?

How's everybody doing so far? I know it's only September still but it certainly feels like (bleak) November already. Sigh...

Reunion?

Would love to have a reunion sometime. Anyone interested? Drop me a line or e-mail.

It's time, finally

Hey, MATESL mates, remember me? Time to pick up your certs this Saturday. Don't you forget! See you all!

It's all in the name

Check out the top baby names here and the not-so-cool ones here.

Never give up...blogging

Dudes, I know MATESL's a (not so) distant memory but we shouldn't give up blogging. It's the only way that we can keep in touch. I look forward to seeing you all in cyberspace.

Blown Away!

How's this for a vacation spot!

End of the Road

Time flies (I know, I know, that is so cliched!) but here we are near graduation. Wanna say thanks to all my classmates and professors for giving me two good years of everything there is to learn about English teaching. Godspeed!

The Susan Boyle of Asia

Y'all know who SuBo is but "Little Fatty" here ain't no slouch either. Check it out! Looks like we have ourselves the next Youtube phenonmenon.

Wow, this brought me to tears

A truly touching story of love if there ever was one. Check out this Youtube phenonmenon. Makes good teaching material, too.

Calamity James

Surely hope England doesn't use David James for the upcoming World Cup.

Blunder 1:



Blunder 2:

President Bush at it again

Honestly, I think he was trying to get Clinton moving, with Bill being an attention hog and all.

Learner autonomy and learning in tandem

While we are all familiar with singing, playing and partying in tandem, we've never imagined ourselves learning in tandem. Well, Schwienhorst investigates this concept in his 2003 article as he explores three different approaches to learner autonomy and how they translate into tandem learning, which is one implementation of learner autonomy in CALL. He will also look into the relationship and pedagogy and present ideas considered useful for learner autonomy in computer-mediated settings.

First off, Schwienhorst defines learner autonomy as a person's capacity to self-evaluate and self-determine critically and take control over his or her learning. In other words, it is not letting students roam free. Using the target language for interaction in the classroom is a good indication of said autonomy. He then goes on to talk about three main perspectives of learner autonomy:

1) The individual-cognitive perspective: learners constantly try to improve their existing construct system by altering existing ones and measuring them against old ones.

2) The social-interactive perspective: interpersonal interaction and collaborateion serves to stimulate intrapersonal thinking. Conscious awareness of oneself is derived from awareness of others. Based on Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development.

3) Experimental-participatory perspective: learners are encouraged to take control over their learning through experimental work with tools to raise awareness.

All three perspectives operate with the development of language development and linguistic awareness with writing and written feedback playing a central role in heightening that awareness.

Tandem learning is an implementation of these perspectives. It is when two learners of complementary L1-L2 combinations are brought together to work as a pair. For example, combining a Scottish learner of Italian and an Italian learner of English. They will then learn from each other either face-to-face, by e-mail or through multi-user domains (MOOs). Each learner is responsible for his or her own learning as well as the partner's and each learner must support his or her partner to the best of abilities. The two languages should also be used in equal amounts so as to ensure learning. Sounds good, eh?

However, problems in tandem learning do exist such as when personal learning goals are valued over collective ones, the inconvenience of long-distance learning relationships when learning is done on the Web and the writing nature of the task causing the partners to see each other as mere pen-pals.

Schwienhorst then proceeds to talk about asynchronous communication tasks in the form of tandem e-mail and of the Electronic Tandem Resources (ETR) website at Trinity College Dublin, where learners can use the same tools, resources and interface together. In addition to the problems mentioned above, regular e-mail programs are difficult to monitor and are too diverse in design and function. The ETR website, on the other hand, provides a uniform platform and database that students can use to peer evaluate with clearly labeled tools.

For sychronous communication, the writer uses a tandem MOO through which learners use the same web-based interface for exchanges. Problems such as technical diffculties, off-task behavor and incomplete tasks are noted.

In conclusion, Schwienhorst points out three main areas in which a combination of technology and pedagogy will affect the reflective process of tandem learning and learner autonomy:

1) Pressures to support reflection. In MOO, it is the review one's own and the partner's input on screen. For social-interaction, tandem learners communicate in the MOO and for experimentation and participation, learners explore the MOO environment.

2) Affordances for reflection: multi-threaded conversations happening simultaneously and the adherence to bilingualism.

3) Potentials for reflection: shorter utterances or emoticons to allow for feedback.

All in all, learner autonomy and tandem projects need to be done around sound pedagogical principles and language learning perspectives. Technological learning tools must help realize these perspectives. A clear focus of task-based work must be provided for students as well as allowing them to be involved in the design of learning environments. Teachers, on the other hand, must not give students free rein but should provide input for critical reflection. A motivating and authentic learning environment with clearly defined tasks and helpful instructions are vital to language learning, not to mention the reflective, social-interactive and experimental-participatory perspectives that all activities must take root in.

UStream

You've heard of Youtube, but have you heard of UStream? It's the latest phenomenon in cyberspace. Maybe you can use it for your group project.

Farewell to the King

The King of the Internet, Google, has officially stepped down from its throne in China. On second thought, it was a coup more than anything. Netizens, let's have a moment of silence and mourn.

Testing, testing. Is this a test? Yes, IT is

In his short but concise paper, Alderson talks about an emerging trend in education - using computer and information technology (i.e. the Internet) for testing. Computers are beginning to deliver language tests in many settings, from high stakes ones like TOEFL to low stakes ones like in-class quizzes and like all IT tools, there are lots of pros and just as many cons.

First, the disadvantages. While multiple-choice and gap-filling assessments are ubiquitous on computers, open-ended items and speaking and writing tests are still a challenge for machines. Also, there might be those who are still too IT-illiterate to take a test online on a computer. In fact, Educational Testing Service provides computer literacy training to TOEFL-takers via sampler CDs or real-life training. Sounds unbelievable but true.

The advantages, on the other hand, are numerous. One obvious advantage is that computer-based testing eliminates the need to fix a date and location as per pencil-and-paper assessments. Results can be immediately available afterwards and Internet-based tests are even more flexible as items and the difficult level can be readily amended and calibrated. These tests can also be saved onto a database of items for future use and test security can be enhanced by randomly placing these items on a paper. While there's always a security risk of running a high-stakes test like TOEFL online, teachers can use IT liberally for low-stakes ones.

Alderson then proceeds to the pedagogical advantages of computer-based testing (CBT), which coincidentally echos the Gaskell and Cobb article on feedback from the previous week. Alderson says that CBT allows test takers to receive immediate feedback that may be conducive to learning, even if they are only concerned about the final grade. Another advantage in pedagogy is that real-time instructions and tools (i.e. online dictionaries) can be given to minimize confusion. Students could also be asked to self-assess and re-take a test with different levels of difficulty as to improve the final score.

While there have been sparse updatees on recent innovations in CBT, things are looking promising with pictures and graphics being inserted into the computer version of TOEFL as well as keys that allow learners to allow how soon the next question appears. Better yet, an EU-funded program called DIALANG provides tests in different languages and assess learners' productive skills like the all-important speaking. Okay, so real-life recording is still not possible but users can choose their preferred response to simulated scenarios. Answers will then be rated by human judges.

The article then goes on to talk about other new programs which I will not list here. Bottom line is, there are numerous advantages and disadvantages to CBT and the key is to do more research on the validity of computer tests. What strategies do test takers use? What is the most appropriate way to measure a learner's performance? Which feedback method is the best (Cobb again) and what is the most effective integration method? While it is not difficult to run a CBT (MCs-Scantron being the most common), educators should take into account the amount of learning generated by CBT as well as test takers' attitude. Will their behavior affect the reliability of the test in any way? Are we really testing what we are supposed to test (validity)? Are we using machines for our own convenience or for the sake of our students? Can computer testing help relate assessment more closely to learning? These issues and more should be addressed through research.

As for my school, only the Science and Math teachers use Scantron, which, I know, is a very primitive version of CBT. But according to Alderson, it is making a comeback and my colleagues have been using it for a few years. Feedback has been good so far, mainly due to convenience, and students have gotten used to it. To them, a Scantron test is just as good as a pen-and-paper one. Again, the only thing they care about is the final score. Here's where self-assessment tools could help but I don't think my school's going to implement any of them due to a lack of funds.

Concordance feedback

I think most of us here had a great time last night listening to Dr. Milton and navigating our way around the My Words application. But do you guys remember him mentioning the use of a concordance?

According to the omnipotent Wikipedia, a concordance is "an alphabetical list of the principal words used in a book or body of work, with their immediate contexts". In other words, it is a database of commonly used words, sentences and expressions. Gaskell and Cobb's article talks about just that as the writer's investigate a computer concordance that provides feedback to sentence-level written errors.

Unlike spelling, errors in sentences are usually grammatical in nature, which makes them less straightforward to explain. Hence, Gaskell and Cobb suggest a feedback driven system that emphasizes on repeated sentence patterns rather than on abstract terms. Also, they aim to make concordance information more accessible to lower-intermediate L2 writers. Indeed, some of these programs are more suited for advanced learners as the words and sentences used are often too advanced for the average learner to comprehend (a la My Words). Another concern is that there seems to be a discrepancy as to whether or not feedback is beneficial to the writer. On one hand, it is seen as discouraging to learners while others consider it an indispensible part of learning and error reduction. Gaskell and Cobb surmise that it's unrealistic to achieve anything significant short term as learners must have enough exposure to common patterns to generate any improvement. In any event, the writers are only interested in developing a principled feedback resource of formative evaluation that learners are able to use.

The system that Gaskell and Cobb advocate is one that includes an upload program for submission, a corpus and concordancer that can code structure information in a URL and a form submitter for learners to enter their responses to the concordance information. They hope that learners would be able to correct their errors thorugh the concordance info and that corrections would be made with some kind of understanding. Errors were hoped to diminish and independent access was also an expected outcome. Their study shows that learners are willing to use concordances for their grammar and that they are able to make appropriate corrections. Independent concordancing was achieved with a useful training system and learners were able to make sense of the system and the feedback generated. However, trialling is found to be too inclusive and a research-and-development approach that covers various learner behaviors are advocated.

All in all, Gaskell and Cobb's article presents an interesting view on corpus and concordancing but at the high school level, we are still at the very primitive stage of using pen and paper for feedback. I'm sure my colleagues would welcome such a system but who's going to all the uploading and data entry? Who's going to provide all the hyperlinks for the erros? While my school does have an online homework submission system for Math, I don't think we're going to implement it for English as many of my colleagues prefer hard copies that they can write on. They find turning on the computer and going through the applications time-consuming as a good ol' red ball point pen can achieve the same, if not more. Believe it or not, they would rather go with a regular dictionary than the My Words application. Bottom line is, the less computers factor in, the better. Besides, students never read what you give them as they are only concerned about the mark/score/grade and those who do read the feedback will eventually approach you. The picture is pretty bleak, I know, but I'm not giving up hope just yet. I will keep trying to implement more IT into my teaching.

Don't give up hope just yet

Wanna be constantly updated on how close we are to the end of the world? Then make sure you have this clock around. But I guess to many of you, doomsday is the day you submit assignment 3.

Check My Words out

I just tried out the application, Check My Words (CMW) on the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology website and frankly speaking, I got mixed feelings about it.

The CMW application is a toolbar installed onto Microsoft Word that allows users to check the meaning(s) of a work, the grammar of a sentence, common collocations, grammatical patterns/word combination of an expression, frequent expressions (via Google) and retrieve vocabulary from a long list of selection. It is a "one-stop clinic" that provides remedies for grammatically-challenged writers or those suffering from writer's block. Unlike Word's own spell and grammar check, CMW offers way more as it provides examples of how a word can be used in a sentence (as different parts of speech) as well as subject-verb agreement. In a nutshell, it consolidates everything in one go, sparing the user of opening up browser after browser looking up different dictionary sites. Speaking of dictionaries, the "Definition" tab of the tool bar offers a plethora of online dictionaries for the user so he or she could get different expert opinions. The "Word Neighbors Collocations" is also a useful function as it informs users of how expressions are used in everyday conversations. And the list goes on and on...

Now onto the bad side of things. If you are in a hurry with your paper or document, ditch the application as it is so comprehensive that it will take you more than minutes just to go through all the definitions and explanations. Also, if you make a mistake and click on the "check" tab, the program will give you a list of potential explanations and going through them again takes time. The "Word Neighbors" criteria input interface is a bit complicated too as one cannot possible navigate through it without the user guide in hand. All in all, the toolbar is really not for those who are in a rush to finish things.

Last but DEFINITELY not least, there's apparently a clash between Word and CMW. Whenever I try to check my errors, the toolbar shuts down due to a "run time error" and the whole Word application promptly crashes. There goes the 2000 word essay. So make sure you save every two second should you decide to use CMW.

P.S. You need to be online in order to fully utilize the toolbar, which is inconvenient for those with unstable web connection. Should have a backup, iPhone-like application version instead that one can download and fully access even if there's no Internet available.

Er...okay

Just saw The Hurt Locker. Er...don't understand how it won the Best Picture Award at the 82nd Academy Awards. I mean, it was a good film and all but definitely not worth an Oscar. Guess those judges really like small-budget, independent stuff. Wanna see a real war film? Rent Platoon (1986).

Right to Copy?

For once, the Hong Kong government has come up with a document that is actually readable by the public sans archaic vocabulary and ambiguous expressions. The Amended Copyright Law for Teachers and Students is an invaluable document especially for language teachers as they need to enhance and "pad up" their lessons with authentic material on a regular basis. Said material often includes newspapers, textbooks, Internet articles, films, songs, and other literary and multimedia sources. Problem is, these authentic sources are written by other people, hence, copyrighted.

We language teachers have known all along that schools are exempted from copyright laws and that we are allowed to replicate and duplicate works for educational and testing purposes. However, many of us do not know the extend of the exemption. The SAR government has made it very clear through this document what is acceptable and what is not. Through a new "Fair Dealing" Ordinance (Section 41A of the Copyright Ordinance), reasonable (i.e. small) portions of reproduction of a text or film by a student or teacher is allowed if it is for an education purpose, that is, a project by a student of a presentation by a teacher. Showing a movie a film for entertainment's sake or photocopying an entire textbook, however, would be an infringement. Hats off to the Intellectual Property Department for the clear explanation and examples given.

It's good to know that besides teachers, students are now permitted to make copies under Section 41A of the Ordinance. In fact, schools that have not previously entered into license agreements with the Hong Kong Reprographic Rights Licensing Society (HKRRLS) can not be exempted under the "fair dealing" principle of Section 41A. Definitely good news for all!

The document goes on to outline the amendments to Sections 43 and 35B, respectively, with drama performances/musical of a literary work now allowed to be shown to relatives and other persons directly connected with the educational establishment for the former (i.e. students, teachers) (which I didn't know, honestly. Kinda funny, though. Imagine this exchange: Kid: "Mom, I got a musical today but don't tell your friends about it. It would be illegal if they came. Mom: "........guess they wouldn't need to wear anything if they came" Kid: "Huh" Mom: "cuz they would be served with lawsuits, get it, son, lawSUITS..hahhaa.....) and parallel imports (or "bootlegged" copies in piracy circles) allowed to be shown and kept in classrooms and school libraries for the latter.

Honestly, we should distribute a copy of this document to our students. I don't know about you guys, but my school is extremely cautious when it comes to copyright infringement. My principal constantly reminds us not to copiously copy stuff from books, newspapers or the Internet and actively encourages us to create stuff on our own. Our students, on the other hand, are not so discriminate as they constantly upload whole articles, songs, and movies onto our school Intranet. Note that these files are definitely not "fairly dealt" as they are whole copies that are not for educational purposes. True, we have a login name and password and stuff (thus, abiding by the government's requirements. It's in the document, read it!) but it gets so out of hand that the webmaster has to remove all the files and re-format the Intranet from time to time. It was like Foxy and BT! Hence, make sure you distribute a copy of the doc to your kids before the police come knocking at your door (actually, I heard it's the principal's responsibility to ensure everything's legal. No wonder mine gets so agitated. It's her butt on the line!)

When it comes to movies, though, my colleagues and I are treading a fine line. We have these Language Arts (LA) programs for Forms 1 to 3 and they are all on movies. We would show our kids a clip of the film every lesson but eventually, they get to see the whole DVD. True, we give out LA booklets with all kinds of educational questions on themes and plots and art imitating life etc. but the fact of the matter is, the whole movie is shown. Would that be an infringement? Or would it be something "fair" for educational purpose? Oh, one more thing, they are NOT movies being currently shown, as stated in the document of focus here (which, again, cracks me up. How could anyone get a copy of a DVD of a film currently being shown unless it was pirated/downloaded, which would be illegal in the first place! Sigh...these civil servants. I take my compliments back).

A Liou and clear CALL

First off, I'm happy that we finally get to read an article on CALL written by an Asian from an Asian university. It's always encouraging for us Asian English language teachers (ELTs) to see one of our own engaging in a discipline that that are involved in.

Liou's lengthy article focuses on something a lot of ELTs have done - showing movies and videos in class. In particular, Liou describes an interactive video disc (IVD) course ware for English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching study in a Taiwanese institution. Unlike regular videos, this IVP features interactive tools that allow viewers/learners to click on the icons on screen to access dictionary translations, background information on the characters and even information on the characters' dialects. Hence, students can navigate through the IVD course ware on their own. The course ware is developed to enhance EFL instruction and learning and prepare for research in EFL learning. There's also a computer managed instruction (CMI) that checks the hardware and records the time a learner spends going through the course ware as well as monitoring his or her own performance. Everything sounds straightforward until the technical aspects of design and implementation come into the picture.

Tools like Microsoft Windows and IconAuthor are utilized to construct the databases of the aforementioned film information. Templates are also written to allow lay teachers who understand very little about IT to customize the program for their own pedogogical needs. Then, the course ware is to be implemented in the classroom, which does not have to be limited to an online setting as offline dictionaries and note-taking can facilitate activities like re-sequencing the story.

Evaluation of the program is also complicated and inconclusive as a myriad of factors contribute to its effectiveness like human factors, user friendliness, time, and matching of student type with program type. All in all, designing a comprehensive and effective IVD is extremely time-consuming.

Amidst all the technical mumble jumble, one must not forget to set sound teaching and learning objectives before even thinking about designing a program. One must consider the language, the learner and language learning. Do your learners really need to watch a video or film to learn the target language? Does the video match your curriculum goals? If not, then you'd be better off not using any video or film.

The researcher chooses the American film Ghostbusters to be the movie of focus because the curriculum guide set by the Taiwanese Ministry of Education specifies American Literature as a required course and indeed, films help students learn better because they provide strong visual stimuli and entertainment value, present realistic clips of life and offer rich, genuine target language input like accent, intonation, formal and informal expressions. But again, don't play videos for the sake of playing them or killing time. Make sure they fit your curriculum and provide adequate support and resources for students like the full movie script, full subtitles (DVD subtitles sometimes miss out because of actors' improvisation; hence, extra work on your part), translation of unfamiliar words, definitions of local slang etc. Furthermore, pre-task and post-task activities are also essential to the learning and understanding of the movie and its language elements, for example, the background of the movie, the actors involved, the film's setting, title and plot for the former and the movie's theme and symbolic meanings for the latter. Turned off? You betcha so think twice before showing your kids a trailer, let alone a feature film.

Talk of the town

Truth be told this Annoying Orange is indeed annoying but his videos actually make good listening and oral material as the characters' pronunciation and enunciation are loud and clear. If your students can get the jokes and puns, they are more than capable of doing other listening stuff.

Reminder

Noticed that a lot of you haven't been updating your blogs. Would love to see some new posts.

Now even YOU can be a Nav'i

Having Avatar withdrawal symtoms? Be a citizen of Pandora in the comfort of your own home. Just watch the following instructional video.

I wonder...

why nobody's been updating his or her blog (well, with the exception of Gibble). Is it because of the cold spell or over-celebrating Chinese New Year.

Bare with me but here's the warning letter

Dear hotrice Somerset,

This email is notification of action regarding your Second Life account,
hotrice Somerset, for violation of the Second Life Terms of Service or
Community Standards. The violation in question occurred on February 8, 2010
in the region of Orientation Island Public.


Violation: Community Standards: Indecency, Mature Content

Mature material is allowed only in-world in Regions rated M
(Mature). A PG next to the Region name at the top of your
screen indicates that you are in a PG region.

The following content is not appropriate in PG Regions:
Intense, strong language or expletives. Nudity or sexual
content in textures, sounds, or animations. Content
depicting sex, strong violence, or anything else broadly
offensive. Soliciting of chat sex. Avatar nudity.

This is just a warning notice. No suspension of your account has been
applied at this time.

Action:
No additional action is being taken at this time.

Appeal Process:
The decision to suspend your Second Life access was reached after
investigation of your use of the Second Life software and service. If you
would like to appeal your suspension, you may contact Second Life Support,
in writing, at the address below:

Second Life Support
Linden Lab
945 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111

CALL = SLA = TESTING METHODS?

I couldn't believe how much in common Hubbard's article has with the materials that I came into contact with one course I took and one that I am taking: Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and Testing and Evaluation, respectively. In the "Teacher fit" (approach) section, Hubbard talks about how an evaluator, or teacher, "needs to be in touch with his or her assumptions about learning in general and language learning in particular". Those assumptions are further broken down into two types: internal (the learner's age, motivation, L1 interference etc.) and external (teachers, classrooms, the media etc.). No matter the courseware, a teacher's view of language learning and teaching are independent of any computer program. Indeed, in my SLA course, I learned that amongst all the theories of language learning, none is absolute and that a balanced approach is key. The bahaviorist, explicit learning and communicative approaches that Hubbard talks about is nothing new to MATESL students but I was surprised at that fact that those theories have to come into play even in CALL. Of course, as responsible language instructors, we must ensure that the computer as a delivery system gives meaningful rather than mechanical practice and accepts alternative answers in certain contexts, which brings me to the other course that I am taking.

In Testing Methods and Evaluation, we have to analyze test and exam papers to ensure their reliability and validity. Along the way, we must decide whether or not the rubrics are clear and judging criteria fair. For example, would more than one answer be accepted and would spelling and lower case letter play a role in scoring. Also, would hints be given in context and would the distractors in multiple choice questions draw enough answers. That echoes with Hubbard's presentational schemes and input judging.

As I was reading along, I discovered even more eerie similarities as Hubbard actually mentions field dependence/independence and intrinsic/instrumental motivation in the "learner fit" (design) section as strategy variables that need to be considered when formulating an appropriate courseware for students. Again, those terms featured prominently in the aforementioned SLA course and ring a familiar tune. Meanwhile, in the same section, Hubbard surmises that program focus, language difficulty and program difficulty are also key in terms of meeting the syllabus requirements for CALL courseware. Carrying over to the appropriate judgment section, Hubbard asks readers to consider whether a courseware is effective and efficient before implementation. That is, can learners practice or learn some area of the target language called for by the syllabus, be it grammar or phonetics and would it be worthwhile for students to use it when there are better and more economical options available? That is exactly what I am learning in Testing Methods as a good exam paper should test what is supposed to be tested and be worthwhile for a student to attempt.


While their similarities are uncanny, it is no surprise that CALL evaluation echoes theories found in both SLA and Testing. Computers and technology are only there to supplement language teaching and learning so a learner's disposition and a teacher's SLA beliefs. Simultaneously, evaluators should never randomly put together courseware just because they are cheap and readily available. Rather, instructors should carefully evaluate and judge whether or not they are efficient, effective and reflect the skills required to be taught on the syllabus. More often than not, teachers just copy and paste materials from various textbooks and websites onto so-called test papers and this practice must stop, even in CALL. If your school has no room for CALL, then better leave it alone then forcing it in, eventhough the evaluation framework proposed by Hubbard could be refined and adjusted.

Keeping my clothes on...

Guess I should've listened to Gibble. My "all-out" display last night on Second Life (SL) got myself into hot water as a received a warning e-mail from the webmaster. Apparently, one community member complained about my, ahem, wardrobe (actually, I dared him/her to do so and he/she called my bluff). Future offenses will result in the suspension of my account. Talk about not having a (second) life, these people!

Anyway, this is exactly what SL does to people, that is, it brings out the child in all of us. I was like a kid in a candy store, running wild and leaving all my inhibitions at the door (literally). SL capitalizes on basic human instincts like the need for socializing and discovering the unknown, satisfying its users by providing them infinite opportunities to mingle and explore. Also, netizens can forever remain anonymous in SL worlds, another must of any cyber-networking tool.

Actually, I find it reassuring that there are people "watching" us and keeping us in line. In a sense, SL emulates the laws of the real world, that its "citizens" cannot really do whatever they desire. If one wants to get down and dirty, they he or she can go to the "mature" sections. I'm glad that I was warned because I was on my way to contaminating the PG-nature of the domain I was in. Teachers, then, should not worry too much about students crossing the line. That being said, Christoph's right in saying that language teachers should have more structured tasks and projects in place for students in case they go around aimlessly. A good langauge practice would be for students to meet different people in different (English) worlds and record their profiles down. There are infinite opportunities for students to learn in SL and teachers must explore it thoroughly before using it with students.

Better late than never: Reflection on week 1's reading

Man, I can't believe I am part of the CALL revolution as both student and teacher. When I was a grade school student in Canada, my friends and I would rush to the library after school for Cross Country Canada, a so-called computer game that required players to navigate through Canada in a truck. Along the way, we had to complete missions like deliveries and pick-ups and deal with very human weaknesses like hunger and fatigue. I was obsessed with that game back then so it's amazing to discover that it's actually an example of Communicative CALL, a view that emphasizes problem solving using genuine and original utterances and allows students to complete a task without explicitly correcting their errors. In short, Communicative CALL stimulates students' discussion, writing, or critical thinking instead of forcing them to produce the right answer.

As an English teacher, I am fortunate to be part of the Integrative CALL era, where human-human interactions in authentic, computer-mediated discourse communities are possible based on advances in computer technology. Multimedia and Internet technology allow different applications such as reading, listening and speaking to be linked together in a single activities and instant messaging systems and file sharing networks enable real-time communication that was unheard of years ago. Teachers and students are now able to talk to each other without seeing one another.

Fortunately, I was not part of the "drill and kill" regime of the 60s and 70s that emphasized repeated drilling of grammatical and language items out of context. A good example would be fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice exercises. While I believe that all these technological advances are making communication easier, they could actually hinder teacher if instructors over-rely on the machines. I agree with Warschauer that computers are a medium in which pedagogical philosophies maybe implemented so it is the user and his or her practices that make these machines beneficial to teaching and learning. Never use a computer just for the sake of using a computer. PowerPoint becomes PowerPointless if you repeatedly use it for no apparent learning purpose. Instead of waiting for a super, Terminator-like computer/robot to help you, incorporate teaching techniques with existing software and hardware intelligently, like what I'm doing in the classroom as I communciate with my students regularly through MSN and the school discussion board.

Deep, very deep!

Man, talk about serious stuff! Just when I thought I had all these new technological tools down pat, in comes this article on the theoretical side and development process of CALL. While there is nothing quite as practical as a good theory, it does turn people off. People just want to get into the meat and potatoes of things. Don't believe me? Check this out as theory/practice (which, in essence, is more talk than action) can turn the most interested and talented parties off. I remember myself dropping piano once theory came into play. That being said, what we have in the field of education today, from curricula to syllabuses to extra-curricular programs, are all products of sound theoretical framework.

Levy's (1997) article is a bit dated, to be honest, as we have way more advanced technological tools nowadays. Hence, program developers, or proceduralists, as Levy calls them, are now front and center with theory advocates, or formalists, taking a back seat. Indeed, when we teachers decide to adopt an IT-teaching tool, the first thing that we look for is its user-friendliness and how exciting or stimulating it is. Little do we examine the cognitive psychology and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theories mentioned by Levy that underlie language learning. Truth be told, who's got time to analyze complicated theories when you're already going into overdrive. Eventhough scholars like Jonassen warns against the field of CALL being technology-led and that the medium used should not be the primary focus, I tend to go with Meskill's (1991) postulation that media selection should come first because too much discussion on theory would eventually result in a serious case of lost in translation. I remember that one time, I had to come up with an oral project involving technology and immediately I thought of making movie trailers. My team and I then formulated a plan around the chosen medium and had no trouble implementing the project. So yeah, it is important to consider the technology early rather than late because with technology, you never know how it might surprise you at the very last minute.

But then again, Hubbard's (1992, 1996) also right in saying that CALL isn't so much a process but "a network of interdependent relationships between elements that need to be taken into account". So I guess it's all about balance, as indicated by Levy in his conclusion. Proceduralists should beware of being so obsessed with technology "to the point where they have no coherent theoretical basis to support their work". On the other hand, formalists must be careful that their theories actually encompass the CALL context in question. Bear in mind that the development process of CALL is dynamic and that there's no one single approach.

As for myself, I would definitely cut all the mumble jumble and just do it. Feedback from students and teachers is infinitely more important. Do a trial run, evaluate and adjust.

Bored? Play this

Check it out.

Jekyll and Hyde

Ah, dangers in cyberspace. Guess the same old problems exist no matter where you are, online or otherwise.

CALLing to break down barriers

Don't you just love the feeling of winding down at home after a long day's work, free from restrictions and criticisms and just let loose? Don't you just love hanging out with your closest friends and leaving all your inhibitions at the door? Roed (2003) thinks online communication could do just that for otherwise reserved language learners in her study of 13 first and second year students of Danish engaged in an online communicative task in a chat room. From her findings, she concludes that a virtual environment "is a definite advantage to the shy and introvert language student" and that it lowers the level of anxiety of producing the target language as well as increasing participation. Out of the five subjects mentioned, three were real-life introverts who thrived in an online communication setting. It is concluded by Roed that because of the lack of time pressure and interruptions, online chats "deinhibits" students as they serve as a "shield" and let learners talk more freely.

Roed's idea of virtual eloquence is not new as I've experienced first hand the way shy students behave when they are online. My students can babble on and on and produce language not thought possible when they are on MSN, Facebook and other webchat tools. In fact, even teachers "talk" (language is written but register is oral, according to Roed) more when they are in front of a computer. However, whereas Roed believes that online communication serves as a scaffold for students to build up their target language gradually, I actually think it does the opposite as Internet language is everything that's not proper. Also, when doing online tasks, instructors and learners should take into account a few things. First, the virtual world is a microcosm of the real one so problems in reality are likely to exist in cyberspace. Roed mentions one in her article. She says that when in virtualy reality, group identity is so strong online that "it is often a difficult and slow process for newcomers to break in and play a part. Sounds like exclusion and "freeze out" to me. Furthermore, prolonged computer use could help usher in "Cyberhermitism" (okay, it's a new term coined by yours truly for Internet addiction), a condition that strips heavy computer users of their social skills and eventually glues them onto their seat away from any kind of real, tangible human contact. After all, face-to-face interaction is still very important as even Roed doesn't think that a person can communicate entirely by e-mail or in a chat room.

Last but not least, chat room users tend to display Jekyll and Hyde tendencies so teachers and parents must preach Internet safety to prevent this. I'm not saying that online communication is a booby trap for students but as with all things new, we should take it with a grain of salt.

Drama for Dummies

Need a hand with your drama unit? Check this out. It's got everything from devising to performing. It's like Drama for Dummies and then some. Break a leg!

Some useful links

http://www.teach-nology.com/

This site's got worksheets and lesson plans aplenty on various disciplines. Not necessarily IT-drive but nevertheless a (Free!) useful resource site for teachers.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/

You fly? Or you phat? Not down with that? Then you better check out Urban Dictionary, THE place to be for definitions of common slang and other interesting sayings. You dig?

Internet for Language Teaching

Warschauer et al provide interested readers with some basic principles of using the Internet for language teaching. In the article (or chapter), the pedagogical principles are divided into learning goals, teaching guidelines and planning tips. Learning goals include different types of learning like collaborative and critical learning that are much more structured and meaningful than just surfing the web aimlessly. Teaching guidelines feature the proposals of Dual immersion and Integration, which answer teachers' concerns about using IT non-intrusively in the classroom. Last but not least, Warschauer and friends offer readers some planning tips on how to run an IT/language lesson smoothly given the complexity of using machines that might not be available to everyone and the many technical difficulties that might plague nervous instructors such as time constraints, monitoring, hardware coordination and the omnipresent slow connection and deadlinks. According to the writers, teachers should plan well ahead and forsee the problems. Also, if caught in a low-tech setting (LIKE MY SCHOOL WITH JURASSIC COMPUTERS!!), focus on simple tools like e-mail or make use of resources outside the classroom. Offline work works, too, and so do simple applications on ancient PCs. Warschauer and company end their article by listing out ten examples of Internet-based projects done by primary, secondary and tertiary institutions.

Although the tips given by the writers are useful, I doubt if English teachers in Hong Kong, especially traditionalists, are willing to buy into the concept of Internet teaching. Besides the very obvious rigid curriculum that still emphasizes on textbooks rather than netbooks, teachers are resistant to change, any change that disrupts their flow of teaching (of exam skills). I can say I'm a pioneer at my school but it's extremely tough to get everyone on board. I can attest to that personally and finding suitable partners for team teaching is equally difficult as most of my colleagues are passive observers. Funding is also a problem as different departments vie for limited subsidies. All in all, it's a lonely battle to be fought. Oh, yeah, back to those Jurassic computers I was talking about. Not only do they kill off the interest of capable students but they also deter them from even attempting web-based activities in the classroom. As for working offline and from home, one's got to be careful as parents might complain about their kids being online all the time. In a nutshell, Warschauer and friends are right in saying that pedagogy and planning, not technology and surfing, are the keys to success in IT teaching.

Assassin's Creed II (Cool as hell!)

Haiti

Don't like French, never have, never will but my heart goes out to the hundreds of thousands of French-speaking Haitians out there. Hang in there. Help is coming. Que votre Dieu soit avec vous!

Foomeister's Big Day

yo, it's the Foomeister's B-day today but I don't think anyone remembers so I've decided to dedicate a song to myself:

Have you ever had a song that you can't get out of your head?

Damn, nothing's gonna stop me from singing "Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now". Definitely (along with the movie - Mannequin (1986) were you guys even born yet?) one of my guilty pleasures!

Here's a clip from the movie:



And here's the song:

My favorite teams, in no particular order:

My links

Here are some links that constitute my CALL:

http://intranet1.skhlkmss.edu.hk/ (school intranet page 1 with discussion board and e-mail)


http://intranet2.skhlkmss.edu.hk/it-school/ (school intranet page 2 with e-mail and file-sharing functions(small capacity, though))


In addition to the above links, I also do computer-based projects with my students like movie trailers, TV programs and voiceovers, as attested by my Popular Culture classmates from last summer.

I will also show my students movies about computer technology and its ramifications like The Matrix (2001) and Gamer (2009).

I have also approached the British Council recently and may soon sign up with them for Teen Second Life, a virtual reality program where teens get to travel in England through time in avatars. Here is the link:

http://www.britishcouncil.org/hongkong-english-secondlife.htm

Do I "CALL" often?

I wouldn't say I am an IT expert or anything but I do spend up to 6 hours a day on the computer, surfing the Web and instant messaging my friends. My CALL dealings with students mainly revolve around Youtube, Twitter and various blogs as we analyze the different varieties of English (i.e. formal vs. informal) that bloggers and tweeters use. Youtube videos, meanwhile, serve as warm-up activities and lead-ins for textbook units (e.g. Lennon's "Imagine" for the unit, Peace). Sometimes, we'll joke about some phenomena, like "Rickrolling" when we have time.

Allow me to introduce...

yours truly, the Foomeister. I like things hot and spicy and am not afraid to light up the crowd once in a while. Debating and sweet-talking are my forte while working's not. All joke's aside, I am a very dedicated English teacher, believe it or not, and I specialize in counseling, uh, mingling with teens.