gives very few examples of each rule.
Another resource on the site is the link to audio materials. The author links YouTube videos and resources provided from readers of the site. These videos are very appropriate for the ELL. The quality of the videos is good and the speakers on the video speak loudly, clearly, and slowly. The only problem here is that there are only seven audio resources provided and they do not provide a very large range of lessons.
The additional resources are not that exciting and are just more blogs or links based on a number of different categories of learning English. Within these links, the author talks about Google quite a bit as a tool for learning English. I don't know the relationship between the author/website and Google, but there could be.
One annoying thing about the website is that the author talks about losing his job and also makes a number of spelling errors. Also, the website is not very comprehensive, meaning it lacks a lot of information on basic skills and gives no sense of what needs to be learned first in order to learn a more difficult skill. It is a haphazard conglomerate of resources. Perhaps the author is not an expert in language learning, which makes me ask, why even build the site?
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Introducing Computer Assisted Language Learning
Egbert (2005) outlines Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) in his book CALL Essentials: Principles and Practice in CALL Classrooms. To begin with, CALL is defined as any use of computers, particularly the use of software on computers and the Internet, to support language learning. Within the field of CALL, Egbert (2005) notes three themes: (1) the students and the learning, not the technology, should remain the center of language learning in a CALL classroom, (2) CALL can occur in any language learning situation, and (3) CALL is interdisciplinary and draws from a number of fields.
Egbert (2005) presents four principles associated with CALL in Chapter One of his text. The first principle focuses on eight conditions that create a well-structured language learning classroom. The principles focus on a learner-centered classroom that encourages authentic learning in a supportive environment. Similarly, the second principle extends these conditions by adding in ESL standards. Specifically, Egbert (2005) discussed TESOL standards, ESL Standards for Pre-K - 12 Students, which extends the eight conditions. Within these two principles, it is extremely important, says Egbert (2005), to keep the students' learning goals, not standards, at the center of the lessons.
Focusing on CALL, the third principle presents five guidelines for using CALL in the classroom. The guidelines state that technology must be used as an effective and efficient tool that is accessible to all students and that enhances the learning objectives of the course. To assist in bridging the use of computers in the language classroom, Egbert (2005) states his fourth principle, which is to integrate the National Education Technology Standards into the curriculum. (For more information on NETS, see: http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=NETS).
The author reflects on her principles through the eyes of a teacher and not a researcher. She talks about having a back-up plan in case the technology does not work, she discusses the need to also teach the students how to the technology, and she poses a question regarding the condition of not using technology purely to use technology.
It is this question that causes me to pause for thought. Egbert (2005) writes, "When deciding whether or not to use software, I think it is important to evaluate if technology would be better than other methods" (p. 16). She also states that she once agreed with the statement, "if the computer doesn't support learning, then it should not be used just to be used" (Egbert, 2005, p. 16). She states that she now is not sure that she agrees because students can learn something by just playing around on the computer.
Yes, students can learn just by playing around on the computer - they can learn how to use technology. However, all lessons should be focused around the learning objectives of the course and the learning objectives of the student. Students might learn something by playing around with a computer, but we must ask whether or not they are meeting their personal and educational goals. Students can learn something "valuable" (as Egbert puts it) by going shopping. The students might learn that baggy jeans are a thing of the past. The students will find this to be a "valuable" lesson because the students will be fashionable at school. We must pose the questions: to whom is it valuable and to what degree is it valuable?
Therefore, I do think that Egbert is correct in questioning the statement. Technology should be used for a purpose and in order to meet a goal - it should not be used just to be used.
Egbert (2005) presents four principles associated with CALL in Chapter One of his text. The first principle focuses on eight conditions that create a well-structured language learning classroom. The principles focus on a learner-centered classroom that encourages authentic learning in a supportive environment. Similarly, the second principle extends these conditions by adding in ESL standards. Specifically, Egbert (2005) discussed TESOL standards, ESL Standards for Pre-K - 12 Students, which extends the eight conditions. Within these two principles, it is extremely important, says Egbert (2005), to keep the students' learning goals, not standards, at the center of the lessons.
Focusing on CALL, the third principle presents five guidelines for using CALL in the classroom. The guidelines state that technology must be used as an effective and efficient tool that is accessible to all students and that enhances the learning objectives of the course. To assist in bridging the use of computers in the language classroom, Egbert (2005) states his fourth principle, which is to integrate the National Education Technology Standards into the curriculum. (For more information on NETS, see: http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=NETS).
The author reflects on her principles through the eyes of a teacher and not a researcher. She talks about having a back-up plan in case the technology does not work, she discusses the need to also teach the students how to the technology, and she poses a question regarding the condition of not using technology purely to use technology.
It is this question that causes me to pause for thought. Egbert (2005) writes, "When deciding whether or not to use software, I think it is important to evaluate if technology would be better than other methods" (p. 16). She also states that she once agreed with the statement, "if the computer doesn't support learning, then it should not be used just to be used" (Egbert, 2005, p. 16). She states that she now is not sure that she agrees because students can learn something by just playing around on the computer.
Yes, students can learn just by playing around on the computer - they can learn how to use technology. However, all lessons should be focused around the learning objectives of the course and the learning objectives of the student. Students might learn something by playing around with a computer, but we must ask whether or not they are meeting their personal and educational goals. Students can learn something "valuable" (as Egbert puts it) by going shopping. The students might learn that baggy jeans are a thing of the past. The students will find this to be a "valuable" lesson because the students will be fashionable at school. We must pose the questions: to whom is it valuable and to what degree is it valuable?
Therefore, I do think that Egbert is correct in questioning the statement. Technology should be used for a purpose and in order to meet a goal - it should not be used just to be used.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
