Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition by I. Yanguas

As a language teacher, I am always confronted with the same question by almost all of my students: How can I learn vocabulary in English? The answer to this question depends on learners’ aims and needs. That is, if learners are studying for a nation-wide high stakes exam in which there are multiple-choice questions directly and/or indirectly testing vocabulary knowledge, the very first answer will be to memorize a list of frequently asked lexical items on the exam, practice it frequently using the traditional ways such as flash cards, notebooks, and try to read as much as you can. In this mode of study, the focus will be on recognition, ignoring pronunciation and contexts in which it can be used. However, when it comes to vocabulary acquisition for negotiation of meaning and communication, or in other words, production ability, everything seems to change, from methodology to activities to be implemented.

Yanguas (2012) focuses on enhancing fifty-eight third semester college Spanish Students’ L2 vocabulary acquisition through a within groups experimental design. The study uses Skype as a way of learner-to-learner interaction and investigates whether traditional face-to-face interaction and oral CMC (Computer Mediated Communication- audio and video) interaction will lead to differences in learners’ development of vocabulary knowledge. Furthermore, the article also explores participants’ perceptions of CMC modes. When we look at the materials used in the study, we see that the participants collaborated on jigsaw tasks to combine and use information to achieve their goals. This task is based on The Amazing Race, which is a reality television game show. As for assessment tasks, 16 target words were presented in the jigsaw task to check the participants’ development in recognition, production and listening abilities.

If briefly stated, Yanguas’ findings show that there are no statistically significant differences considering production and recognition abilities among the three groups: participants completing the tasks through video CMC (VidCMC), through audio CMC (AudCMC), and through face-to-face interaction in class. As the post-test which was conducted after two weeks indicate, all the groups were able to recognize the target words, with no significant difference. However, an interesting finding was found regarding aural comprehension development. The participants who interacted through audio CMC group outperformed the other two groups, which was accounted for the fact that they did not focus on visual cues. The results also showed that there were no significant differences among the groups in their development of production or written recognition, which I think need pivotal care. Considering the participants’ attitudes, most of the participants highly valued CMC modes and provided positive feedback.

The author, in the discussion and conclusion section, touches upon a very important issue by saying that

The results of this study seem to support the notion that receptive and productive learning processes are different and, as such, learners might need diverse treatments so that these abilities can be developed (p. 523).

I think this is the very point that we should focus on. In one way or another, through traditional methods and/or CMC modes, we, language teachers, seem to have achieved helping our language learners to develop their receptive or recognition ability. However, we seem to go back to initial stages when it comes to productive ability. Therefore, we should look for ways to enhance their productive skills through various methods and materials.

Yanguas, I. (2012). Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 507-531.

———————————————-

I have provided some references on vocabulary development and CALL for those interested in.

Abraham, L. B. (2008). Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 199-226.

Acha, J. (2009). The effectiveness of multimedia programmes in children’s vocabulary learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 23-31.

Allum, P. (2004). Evaluation of CALL: Initial vocabulary learning. ReCALL, 16(2), 488-501.

Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A comparative  study. Language Learning  and Technology,  5(1).

Baturay, M., Yıldırım, S., & Daloğlu, A. (2009). Effects of web-based spaced repetition on vocabulary retention of foreign language learners.  Egitim Arastirmalari–Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 34, 17-36.

Belz, J. A. (2004). Learner corpus analysis and the development of foreign language proficiency. System, 32(4), 577-591.

Blok, H., Van Daalen-Kapteijns, M. M., Otter, M. E., & Overmaat, M. (2001). Using computers to learn words in the elementary grades: An evaluationframework and a review of effect studies. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(2), 99-128.

Braun, S. (2005). From pedagogically relevant corpora to authentic language learning contents. ReCALL, 17(1), 47-64.

Browne, C., & Culligan, B. (2008). Combining technology and IRT testing to build student knowledge of high frequency vocabulary. The JALT CALL Journal, 4(2), 3-16.

Chambers, A. (2007). Integrating corpora in language learning and teaching. ReCALL, 19(3), 249-251.

Christensen, E., Merrill, P., & Yanchar, S. (2007). Second language vocabulary acquisition using a diglot reader or a computer-based drill and practice program. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 67-77.

Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 80(2),183-198.

Coll, J. F. (2002). Richness of semantic encoding in a hypermedia-assisted instructional environment for ESP: Effects on incidental vocabulary retention among learners with low ability in the target language. ReCALL, 14(2), 263-284.

Daloğlu, A. Baturay, M., & Yildirim, S. (2009). Designing a constructivitist vocabulary learning material. In R. C. V. Marriott &  P. L. Torres.  (Eds.). Research on e-learning methodologies for language acquisition (pp. 186-203).New York: Information Science Reference.

De la Fuente, M.J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study of the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1),47-81.

Deridder,  I. (2003). Reading from the screen in a second language: Empirical studies on the effect of marked hyperlinks on incidental vocabulary learning, text comprehension and the reading process. Antwerp-Apeldoorn: Garant.

Gabel, S. (2001). Over-indulgence and under-representation in interlanguage: Reflectionson the utilization of concordancers in self-directed foreign language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(3/4), 269-288.

Gettys, S., Imhof, L., & Kautz, J. (2001).Computer-assisted reading: The effect of glossing format on comprehension and vocabulary retention. Foreign Language Annals, 34(2), 91-106.

Ghadirian, S. (2003). Providing controlled exposure to target vocabulary through the screening and arranging of texts. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 147-164.

Goodfellow, R., & Laurillard, D. (1994). Modeling lexical processes in lexical CALL. CALICO Journal, 11(3), 19-46.

Groot, P.  (2000). Computer  assisted  second  language vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 60-81.

Guillory. H. G. (1998). Retention of word meanings inferred from context and sentence-level translations: Implications for the design of beginning-level CALL software. The Modern Languge Journal, 82(4), 533-544.

Hill, M., & Laufer, B. (2003). Type of task, time-on-task, and electronic dictionaries in incidental vocabulary acquisition. IRAL, 41(2), 87-106.

Hirata, Y., & Hirata, Y. (2007). Independent research project with web-derived corpora for language learning. The JALT CALL Journal, 3(3), 33-48.

Horst, M., Cobb,T., & Nicolae, I. (2005). Expanding academic vocabulary with an interactive on­line database. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2),90-110.

Hu, H.-P., & Deng, L.-J. (2007). Vocabulary acquisition in multimedia environment. US-China Foreign Language, 5(8), 55-59.

Joana Acha (2009). The effectiveness of multimedia programmes in children’s vocabulary learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 23-31.

Johnson, A., & Heffernan, N. (2006). The short readings project: A CALL reading activity utilizing vocabulary recycling. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 63-77.

Jones, L.  (2003). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition with multimedia annotations: the students’ voice. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 41-65.

Jones, L. (2004). Testing L2 vocabulary recognition and recall using pictorial and written test items. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 122-143.

Jones, L. (2009). Supporting student differences in listening comprehension and vocabulary learning with multimedia annotations. CALICO Journal, 26(2).

Jones, L., & Plass, J. (2002). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition  in French with multimedia annotations.  The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 546-561.

Kaltenb, Ouml, Ck, G., & Mehlmauer-Larcher, B. (2005). Computer corpora and the language classroom: On the potential and limitations of computer corpora in language teaching. ReCALL, 17(1), 65-84.

Kaltenböck,  G.,  &  Mehlmauer-Larcher,  B.  (2005). Computer corpora and the language classroom: On the potential and limitations of computer corpora in language teaching. ReCALL, 17(1), 65-84.

Kaur, J., & Hegelheimer, V. (2005). ESL students’ use of concordance in the transfer of academic word knowledge: An exploratory study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 287-310.

Kim, D., & Gilman, D. A. (2008). Effects of text, audio, and graphic aids in multimedia instruction for vocabulary learning. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 114-126.

Laufer, B., & Hill, M. (2000). What lexical information do L2 learners select in a CALL dictionary and how does it affect word retention? Language Learning and Technology, 3(2), 58-76.

Lenders, O. (2008). Electronic glossing– Is it worth the effort? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(5), 457-481.

Loucky, J. P. (2002). Improving access to target vocabulary using computerized bilingual dictionaries. ReCALL, 14(2), 295-314.

Loucky, J. P. (2005). Combining the benefits of electronic and online dictionaries with CALL web sites to produce effective and enjoyable vocabulary and language learning lessons. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(5), 389-416.

Lu, M. (2008). Effectiveness of vocabulary learning via mobile phone. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), 515-525.

Ma, Q., & Kelly, P. (2006). Computer assisted vocabulary learning: Design and evaluation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 15-45.

Nakata, T. (2006). Implementing optimal spaced learning for English vocabulary learning. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(2), 19-36.

Nakata, T. (2008). English vocabulary learning with word lists, word cards and computers: Implications from cognitive psychology research for optimal spaced learning. ReCALL, 20(1), 3-20.

Nesselhauf, N., and Tschichold, C. (2002). Collocations in CALL: An investigation of vocabulary-building software for EFL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(3) 251-279.

Ringlstetter, C., Schulz, K. U., & Mihov, S. (2006). Orthographic errors in web pages: Toward cleaner web corpora. Computational Linguistics, 32(3), 295-340.

Şahin, M. (2009). Second language vocabulary acquisition in synchronous computer-mediated communication.  Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 34, 115-132.

Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Effects of vocabulary training by computer in kindergarten. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), 557-566.

Segler, T. M., Pain, H., & Sorace, A. (2002). Second language vocabulary acquisition and learning strategies in ICALL environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(4), 409-422.

Smidt, E., & Hegelheimer, V. (2004). Effects of online academic lectures on ESL listening comprehension, incidental vocabulary acquisition, and strategy use. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(5), 517-556.

Song, Y. (2008). SMS enhanced vocabulary learning for mobile audiences. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 2(1), 81-98.

Song, Y., & Fox, R. (2008). Using PDA for undergraduate student incidental vocabulary testing. ReCALL, 20(3), 290-314.

Stevens, V. (1995). Concordancing with language learners: Why? When? What? CAELL Journal, 6(2), 2-10.

St-Jacques, C., & Barriãre, C. (2005). Search by fuzzy inference in a children’s dictionary. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 193-215.

Stockwell, G. (2007a). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intelligent mobile phone-based vocabulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 365-383.

Suarcaya, P. (2008). Increasing student participation in English vocabulary classes by providing time flexibility in accomplishing exercises. The JALT CALL Journal, 4(1), 19-29.

Sun, Y.-C & Dong, Q. (2004). An experiment on supporting children’s English vocabulary learning in multimedia context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(2), 131-147.

Sun, Y.-C., & Wang, L.-Y. (2003). Concordancers in the EFL classroom: Cognitive approaches and collocation difficulty. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 83-94.

Tozcu, A., & Coady, J. (2004). Successful  learning of frequent vocabulary through CALL also benefts reading comprehension and speed. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(5), 473-495.

Turnbull, J., & Burston, J. (1998). Towards independent concordance work for students: Lessons from a case study. ON-CALL, 12(2), 10-21.

Van De Poel, K., & Swanepoel, P. (2003). Theoretical and methodological pluralism n designing effective lexical support for CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(2/3), 173-211.

Yanqing, S., & Qi, D. (2004). An experiment on supporting children’s English vocabulary learning in multimedia context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(2), 131-147.

Yeh, Y., &  Wang,  C. (2003). Effects of multimedia vocabulary annotations and learning styles  on vocabulary learning. CALICO Journal, 21(2), 131-144.

Yip, F.W.M., & Kwan, A.C.M. (2006). Online vocabulary games as a tool for teaching and learning English vocabulary.  Educational  Media  International,  43(3), 232-249.

Yoshii, M., & Flaitz, J. (2002). Second language incidental vocabulary retention: The effect of picture and annotation types. CALICO, 20(1), 33-58.

Yun, S., Miller, P. C., Baek, Y., Jung, J., & Ko, M. (2008). Improving recall and transfer skills through vocabulary building in web-based second language learning: An examination by item and feedback type. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 158–172.

Zapata, G., & Sagarra, N. (2007). CALL on hold: The delayed benefits of an online workbook on L2 vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 153-171.

Why do I need a teacher when I’ve got Google? The essential guide to the big issues for every twenty- first century teacher by I. Gilbert

The book entitled ‘Why do I need a teacher when I’ve got Google?’ includes discrete chapters focusing on questions and issues on education, which the author, Ian Gilbert considers pivotal in today’s twenty-first education. Through the book, the author provides readers, especially teachers, with challenging and thought-provoking questions. The author starts the first chapter through a quotation from Albert Einstein

“We can’t solve the problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

We can adapt this famous quotation to education, which might be the following:

We cannot teach students by using the same kind of materials and techniques that we used when we were students.

For long years, students have been dependent on their teachers for information to be passed on them, and especially, it is especially true for students in Turkey, though it changes from one country to another. As stated by Gilbert (2011, pp. 23-24),

For years, teachers have been the primary source of information in the classroom, backed up by textbooks that have been jealously guarded and kept locked in a cupboard or guarded by Conan the Librarian. But now, within a few years, the primary source will be a piece of technology children put in their pockets.

Considering the quotation provided above, it can be put forward that language teachers are no longer the only input providers to language learners, and the classrooms, likewise, are no longer the only place where language learners are exposed to target language. When I look back upon my secondary and high school years (1980s and 1990s), I can easily remember, as some might do, that the sole opportunity for us to practice English was the language classroom and our English teacher. We were having difficulty in finding authentic materials such as cassettes and short stories, which were too expensive to buy. Our teacher was providing photocopies of several stories which were accompanied by several comprehension and multiple-choice questions. We could hardly practice pronunciation and listening skills. We were dealing with paperback dictionaries to look up unknown words and try to understand their meanings in one or two sentences provided.

Today, as stated by Gilbert (2011), learners as well as students live in a digital world where they can instantly search for specific information instantly in a huge amount of websites wherever they are, be it on a bus, or in their bedroom, not just their classrooms. From language learning perspective, today’s leaners have a huge digital world in their hands. They can easily access electronic dictionaries such as Online Macmillan Dictionary (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/), and Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (online or CD/DVD version) (http://www.ldoceonline.com/). Whenever they need to practice listening skills, they do not have to depend on cassettes which provide low quality, but search Google or YouTube to find authentic videos from famous movies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGWU4QhJ4L8), or videos created for language purposes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsVxZPUJHN8). When they need help, they can search Google or they just google, and find a website that may offer help (http://www.eslcafe.com/students/).

So, there comes the question: ‘Why do I need a teacher when I’ve got Google?’ As suggested by the author of the book, the answer depends on your role as a teacher. To the author, the role of today’s and the next century’s teacher is to help students how to find information on the net or the library, how to be sure that that information is accurate, what to do that information, and how to be creative with it. More importantly, the teacher’s role is to probe students’ critical thinking skills and increase their curiosity.

Of course, Gilbert offers more than this in the book. I have just touched upon the core issue that the author deals with. I suggest the readers go through this book for more discussions on issues such as the real of point of school and exams.

Gilbert, I. (2011). Why do I need a teacher when I’ve got Google? The essential guide to the big issues for
every twenty- first century teacher. New York, NY: Routledge.

Interactive Whiteboards in State School Settings: Teacher Responses to Socio-Constructivist Hegemonies by Euline Cutrim Schmid & Shona Whyte

In many schools, new classrooms are designed according to the technological changes and they are called as Smart Classes. One of the main components of these classrooms is the Interactive White Boards (IWB) and it is considered as an inevitable part of these smart classes. It is for sure that they might have some advantages; however, do they really deserve the money paid for them; and, are the teachers and students ready to use IWBs in their classrooms?  I have some doubts about these IWBs.

When we look at the article reviewed, it was stated;

the arrival of new technologies in the language classroom is a complicating factor, creating a second, technological, hegemony where teachers are under pressure to use new equipment and software, and to do so within the new constructivist framework.

As mentioned in the article, the importance of constructivist approaches has always been mentioned in the studies related to the use of CALL tools and teachers are expected and suggested to follow the constructivist approach if they are implementing CALL tools into their classrooms.

This study was carried out in state schools in France and Germany with the teachers using IWBs in their own classrooms. The teaching activities and models of these teachers were observed and at the end of the study it was found that teachers were using methods ranging from traditional grammar-translation through behaviorist drilling, to more communicative and constructivist models of task- and project-based learning despite the fact that constructivist approaches had the hegemony over the aforementioned methods and approaches. The methods and approaches in the classroom were shaped by variety of factors, such as teacher cognition and particular teaching contexts.

At the end of the data analysis, some activities and materials were grouped according to the methods. For example, stories & songs and vocabulary activities (bingo, hangman, etc.) were categorized as traditional methods; opening routines & vocabulary drills (flashcards, physical response etc.) were samples of behaviorist approach; guessing games were analyzed as communicative approach, and, finally, the use of video conferencing project and other potential projects were listed as task-based project.

In this study, it was clearly mentioned that the use of technological tools does not guarantee the implementation of constructivist approach and teachers’ cognition and the features of the context determine the methods used in the classroom. It was also mentioned;

The widespread introduction of IWBs was justified by the rhetoric of ‘positive transformation,’ the technology was installed in schools before an appropriate investigation of its educational potential could be conducted to inform training and lead to effective exploitation. Indeed, critics of the IWB have pointed out that one of its drawbacks is the fact that it can be easily assimilated into teachers’ traditional pedagogical practice, thus leading to patterns of technology use that simply replicate previous practice.

This case is quite similar in Turkey. The Ministry of Education has attempted to install IWBs in all schools and provide tablet PCs to all students in order to improve the quality of the education. However, we should ask whether all teachers are ready for this change. Not only the older teachers but also the young teachers are not ready for these IWBs.

In addition to these, I personally do not believe that IWBs are among the quite essential components of smart classes and they are needed for implementing CALL tools into our classes. An IWB without any installed software is not very different from the traditional white boards. Firstly, the schools should pay for the IWBs and then they should purchase some educational software programs. Moreover, these programs are mostly designed for a specific course and schools should purchase different software programs for each course which is quite expensive for a state school. If the teacher knows how to use a computer and overhead projector effectively, s/he could easily do whatever can be done with IWBs.

Follow the link in order to read the original article: http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2012/cutrimschmidwhyte.pdf

Cutrim Schmid, Euline & Whyte, Shona (2012). Interactive Whiteboards in State School Settings: Teacher Responses to Socio-constructivist Hegemonies. Language Learning and Technology, 16(2); 65-86.

Perspectives on Technology in Learning and Teaching Languages by Richard Kern

This article is a state-of-the-art article about the use of technology in language learning and teaching with some commentaries of the author. In this article, the intended audience is researchers studying upon language learning and technology. Although some implications for teaching are also available in the article, those implications are about conducting an action research, particularly about the telecollaboration. There are some important points to consider before deciding to conduct a research by means of telecollaboration.

The aim of the article is to present the current controversies in the field of CALL and literature review of CALL with recommendations for teaching, research and further research. This article is composed of three sections – four controversies related to information and communication technologies, research findings, and implications for teaching and research. In the first section, the controversies are related to the status of CALL, theoretical grounding for technology based teaching and research, notions of effectiveness, and cultural neutrality of the computers. In the second section, research findings are categorized under three headings – computer mediated communication, electronic literacy and telecollaboration; and in the final section, the implications for teaching, research and further research are mentioned.

There is a section in the article asking “Should CALL still be called CALL?” on which I really think about in recent years. Actually, it is mentioned by Richard that computers are used very commonly in our daily lives and thus it should not be used as a separate device:

Given the high level of integration of digital technology in people’s everyday lives in many (but not all) parts of the world, Warschauer (1999a) has argued that the term computer-assisted language learning has outgrown its usefulness as a construct for teaching and research. The problem, Warschauer states, is that a CALL framework posits the computer as an “outside instrument rather than as part of the ecology of language use” (n.p.). While this may have been fine in the early days of CALL when computers were used to perform structural drills, it is no longer appropriate when online communication has become a normal part of daily life. For Warschauer, the use of computers should not be framed as a special case but rather as an integral aspect of language learning and language use (184-185).

As it is mentioned in the article, computers are integrated into our lives and we can not think of language learning and teaching without technology. Although we do not use them in our classes, we use them for our professional development, for developing personal learning network or just for searching for materials to use in the classroom. We talked about this issue with Vance Stevens a few weeks before and he said that another acronym is being used for this field nowadays: SMALL, which stands for Social Media Assisted Language Learning. This acronym fits quite well with what I have in my mind for the field. In recent years, I have always mentioned that CALL should be associated with communication, social networks and mostly collaboration. Computers are not tutors or teachers; they are just tools for communication, creating social networks and creating opportunities for our students.

Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210.

Warschauer, M. (1998). CALL vs. electronic literacy: Reconceiving technology in the language classroom. In Proceedings of the Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research Information Technology Research Forum. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.