Having Avatar withdrawal symtoms? Be a citizen of Pandora in the comfort of your own home. Just watch the following instructional video.
44 lettera presentazione per lavoro
1 year ago
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
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.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Bare with me but here's the warning letter
Dear hotrice
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
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
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.
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.
Monday, February 8, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Monday, February 1, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
