Posts
Technology-mediated learning
Author: Lesley Shield
© Lesley Shield
This article was added to our website on 23/10/02 at which time all links were checked.However, we cannot guarantee that the links are still valid.
Abstract
Introduction to the use of educational technology in higher education in the UK and beyond. This article provides an overview of the available tools and their effective use. It also mediates three major beliefs about the reasons for employing technology-mediated learning - appropriacy for flexible, distance and open learning, widening participation and cost-effectiveness.
Looking for related resources?
Table of contents
1. Technology-mediated learning
2. Why use TML?
3. Concluding observations
Bibliography
Related links
1. Technology-mediated learning
'Technology-mediated learning' (TML) is an 'umbrella' term, incorporating different approaches to using computers in learning and teaching: computer-aided/assisted learning (CAL), computer-mediated communication (CMC), generic computer-based production and presentation tools and computer-supported research tools. Increasingly, these tools are incorporated (in different combinations) into 'Managed Learning Environments' (MLEs) in which educators can define an environment where learners can access resources, drills, other learners and tutors, research and assessment tools. While it is not the intention here to discuss the efficacy or otherwise of MLEs [see under Language Centres], it is important to note that they, rather than a single, standalone application, often make up the unifying core of courses employing TML.
Computer aided learning As an approach to learning, CAL is now well-established, with roots in the mid-20th century. Based on a view of a learner who interacts with pre-programmed content, CAL typically comprises multimedia material used for training purposes in different contexts where a degree of repetition is considered desirable. For example: the use of specific computer packages, in situations where participating 'for real' could place the trainee in jeopardy (eg operating a nuclear power plant), or simply to drill the use of a particular linguistic feature in the target language. Feedback is instantaneous and takes different forms, depending on what has been provided by the designer. For discussion of the application of CAL to language learning, see article by Davies on CALL.
Computer-mediated communication CMC refers to all communicative activity mediated via computer, including asynchronous tools for deferred access (email, bulletin boards, computer conferences etc.) and synchronous tools for real-time access (text chat, MOOs (Multi-user domains, Object-Oriented), graphical virtual worlds (eg. ActiveWorlds and Traveler) audio-/video-conferencing applications (eg CUSeeMe, NetMeeting). The majority of use and research into the use of CMC has dealt with asynchronous text-conferencing and email (Lamy & Goodfellow 1999, Mak & Yeung 1999); these are particularly flexible tools, allowing learners to access discussions at times to fit their own schedules. Evidence from HE suggests that text-based CMC, in particular - which is relatively anonymous in comparison to, say, video-conferencing - encourages contributions from the shyer learner (Freiermuth 2001). Asynchronous CMC supports reflexive learning most effectively, while real-time conferencing tends to encourage more spontaneous use of language and is best employed with small groups of learners working together on a specific problem or topic. (It should be noted that anecdotal evidence from teachers using real-time text-, audio- or video-conferencing suggests that it takes longer in an online environment to achieve the same objectives or learning outcomes as in the face-to-face context) In general, use of CMC for learning emphasises the socio-cultural approach to learning found in constructivist theory (Felix 2002, Rschoff 2000) (see article by Myles on SLA).
Computer supported research, analysis, production and presentation Tools The web is an immensely valuable resource for researchers in languages, linguistics and area studies. Simply querying 'web-based research tools' in a search engine will offer a multitude of resources; search engines themselves provide a means by which to find information, authentic documents and academic publications and collections, while newsletters and mailing/discussion lists based on email offer access to a worldwide community of like-minded students and researchers. Researching topics via the web leads learners to meet their immediate course requirements. By interacting with tools such as statistical packages, electronic dictionaries, concordancers, word-processors, graphical packages and presentation tools when analysing their research findings and preparing them for presentation, they also, indirectly, address the acquisition of 'transferable skills' referred to in subjects' benchmark statements. (For further discussion of the use of the Web in teaching see articles under Linguistics and American Studies )
Managed learning environments HE institutions around the world use Managed Learning Environments (MLEs) like WebCT and Blackboard. These are publicly available and can be used by HEIs for a fee. There are some MLE-type applications that have been developed by individual HEIs. These include Merlin (University of Hull), ReLaTe (University of Exeter and University College London) and the Open University's Lyceum system (Hewer & Shield 2001). These tools incorporate many of the features of publicly-available MLEs and CMC tools (eg. shared whiteboard, audio/video conferencing) but have been developed for use, initially at least, for students of those HEIs. MLEs may incorporate CAL, CMC and computer supported research, analysis, production and presentation tools and are mostly accessed via standard web browsers. They can include course materials, links to external resources, CAL exercises, CMC tools, computer-based assessment and learner tracking tools. It should be noted that if use is to be made of computer-based resources like CAL software, external web pages or scanned learning materials, then copyright clearance will almost certainly be required. Copyright for electronic media is extremely complex, closely restricted, and potentially very costly; it is advisable to obtain legal advice before developing MLEs - or any other online resources such as web pages - which rely on the use of externally-sourced materials.
2. Why use TML?
As access to computers and the internet continues to increase, and student numbers on traditional courses continue to fall, so interest in and provision of TML becomes more widespread in HE throughout the UK and beyond. TML, it is believed, can (1) address the needs of learners engaged in flexible, distance and open learning, (2) provide a wider outreach to more geographically and educationally disparate learners than 'traditional' face-to-face or distance courses, and (3) be cost-effective.
Flexible, distance and open learning Although there are many different models of flexible, distance and open learning, the use of TML within such frameworks requires careful consideration. For example, providers must ensure that specific groups are not excluded, either because they do not have access to the appropriate technology or because there is a requirement to attend synchronous meetings at times when they are unable to do so. To this end, lectures are recorded in some HE institutions and then streamed online so learners can either revisit them or, if unable to attend the face-to-face event, access the recorded lecture at their own convenience. Although the lecture format subscribes to the transmission model of learning, offering it within a flexible framework requires the learner to take more responsibility for her/his learning than might be expected within a behaviourist view of learning. Where a course is offered in both distance and face-to-face versions, TML now allows distance learners to view streamed lectures and, on occasion, to participate remotely in scheduled seminars or tutorials via applications such as instant messaging, video- or audio-conferencing.
For distance learners, who may never meet each other face-to-face, applications that show when others in a learning group come online can provide a sense of 'presence'. CMC in general offers the opportunity to communicate and socialise with other learners. Feedback from and observations of courses using CMC reveal high levels of online socialisation as well as discussion (in the target language where this is appropriate) of the course materials (Kötter et al 1999). It has also been found that where such socialisation is encouraged, strong learning communities evolve and conferences have remained active long after the end of a course.
Outreach In areas with low populations and large geographical land masses such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Norway and Sweden, TML has been effectively used to support learners in all educational sectors. The adult community education sector in Australia in particular has demonstrated the effectiveness of TML as a means of widening participation, and increasing numbers of Brazilian masters' level courses use streamed lectures embedded in MLEs and supported by CMC tutorials. As already described, however, what has emerged very strongly, regardless of educational sector or geographical location, is the importance of providing learners with the means to communicate with others and thus to form a 'community of learners' (eg ACEWEB).
Cost-effectiveness Since TML theoretically allows for the participation of large numbers of non-standard and geographically-remote learners it might seem reasonable to assume it to be 'cost-effective'. However, this assumption is often based on a view of TML as 'transferring the textbook to the screen' and a transmission model of learning which does not take into account the most effective methods of using electronic media. There is also a tendency to overlook practical issues such as the development and maintenance of appropriate materials, the cost of training HE teachers to teach online and the management of learner expectations with regard to tutors' online availability. Online tutors often report an increase in the time spent interacting with learners because the electronic medium encourages the belief of 24/7 availability. While some HEIs have met this challenge by providing 24/7 cover, this is an expensive alternative; a more cost-effective solution is to establish the extent of tutor availability at the beginning of the course.
Because of the need to provide equal access, different versions of courses may need to be developed, using both TML and 'traditional' media (this is, perhaps, particularly the case in distance learning, where it cannot be assumed that learners will have access to appropriate technology in the way that may be true of campus-based learning). Furthermore, although TML apparently offers a world-wide market, courses may still need to be localised for different target cultures, the language of instruction and learner expectations about the role of learner and teacher; for example, a pedagogical approach that requires the learner to become autonomous relatively quickly may not be appropriate in all cases.
The above factors can render TML more costly to deliver than traditional alternatives where the learner in fact bears the cost of attendance at a University teaching facility.
3. Concluding observations
The use of TML in languages, linguistics and area studies, and its investigation, is still being actively researched and, as a result, it is not yet possible to define best practice in this area. Much of the pedagogy currently underlying TML is based on a model of learning that sees the transmission of knowledge as the goal of learning and teaching; online lectures and lectures notes, electronic versions of textbooks and electronic 'drills' are offered. Increasingly, however, as the characteristics of different electronic media - and thus their applications to learning and teaching - become clearer, a socio-cultural, constructivist model of learning is emerging. This concentrates on the possibilities for communication between human beings offered to language learners by new technologies.
While much work in the field takes SLA research as its starting point (eg. Chapelle 1997, 1999, Salaberry 1999) some researchers have also turned their attention to other areas, including: studies of the types of TML research occurring (Levy 2000, 2002, Harrington & Levy 2001), conversation and discourse analysis (Warschauer 1998, Negretti 1999), students' experience of web-based learning (Felix 2001) and the development of online (language) learning communities (Hudson & Bruckman 2002). The experience of HE teachers around the world appears to be that whilst TML is not, at least initially, a more cost-effective solution than the provision of face-to-face courses using traditional media, when used appropriately it can enhance both the learning experience and learner motivation. While allowing rapid updating of content - perhaps particularly useful for subjects such as languages and area studies which may require access to up-to-date, authentic source materials - it also offers contact with authentic resources, texts and target language speakers in a way that was previously impossible without living in the target culture.
Bibliography
Felix, U. (2001). A Multivariate Analysis of Students' Experience of Web-based Learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17, 1:21-36.
Felix, U. (2002). The Web as a Vehicle for Constructivist Approaches in Language Teaching. ReCALL, 14, 1:2-15.
Freiermuth, M. (2001). Native Speakers or Non-Native Speakers: Who has the Floor? Online and Face-to-face Interaction in culturally mixed small Groups. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14, 2:169-99.
Harrington, M. & M. Levy (2001). CALL begins with a "C": Interaction in Computer-mediated Language Learning. System, 29:15-26.
Hewer, S. & L. Shield (2001). Online Communities: Interactive Oral Work at a Distance. In T.Atkinson (ed.) Reflections on computers and language learning, 53-62. London: CILT.
Hudson, J. M. & A. S. Bruckman (2002). IRC français: the Creation of an Internet-Based SLA Community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15, 2:109-34.
Levy, M. (2000). Scope, goals and methods in CALL research: Questions of coherence and autonomy. ReCALL, 12, 2:170-95.
Levy, M. (2002). CALL by design: discourse, products and processes. ReCALL, 14, 1:58-84.
Mak, L. & S. Yeung (1999). Investigating Features of an International E-Mail Community. In K.Cameron (ed.), CALL and the Learning Community, 315-33. Exeter: Elm Bank Publications.
On-line References
ACEWEB (no date)http://www.yarranet.net.au/aceweb/
Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the Year 2000 Still in search of Research Paradigms? Language Learning and Technology, 1, 1:19-43.http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/chapelle/default.html
Chapelle, C. (1999). Research Questions for a CALL Research Agenda: A Reply to Rafael Salaberry. Language Learning and Technology, 3, 1:108-13.http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/comment/index.html
Kötter, M., L. Shield & A. Stevens (1999). Real-time Audio and Email for Fluency: Promoting Distance Learners' Aural and Oral Skills via the Internet. ReCALL, 11, 2:55-60.http://www.hull.ac.uk/cti/eurocall/recall/rvol11no2.pdf
Lamy, M-N. & R. Goodfellow (1999)"Reflective Conversation" in the Virtual Language Classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2, 2:43-61.http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num2/article2/index.html
Negretti, R. (1999)Web-based Activities and SLAs: A Conversation Analysis Research Approach. Language Learning and Technology, 3, 1:75-87.http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/negretti/index.html
Rüschoff, B. (2000)Construction of Knowledge as the basis of Foreign Language Learning.http://www.uni-essen.de/anglistik/construction.htm
Salaberry, M. R. (1999)CALL in the Year 2000: Still developing the Research Agenda. A Commentary on Carol Chapelle's CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of Research Paradigms? Language Learning and Technology, 3, 1:104-07.http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/comment/index.html
Warschauer, M. (1998)Interaction, Negotiation and Computer-mediated Learning [On-line]. In V. Darleguy, A. Ding, & M. Svensson (eds), Educational Technology in Language Learning: Theoretical Considerations and Practical Applications.http://www.insa-lyon.fr/Departements/CDRL/interaction.html
Related links
Public MLEs
Blackboardhttp://www.blackboard.com
WebCThttp://www.webct.com
Individual HEIs' MLES
Merlinhttp://www.hull.ac.uk/merlin/
ReLaTehttp://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/software/relate-ui/
Lyceum - see Hewer & Shield in Bibliography
Graphical Worlds
ActiveWorldshttp://www.activeworlds.com
Travelerhttp://www.digitalspace.com/traveler/
Audio(graphics) Conferencing Tools
CUSeeMehttp://www.cuseeme.com
NetMeetinghttp://www.microsoft.com/windows/netmeeting
Language Learning MOOs
English
Schmooze Universty MOOhttp://schmooze.hunter.cuny.edu:8888
Cup-o-Mud Web Interfacehttp://schmooze.hunter.cuny.edu
EnCore Web Interfacehttp://schmooze.hunter.cuny.edu:9000
Telnet MOO clienttelnet://schmooze.hunter.cuny.edu:8888
French
Le MOOFrancaishttp://www.umsl.edu/~moosproj/moofrancais.html
Telnet MOO clienttelnet://admiral.umsl.edu:7777
Le MOOlin Rouge, EnCore Web Interfacehttp://cmc.uib.no:9000/
German
Dreistadt MOOhttp://cmc.uib.no/dreistadt/informationen2.html
EnCore Web Interfacehttp://cmc.uib.no:7001/
Spanish
Mundo Hispanohttp://www.umsl.edu/~moosproj/mundo.html
Telnet MOO Clienttelnet://admiral.umsl.edu:8888.
Related resources by keyword: CAL (Computer Assisted Learning) CMC (Computer-Mediated Communications) Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) Computer-Mediated Communications (CMC) Distance teaching Transferable skills Web-based Widening participation
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Teacher autonomy in MOOs
Schwienhorst, K. (in press). Teacher autonomy in MOOs- supporting language teaching in collaborative virtual environments. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education 8(2)
Copyright 1998. Permission given by Language Teaching On-Line.
Teacher autonomy in MOOs- supporting language teaching in collaborative virtual environments
Klaus Schwienhorst, Trinity College Dublin
Abstract
The concepts of teacher and learner autonomy have played an important role in the context of language teaching and the Internet over the past few years. The full potential of Internet resources, even authentic information resources, has largely remained unused for language learning and teaching. Organisational and affective factors have discouraged many teachers from using the Internet for language teaching. The Internet-enhanced object-oriented Multiple-User Domain (MOO) can serve as a tool to select and enhance Internet resources, while at the same time expanding the possibilities of the traditional classroom. Its text-based synchronous and asynchronous communication resources are integrated within a common interface. Its support mechanisms are good for language teachers who are only too often left alone with the new technology. We argue for an inextricable interdependence of pedagogy and technology, and see teacher autonomy and the MOO as a promising combination for language teaching purposes. We outline the organisational framework of a particular promising language teaching context, the combination of tandem learning and MOO in a project between Information and Communication Technology courses at the German Fachhochschule Rhein-Sieg and Trinity College Dublin. The opportunities of a written medium in real time for the development of literacy and higher cognitive skills are considerable. The MOO's modular nature and widespread implementation make it a technology that is here to stay, and it can serve to create not only a lasting community of learners, but also of educators around the world.
The Concepts of Learner and Teacher Autonomy
The concepts of teacher and particularly learner autonomy have been discussed for a number of years now. Learner autonomy has frequently been misunderstood as simply self-instructed learning. However, the amount of teacher involvement in the autonomous classroom is not to be underrated. This entails that the teacher can only become successful in her efforts to support autonomy if she reflects on her own position in the learning process as well as the learner's.
As Little rightly suggests, learner autonomy is nothing new: 'In formal educational contexts, genuinely successful learners have always been autonomous' (Little, 1995, p. 175), but it is important to pursue 'learner autonomy as an explicit goal, to help more learners to succeed' (Little, 1995, p. 175). In Little's words
autonomy is a capacity - for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action. It presupposes, but also entails, that the learner will develop a particular kind of psychological relation to the process and content of his learning. The capacity for autonomy will be displayed both in the way the learner learns and in the way he or she transfers what has been learned to wider contexts'(Little, 1991, p. 4).
The major aim is to develop an increased awareness of one's position as learner and the subject of language learning, and on the other hand to assume responsibility for the learning process and the language learning agenda. This capacity has to develop out of our interaction with others:
The developmental learning that unimpaired small children undergo takes place in interaction with parents, brothers and sisters, grandparents, family friends, neighbours, and so on. Education, whether institutionalized or not, is likewise an interactive, social process. [...] our capacity for self-instruction probably develops out of our experience of learning in interaction with others: in order to teach ourselves, we must create an internal substitute for the interaction of home or classroom. (Little, 1991, p. 5).
For teachers this means that not only is it important to instruct learners in a manner which relates to their explicit knowledge, but also that instructors need to 'understand the principles on which their practice is based' (Little, 1994, p. 118). With the emphasis on the social dimension of autonomy, the teacher's goal must be, in Vygotskian terms, to
create and understand the mechanisms of the zone of proximal development in which learner and instructor carry out different functions, both of which contribute to learning which is more beneficial than could be achieved either by the spontaneous efforts of the learner alone or by the mere transmission from instructor to learner of the principles of a second language (Tort-Moloney, 1997, p. 9).
Leni Dam has suggested that 'the most important aspect of developing learner autonomy is probably a growing awareness of social as well as learning processes, for teachers as well as for learners' (Dam, 1995, p. 80). In her language classroom, one of the key elements is socially determined responsibility, between teachers and students as well as between peers. Within a framework of basic principles, the activities should be jointly developed and elaborated by the teacher and the students. Students are encouraged to make choices and assume responsibility for them. The principal aim is awareness of their role and the role of others in the learning process, and awareness of the target language: 'In other words, [Dam] attempts to make the classroom situation transparent to her learners by making them aware of the link between what they do, how they do it, why they do it, and what they have learnt' (Tort-Moloney, 1997, p. 16-7). There are three key elements to Dam's approach. First, she uses a diary 'to document and evaluate the ongoing teaching/ learning process'(Dam, 1995, p. 10). Secondly, she encourages group work, but in the sense of supporting the individual learner. Thirdly, an important factor is evaluation to check whether objectives have been met and as 'a basis of experience and awareness that can be used in further learning' (Dam, 1995, p. 49). It makes sense to apply these principles to teacher education.
Little suggests that '[we] must provide trainee teachers with the skills to develop autonomy in the learners who will be given into their charge, but we must also give them a first-hand experience of learner autonomy in their training.'(1995, p. 179-180). This can be achieved by guided practice and the inclusion of peer collaboration at the level of teacher-training programmes. Guided practice has been shown to be highly beneficial, mainly for two reasons: 'teaching is a dynamic process requiring more than a set pattern of responses' and collaboration between teachers led to an 'analytic dialogue in which their theoretical and experiential knowledge was sifted and synthesized' (Schlumberger & Clymer, 1989, p. 157). Here we can see parallels to Vygotsky's notions of external scaffolding and internalisation. Another element of the teaching process is interactive self-regulation, a process of developmental adaptation by the teacher which 'cannot be seen as a response to successful learning but as part of teaching as such' (Tort-Moloney, 1997, p. 37).
The goal of developing teacher autonomy can thus be formulated as to allow 'teachers to develop autonomous relationships of dialectical dependence on and independence from variables such as curriculum, research, and classroom discourse, among other variables' (Tort-Moloney, 1997, p. 50). Teachers are 'more likely to succeed in promoting learner autonomy if their own education has encouraged them to be autonomous' (Little, 1995, p. 180). Teacher training should not be confined to teaching techniques. It is vital that the autonomous teacher becomes aware 'of why, when, where and how pedagogical skills can be acquired and used in the self-conscious awareness of teaching practice itself' and that he/she is integrated into a model where 'teacher education is provided through mutual assistance of students, teachers, institutions, consultants, researchers, curriculum developers, all dynamically linked together at the interpsychological and at the intrapsychological level' (Tort-Moloney, 1997, p. 51; also see Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
Teacher Education and Computer-Assisted Language Learning
For several years I have given introductory and intermediate workshops and teacher training courses for teachers in third level or higher education and adult education centres, both in Ireland and abroad. In spite of media reports suggesting widespread computer literacy, the major difficulties that arise remain the same. Many language teachers are still largely unfamiliar with present-day computer technology, in particular the Internet. In many cases they are faced with far from 'intuitive' computer interfaces, a growing diversification of development tools such as Java or javascript, and the steep learning curve of complex authoring systems. In addition, many teachers have to face organisational obstacles, such as lack of time, funding, or training, to properly familiarise themselves with tools or develop new resources (see Levy, 1997).
There is also a large number of teachers who voice concerns about the familiar image of the computer replacing the teacher, and thus about computer-assisted language learning in general (or naive notions of the term). It is still important to emphasise the role of the computer as only assisting (in self-access mode or otherwise) traditional classroom discourse, as a tool, tutor, or medium. It is also a widespread perception that the computer seeks to emulate human qualities, as an equal partner in the learning process. This aim, while still present in some approaches in artificial intelligence, has however been moderated in recent years, especially in the context of language learning (for recent developments in natural language processing, see for instance Kuhlmann, 1999; Zink, 1999; Kurth, 1997; Rötzer, 1997; Hauenschild & Heizmann, 1997).
These concerns have to be countered by a balanced mix of pedagogy and technology. It is necessary to focus on available and reliable computer technology while maintaining an open, extensible, and modular approach to development. Good examples are collaborative and communicative resources, rather than isolating and non-interactive software, although the media hype around the relatively recent Internet resources has mostly concerned itself with its information resources as the 'information super-highway'.
Collections of authentic language resources on the web are now available for a variety of languages (for example the author's resource collections are available at http://www.tcd.ie/CLCS/languageresources.html). However, the major advantages even of these resources have often been overlooked. Resources can be as topical as live radio or television programmes that are now available with streamed audio and video technology. The authentic material available on these sites provides much more context for learners than authentic material that is half a year old. In particular newspapers and magazines provide similar reports to L1 news information that students may have heard only a day before. Students are thus enabled to see the relevance of their world knowledge for language learning, and the scaffolding provided by an L1 resource on local TV allows them to tackle much more difficult information resources than before, which of course can influence motivation significantly.
Language resource collections also allow for data-driven learning. Many newspapers, search engines, and web-based concordancers offer access to vast corpora that can be accessed via the Internet. Thus, students can search the corpus of the German online-newspaper Die Welt (http://www.welt.de) using any keyword. They could, for example, explore prepositional phrases, word order, and idioms (for a discussion of data-driven learning, see for instance Rautenhaus, 1996).
Relatively unobtrusive communicative technology like text-based email or MOO have been around for a number of years, and there is now some evidence to show that they are effective in language teaching, while being low-cost and easily manageable (see Warschauer, 1995; Warschauer, 1996). When these two technologies are combined with an approach such as tandem learning, they become powerful tools to break up the artificiality and inauthenticity of the traditional language classroom. Tandem learning, which in turn is based on learner autonomy, relies on the principles of reciprocity, bilingualism, and learner autonomy to connect two partners with complementary combinations of L1 and L2 in an ongoing learning partnership (for more detailed information on tandem learning see Little & Brammerts, 1996).
A recent addition to information and communicative resources are user-extensible and sometimes customisable and/or collaborative databases. They offer private and public spaces where individual learners can organise their own learning, but where they can also collaborate with others on documents and databases. Breffni O'Rourke's prototype of a lexical organiser is a good example (O'Rourke, 1998), and the aforementioned resource collection aims to permit student participation and customisation in its next edition.
O'Rourke's example also points to an important feature of web resources within the context of learner and teacher autonomy. Resources need to allow teachers and students to extend and individualise resources, thus giving students the chance to participate in the selection and organisation of learning material. The goal needs to be to create extensible web resources within a modular approach that allows for the integration of new technology as it emerges. There are two major questions that arise, however. The first is the question of interactivity: how, in the light of all these diverse resources and development tools, can increasingly complex information and communication resources and development tools be made available to teachers and students without being disorientating, while at the same time being participatory so that teachers and students can collect and manipulate their own selection of tools/ resources? The second question regards interaction: how can we ensure that asynchronous and synchronous communication resources are available that can replicate the great diversity of teacher-student, student-student, and group interaction we can find in the real-life language classroom? In addition with an approach such as tandem learning, this problem is multiplied into international contexts. The simple question is really: how can we transfer the integrity of the autonomous language classroom à la Leni Dam to an integrated learning environment on the Internet?
The MOO as a Collaborative Environment
The problem of integrating the various web resources described above into a common learning environment can be solved within the framework of virtual reality (Schwienhorst, 1998). Virtual reality uses a spatial metaphor to reduce the learner's
need for abstract, extero-centric thinking by presenting processed information in an apparent three-dimensional space, and allowing us to interact with it as if we were part of that space. In this way our evolutionarily derived processes for understanding the real world can be used for understanding synthesized information (Carr, 1995, p. 1).
The MOO is a text-based virtual environment that has recently been extended to support and organise a variety of web-based tools. In addition, the MOO offers text-based synchronous and asynchronous modes of communication. The asynchronous mode of communication functions like a kind of in-house email system, including mailing lists. Text-based live communication may sound antiquated, but can be particularly effective in language teaching. Learners and teachers connect to a MOO via a specially created character that is individually customisable. They are represented by that character in a virtual environment in which they can participate and collaborate.
This strength of the MOO becomes apparent when we compare it with other synchronous distance education tools. While the combination of missing non-verbal and verbal cues in a text-based environment may be a drawback compared to audio or video conferencing, the major advantage of the MOO lies in its breakdown of distance between participants. In order to allow for collaboration as well as interaction, learners and teachers must be enabled to share tools and resources in real time. This is what Short et al., even before the age of the Internet and Virtual Reality, have labelled the 'coffee and biscuits problem' (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976, p. 140). Neither can be offered to the other party in a teleconference, because 'no matter how elegant the telecommunications system is, the two parties are still in different places and this precludes certain types of activities' (Short et al., 1976, p. 143). Participants in a telecommunications activity sense that 'there is a very obvious barrier between the two parties communicating, no matter how 'transparent' that barrier may be' (Short et al., 1976, p. 140). The creation of a character within a virtual environment can provide an alternative to audio and video conferencing and also supports the experimental element within learning.
But live communication within the same, shared environment is not the only advantage of the MOO over audio and video conferencing. With peers or a tandem partner, students can record transcripts of sessions into a text file which is then instantly available for error analysis, a resource for future learning, and a basis for new activities. The (re)use of transcripts is a decisive advantage over audio- and video conferencing modes, which in addition are often unreliable and relatively expensive. We will return to the transcripts in our next section.
All participants in a MOO can create their own learning spaces and decide to share them with peers. The easy-to-use interface allows for simple building mechanisms, such as building/writing a room description, right up to more complex programming tasks, such as interactive Scrabble games that can be played in real time, or conversational robots that can be used as vocabulary tutors or to perform tasks such as message relaying. The importance of creating personally meaningful artefacts has repeatedly been emphasised in learning approaches such as Kelly's personal construct psychology (Kelly, 1963) or Papert's constructionism (Papert, 1993). It was also confirmed in the success of a project in the language modules at the Centre for Language and Communication Studies (CLCS), Trinity College Dublin, where students created their own web site (for a general overview and evaluation of our language modules programme see Little & Ushioda, 1998). At MundoHispano MOO (telnet://admiral.umsl.edu:8888), students and teachers have over time recreated a number of locations from the Spanish-speaking world as text-based virtual environments. Students' own experiences and perceptions of the target culture are not necessarily limited to the spatial metaphor of the classroom. As all MOO objects are created first and foremost in text (although multimedia material may be linked), any student creation is by definition an exercise in language and programming, and may be particularly well suited to raising intercultural awareness, especially within the tandem context.
The advantages of MOO are diverse. It is participatory and user-extensible, learner determined, and it allows for a loop that is fed by synchronous and asynchronous communication as well as authentic information resources. The MOO provides a laboratory in the sense that students and teachers are encouraged to experiment with their respective roles in a new learning environment.
MOO Support for Teacher Autonomy
The last few years have seen the development of a variety of learning and teaching tools to counter one of the most obvious problems of synchronous text-based communication. As there is no way for students and teachers to signal their intention to speak, conversations very quickly may become forked, and with the addition of more participants and topics more forks are added. This can make conversation difficult or even impossible. Although the MOO has been reported to be generally non-hierarchical in nature (Crump, 1998; also see Haynes, 1998), it supports a number of teaching tools that can usefully organise and enhance multi-directional communication within larger groups.
Ken Schweller (1998) mentions the classroom-object, which has a number of built-in tools such as blackboards, clocks, tables, and chairs, all of which can help to maintain conversational coherence. By using a command in the classroom-object like 'sit blue table', a student would only 'hear' (read: see on screen in text) what is 'said' (read: typed) by others who have also sat down at the blue table. A command like speakup would then go to the whole class. Teachers can stifle all conversation, lock classrooms so as not to be disturbed, etc. The Educore database of MOO objects, developed at Diversity University MOO (http://moo.du.org:8000), includes the Visiting Student Player Object (VSPO). This object allows teachers to set up for instance a group of 30 students as characters (with their email addresses) in a matter of seconds. For this group, the teacher becomes a kind of manager, allowing students to extend the virtual environment or even program new objects. The VSPO also enables the teacher to communicate to all and organise members of that group with a one word command. It is arguable whether these commands repeat the hierarchies of the traditional classroom or whether they are simply a practical necessity. In any case, the decision to use them remains with the teacher. Tort-Moloney (1997, p. 30-1) has summarised the various simultaneous or sequenced interaction types that take place in a 'scientific' model of the classroom: we can find intrapersonal voices, peer voices (one-to-one or one-to-group), and a pedagogical voice (teacher learner(s)). Leni Dam saw the problem that arises from the superimposing voices in the spontaneous classroom and called it 'octopus syndrome' (Dam, 1995, p. 26). She countered the problem by nominating helpers 'to reinstate the original one-to-one "scaffolding model" through peer interaction' (Tort-Moloney, 1997, p. 31).
In the MOO, these different processes of peer interaction or peer tutoring are encouraged through the use of a variety of communication commands that determine recipients. Groups can be formed and changed regularly. While taking part in a group discussion, learners can consult the teacher on an individual basis, even if they are in different 'rooms'. Indeed, the occurrence and maintenance of multiple conversational threads (for instance by working with a class while paging people in other 'rooms' of the MOO) is a common feature of MOO communication. The existence of commands like 'whisper', 'say', 'page', and 'think' allows for the formation of learning partnerships on a continual basis and supports a Vygotskian model of peer support as well as teacher-learner support in the classroom (see Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).
Maybe the most important tools in the context of learner and teacher autonomy are recording objects that allow students and teachers to 'record' (read: save as text file) any conversation they have. These transcripts can then be stored in the MOO, read, made available to others in the MOO (and edited in collaboration), sent to a student's email address and printed out. In addition, they could of course form the basis for data-driven learning by individual students and teachers. Schweller reports on a more teacher-focused tool, the $intercom tool, designed by Jan Rune Holmevik at LinguaMOO, that can 'monitor and record activity in up to five rooms connected by a central control room' (Schweller, 1998). This points towards the major strength of an environment such as the MOO. Language use in the communicative classroom, even with native speakers, is all very well, but students rarely get the chance to use a transcript of their L2 efforts for analysis. Similarly, teachers rarely have the chance to evaluate classroom activity by using transcripts, especially in a classroom characterised by group activity. Individual transcripts and tools such as $intercom can help the teacher in supporting the pivotal goal of learner and teacher autonomy, which is the evaluation of learning and teaching 'on the one hand to ensure that work undertaken is discussed and revised, and on the other to establish a basis of experience and awareness that can be used in planning further learning. It is a recurrent activity between the teacher and individual learners, groups of learners, of the whole class. It can also be undertaken by the learners themselves' (Dam, 1995, p. 49). Like evaluation itself, the transcripts should be fed back into new activities in a continuous loop.
The support for teachers interested in bringing classes to a MOO is manifold. There are several 'video' tutorials and work sheets available. Many managers of MOOs offer free and extensive technical support which is available 24 hours a day. In addition, some MOOs offer live teacher workshops and introductory sessions on a regular basis. The sessions organised and published through the neteach-l mailing list at SchMOOze University MOO (http://schmooze.hunter.cuny.edu:8888) or the computers and writing workshops at LinguaMOO (http:://lingua.utdallas.edu:7000) are only two examples.
The ICT Course at TCD
The undergraduate degree in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) at Trinity College contains a language course as a required component. Students have a two hour classroom session plus a one hour individual tutorial per week. Native speaker assistants (mostly students on the Socrates exchange program) assist the teachers during the second half of the classroom session by moderating group work and providing target language input for their project work.
Each class has to complete four projects during the course of the year. For first year students, these include a TV programme, a campaign poster, a debate, and a newsletter presentation. For second year students, the projects are a technology report, a software review, an evaluation of web resources, and data-driven language analysis. Many of the projects encourage using the MOO and/ or email for communication with the tandem partners.
The tutorials focus on the students' individual progress in class and the co-ordination of their European Language Portfolio that CLCS has piloted in 1998-9. The portfolio includes a language passport, which includes the learner's own evaluation of his/her proficiency in the languages he/she knows; a language biography; and a dossier of work illustrating the learner's foreign language skills.
In 1997/98 we carried out a successful German-English email tandem project between the University of Bochum, Germany, and Trinity College Dublin (see Little et al., 1999). In 1998/99, we ran a pilot project using MOOs and the framework of tandem learning with the Fachhochschule Rhein-Sieg near Bonn, Germany (the same co-ordinators were involved). This time we focused on pairing ICT students from two courses (first and second year). The author created a MOO solely for this project, based on the educore MOO database developed at Diversity University, which allowed us to customise the database for our purposes. Jackie McPartland, the organiser in Bonn, and I were able to synchronise many components of the course (such as project-based work and the structure of two classroom hours and one tutorial session per week). However, we were unable to synchronise a scheduled MOO session per week, taking place at the same time both in Germany and Ireland. This proved a major stumbling block for all students. Usually, the German University system allows for and encourages a relatively unrestricted choice of courses for students, so that students are fairly flexible in their daily class timetable. The schedule of Irish University students, however, is almost completely structured in advance and there are very few free periods during the week. We found out relatively late in the planning process that the German ICT course would also be tightly scheduled. This left us with only one session when both German and Irish students had a free period, Fridays from 9-10 (10-11) am. Not surprisingly, the project found very little support from the students. In addition, the few students who connected reported that the interface looked too unprofessional (we should not forget that many ICT students are used to the graphical standard of multi-user games such as Quake).
For 1999/2000, we made a number of changes. First, we started organising the project much earlier, in April 1999. This, together with help from both ICT departments in Germany and Ireland, allowed us to synchronise the weekly one-hour tutorial sessions. A new teacher in Germany, Peter Kapec, was introduced to the course structure and the MOO technology in regular online sessions during the summer, and during regular MOO sessions (about 2-3 times a week) we discuss current classroom work and project stages. By using the MOO system for ongoing teacher co-operation, we become more aware of the problems and opportunities that lie within the system. We developed a cycle of four mini-projects, which students can work on at their own pace, and situated them within virtual study areas in the MOO (see Figure 1). These mini-projects are related to the four computer-related projects in the language course, in which students groups create software reviews, web site reviews, web-based exercise cycles, and debate general topics that affect computers and society.
-- Figure 1 about here --
Altogether, there are 22 study areas in the MOO (there are 22 German students and 29 Irish students involved) (See Figure 2). These are virtual locations with access to the mini-project descriptions and a picture gallery (containing photos of all students). Students selected partners according to interests, and they work in pairs or in groups of three. The study areas serve to channel communication, a vital component in synchronous online environments.
-- Figure 2 about here --
We also changed the database used for the project. In June the enCore database (available at http://lingua.utdallas.edu/encore/), developed at LinguaMOO, was officially published. It includes a much improved form-based interface for building and programming. With the help of Sindre Sorensen and Jan Rune Holmevik from LinguaMOO, we also established an automatic logging system. This automatically records all sessions, from each participant's perspective, and sends these transcripts by MOO- or email to the respective participant (with a copy to the author).
For 8-9 weeks, from October to early December 1999, Irish students meet with their German counterparts during their regular contact sessions with the teachers. After the first few weeks into the project, we can already say that students have literally started "talking" to each other within seconds. They have immediately reported on the intuitive interface and showed great enthusiasm about working with their partners. Overall, our first experiences with the new database are extremely positive: it is reliable and responsive, and students find it extremely easy to use. Teacher intervention is limited to announcing when the half-way point of sessions has been reached and students switch languages (half the session takes place in English, half in German). Each session is finished with an entry in the MOO notebook, where students write down what they did, what they liked/disliked about the session, and how they want to proceed in the following week. Several students have already created their own virtual environments in the MOO, and many students were noted to connect to the MOO outside class hours. This may suggest that they accept the system as a personally meaningful communication tool, not only another tool for classroom work.
By including a rich language and programming environment like the MOO, we hope to increase the motivation of the students to actively participate in the learning process. As mentioned before, any project that is created in the MOO uses by definition both language and ICT skills. As such, we see MOO technology as an ideal complement to current ICT courses.
The current project has so far confirmed observations by Donaldson and Kötter (1999) and Aarseth and Jopp (1998) that the position of the teacher is completely transformed. During the sessions, students are selecting the topics they want to discuss, and the teachers intervene only to remind them to switch languages or to announce the end of the session. We will discuss the MOO sessions with the students about half way during the project, with the aim of making the partnership more profitable and raising more awareness of the learning process.
Collaborative Writing and Literacy
Especially in the light of recent audio and video conferencing tools, some may see the typed exchanges in the MOO as outdated and second-best. This position, however, ignores the major functions of writing in developing literacy. Written language serves as an external memory, and the transcripts from MOO sessions record complete exchanges between language learners and native speakers. As such, they become much more immediately accessible for reflective or awareness-raising activities than video tapes or audio recordings. Of even greater significance for literacy is "the increased level of cognitive functioning which is encouraged by the more detached and critical attitude to experience that use of the written language promotes" (Wells, 1981, p. 242). Whereas in oral communication, meaning is defined by an interplay of speaker, recipient, and context, in writing, to a large extent, readers try to infer meaning from the text alone. Olson (1977) therefore argues that the reader's efforts
to make the organisation of the written text act as the autonomous and explicit representation of intended meaning leads to the development of a greater awareness of the abstract relationship between language and experience and a greater willingness to exploit the symbolic possibilities inherent in language. The acquisition of literacy, he [Olson] argues, thus provides a tool for, and the spur to, higher levels of analytic thinking and formal reasoning - skills which are amongst the chief forces in the development of civilisation, both in whole cultures and in its individual members (Wells, 1981, p.244-5).
While many discussions of literacy have focused on reading, it is in the actual creation of text, the writing process, that "the individual is made most aware of the symbolising function of language, and of the power that it has to capture experience so that it may be considered, questioned and modified in the interests of increased understanding and future applications" (Wells, 1981p. 254). Through processes of writing, learners are thus required to develop those literacy skills that we most associate with higher cognitive skills. This involves a greater awareness of their learning processes, and in the case of language learners, a greater metalinguistic awareness (Olson, 1991). Collaborative writing in real time, such as in MOO, can add to this a social and pragmatic dimension (Murray, 1992), contrary to early predictions that the shift away from orality in new media necessarily brings with it social alienation and a lack of interpersonal involvement in the dissemination of information and participation in entertainment and teaching activities (also see McLuhan, 1967; Ong, 1982; Scholes & Willis, 1991).
Developing Learning and Teaching Communities
Learner and teacher autonomy are inextricably linked. When we apply these concepts to Internet technology for language teaching, there are some technologies and ways of using them that are more appropriate than others. If we use only authentic non-participatory information resources in the target language, we neglect the wide variety of communication resources that are available to us. Some, such as the MOO, are reliable, free of charge and have many supportive teachers who are willing to exchange ideas and help with projects. In this way, we can not only develop a community of learners, but also a community of educators on the Internet, and both are far from being virtual.
Correspondence
Klaus Schwienhorst,
Centre for Language and Communication Studies,
Arts Building,
Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2,
Ireland.
Email: kschwien@tcd.ie
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Sindre Sorensen and Jan Rune Holmevik from LinguaMOO for continued support and programming help.
Illustrations
Figure 2: The basic entry window of CLCS Campus with menu bar, output and input window on the left, and web content on the right.
Figure 1: A sample exercise in CLCS Campus with external web links.
References
Aarseth, E., & Jopp, C. (1998). CALLMOO fase I - Sluttrapport. http://cmc.hf.uib.no/dreistadt/eval/sluttrapp.html.
Carr, K. (1995). Introduction. In K. Carr & R. England (Eds.), Simulated and Virtual Realities (pp. 1-10). London: Taylor and Francis.
Crump, E. (1998). At home in the MUD. In C. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High Wired: On the Design, Use, and Theory of Educational MOOs (pp. 177-191). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Donaldson, R. P., & Kötter, M. (1999). Language learning in cyberspace: Teleporting the classroom into the target culture. Calico, 16(4), 531-557.
Hauenschild, C., & Heizmann, S. (Eds.). (1997). Machine Translation and Translation Theory. Berlin: Morton de Gruyter.
Haynes, C. (1998). Help! There is a MOO in this class! In C. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High Wired: On the Design, Use, and Theory of Educational MOOs (pp. 161-176). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kelly, G. (1963). A Theory of Personality. New York: Norton.
Kuhlmann, U. (1999). Wie bitte? Vier Diktiersysteme im Vergleich. C't. Magazin für Computertechnik(3), 124.
Kurth, H. (1997). Radebrecher. Der Verbmobil-Forschungsprototyp. c'tplusrom. Wissen zum Abruf '97(7).
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues, and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D. (1994). Words and their properties: arguments for a lexical approach to pedagogical grammar. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: the dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175-181.
Little, D., & Brammerts, H. (Eds.). (1996). A Guide to Language Learning in Tandem via the Internet. CLCS Occasional Papers. (Vol. 46). Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language & Communication Studies.
Little, D., & Ushioda, E. (1998). Institution-Wide Language Programmes. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Little, D., Ushioda, E., Appel, M. C., Moran, J., O'Rourke, B., & Schwienhorst, K. (1999). Evaluating Tandem Language Learning by E-Mail: Report on a Bilateral Project. CLCS Occasional Paper. (Vol. 55). Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language & Communication Studies.
McLuhan, M. (1967). The Medium is the Message. New York: Random House.
Murray, D. E. (1992). Collaborative writing as a literacy event: implications for ESL instruction. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 100-117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olson, D. (1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 257-281.
Olson, D. R. (1991). Literacy as metalinguistics. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Literacy and Orality (pp. 251-270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen.
O'Rourke, B. (1998). A network-based tool for organizing second-language vocabulary. Paper presented at the ED-Media/ ED-Telecom, Freiburg.
Papert, S. (1993). The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books.
Rautenhaus, H. (Ed.). (1996). Authentische Texte und Konkordanzprogramme im Englischunterricht. Oldenburg: Carl v. Ossietzky Universität.
Rötzer, F. (1997). `Sinn aus der Welt machen´. c'tplusrom. Wissen zum Abruf '97(15).
Schlumberger, A., & Clymer, D. (1989). Teacher training through teacher collaboration. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students (pp. 146-159). New York: Longman.
Scholes, R. J., & Willis, B. J. (1991). Linguistics, literacy, and the intensionality of Marshall McLuhan's Western man. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Literacy and Orality (pp. 215-235). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schweller, K. (1998). MOO educational tools. In C. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High Wired: On the Design, Use, and Theory of Educational MOOs (pp. 88-106). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Schwienhorst, K. (1998). The "third place"- virtual reality applications for second language learning. ReCALL, 10(1), 118-126.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: Wiley.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in a Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tort-Moloney, D. (1997). Teacher Autonomy: A Vygotskian Theoretical Framework. CLCS Occasional Paper. (Vol. 48). Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language & Communication Studies.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1995). Virtual Connections: On-line Activities and Projects for Networking Language Learners. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1996). Telecollaboration in Foreign Language Learning. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Wells, G. (1981). Language, literacy and education. In G. Wells (Ed.), Learning Through Interaction (pp. 240-276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zink, M. (1999). Zusammenspiel: Mensch-Maschine-Schnittstellen in Sprachsystemen. C't. Magazin für Computertechnik(3), 133.
Copyright 1998. Permission given by Language Teaching On-Line.
Teacher autonomy in MOOs- supporting language teaching in collaborative virtual environments
Klaus Schwienhorst, Trinity College Dublin
Abstract
The concepts of teacher and learner autonomy have played an important role in the context of language teaching and the Internet over the past few years. The full potential of Internet resources, even authentic information resources, has largely remained unused for language learning and teaching. Organisational and affective factors have discouraged many teachers from using the Internet for language teaching. The Internet-enhanced object-oriented Multiple-User Domain (MOO) can serve as a tool to select and enhance Internet resources, while at the same time expanding the possibilities of the traditional classroom. Its text-based synchronous and asynchronous communication resources are integrated within a common interface. Its support mechanisms are good for language teachers who are only too often left alone with the new technology. We argue for an inextricable interdependence of pedagogy and technology, and see teacher autonomy and the MOO as a promising combination for language teaching purposes. We outline the organisational framework of a particular promising language teaching context, the combination of tandem learning and MOO in a project between Information and Communication Technology courses at the German Fachhochschule Rhein-Sieg and Trinity College Dublin. The opportunities of a written medium in real time for the development of literacy and higher cognitive skills are considerable. The MOO's modular nature and widespread implementation make it a technology that is here to stay, and it can serve to create not only a lasting community of learners, but also of educators around the world.
The Concepts of Learner and Teacher Autonomy
The concepts of teacher and particularly learner autonomy have been discussed for a number of years now. Learner autonomy has frequently been misunderstood as simply self-instructed learning. However, the amount of teacher involvement in the autonomous classroom is not to be underrated. This entails that the teacher can only become successful in her efforts to support autonomy if she reflects on her own position in the learning process as well as the learner's.
As Little rightly suggests, learner autonomy is nothing new: 'In formal educational contexts, genuinely successful learners have always been autonomous' (Little, 1995, p. 175), but it is important to pursue 'learner autonomy as an explicit goal, to help more learners to succeed' (Little, 1995, p. 175). In Little's words
autonomy is a capacity - for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action. It presupposes, but also entails, that the learner will develop a particular kind of psychological relation to the process and content of his learning. The capacity for autonomy will be displayed both in the way the learner learns and in the way he or she transfers what has been learned to wider contexts'(Little, 1991, p. 4).
The major aim is to develop an increased awareness of one's position as learner and the subject of language learning, and on the other hand to assume responsibility for the learning process and the language learning agenda. This capacity has to develop out of our interaction with others:
The developmental learning that unimpaired small children undergo takes place in interaction with parents, brothers and sisters, grandparents, family friends, neighbours, and so on. Education, whether institutionalized or not, is likewise an interactive, social process. [...] our capacity for self-instruction probably develops out of our experience of learning in interaction with others: in order to teach ourselves, we must create an internal substitute for the interaction of home or classroom. (Little, 1991, p. 5).
For teachers this means that not only is it important to instruct learners in a manner which relates to their explicit knowledge, but also that instructors need to 'understand the principles on which their practice is based' (Little, 1994, p. 118). With the emphasis on the social dimension of autonomy, the teacher's goal must be, in Vygotskian terms, to
create and understand the mechanisms of the zone of proximal development in which learner and instructor carry out different functions, both of which contribute to learning which is more beneficial than could be achieved either by the spontaneous efforts of the learner alone or by the mere transmission from instructor to learner of the principles of a second language (Tort-Moloney, 1997, p. 9).
Leni Dam has suggested that 'the most important aspect of developing learner autonomy is probably a growing awareness of social as well as learning processes, for teachers as well as for learners' (Dam, 1995, p. 80). In her language classroom, one of the key elements is socially determined responsibility, between teachers and students as well as between peers. Within a framework of basic principles, the activities should be jointly developed and elaborated by the teacher and the students. Students are encouraged to make choices and assume responsibility for them. The principal aim is awareness of their role and the role of others in the learning process, and awareness of the target language: 'In other words, [Dam] attempts to make the classroom situation transparent to her learners by making them aware of the link between what they do, how they do it, why they do it, and what they have learnt' (Tort-Moloney, 1997, p. 16-7). There are three key elements to Dam's approach. First, she uses a diary 'to document and evaluate the ongoing teaching/ learning process'(Dam, 1995, p. 10). Secondly, she encourages group work, but in the sense of supporting the individual learner. Thirdly, an important factor is evaluation to check whether objectives have been met and as 'a basis of experience and awareness that can be used in further learning' (Dam, 1995, p. 49). It makes sense to apply these principles to teacher education.
Little suggests that '[we] must provide trainee teachers with the skills to develop autonomy in the learners who will be given into their charge, but we must also give them a first-hand experience of learner autonomy in their training.'(1995, p. 179-180). This can be achieved by guided practice and the inclusion of peer collaboration at the level of teacher-training programmes. Guided practice has been shown to be highly beneficial, mainly for two reasons: 'teaching is a dynamic process requiring more than a set pattern of responses' and collaboration between teachers led to an 'analytic dialogue in which their theoretical and experiential knowledge was sifted and synthesized' (Schlumberger & Clymer, 1989, p. 157). Here we can see parallels to Vygotsky's notions of external scaffolding and internalisation. Another element of the teaching process is interactive self-regulation, a process of developmental adaptation by the teacher which 'cannot be seen as a response to successful learning but as part of teaching as such' (Tort-Moloney, 1997, p. 37).
The goal of developing teacher autonomy can thus be formulated as to allow 'teachers to develop autonomous relationships of dialectical dependence on and independence from variables such as curriculum, research, and classroom discourse, among other variables' (Tort-Moloney, 1997, p. 50). Teachers are 'more likely to succeed in promoting learner autonomy if their own education has encouraged them to be autonomous' (Little, 1995, p. 180). Teacher training should not be confined to teaching techniques. It is vital that the autonomous teacher becomes aware 'of why, when, where and how pedagogical skills can be acquired and used in the self-conscious awareness of teaching practice itself' and that he/she is integrated into a model where 'teacher education is provided through mutual assistance of students, teachers, institutions, consultants, researchers, curriculum developers, all dynamically linked together at the interpsychological and at the intrapsychological level' (Tort-Moloney, 1997, p. 51; also see Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
Teacher Education and Computer-Assisted Language Learning
For several years I have given introductory and intermediate workshops and teacher training courses for teachers in third level or higher education and adult education centres, both in Ireland and abroad. In spite of media reports suggesting widespread computer literacy, the major difficulties that arise remain the same. Many language teachers are still largely unfamiliar with present-day computer technology, in particular the Internet. In many cases they are faced with far from 'intuitive' computer interfaces, a growing diversification of development tools such as Java or javascript, and the steep learning curve of complex authoring systems. In addition, many teachers have to face organisational obstacles, such as lack of time, funding, or training, to properly familiarise themselves with tools or develop new resources (see Levy, 1997).
There is also a large number of teachers who voice concerns about the familiar image of the computer replacing the teacher, and thus about computer-assisted language learning in general (or naive notions of the term). It is still important to emphasise the role of the computer as only assisting (in self-access mode or otherwise) traditional classroom discourse, as a tool, tutor, or medium. It is also a widespread perception that the computer seeks to emulate human qualities, as an equal partner in the learning process. This aim, while still present in some approaches in artificial intelligence, has however been moderated in recent years, especially in the context of language learning (for recent developments in natural language processing, see for instance Kuhlmann, 1999; Zink, 1999; Kurth, 1997; Rötzer, 1997; Hauenschild & Heizmann, 1997).
These concerns have to be countered by a balanced mix of pedagogy and technology. It is necessary to focus on available and reliable computer technology while maintaining an open, extensible, and modular approach to development. Good examples are collaborative and communicative resources, rather than isolating and non-interactive software, although the media hype around the relatively recent Internet resources has mostly concerned itself with its information resources as the 'information super-highway'.
Collections of authentic language resources on the web are now available for a variety of languages (for example the author's resource collections are available at http://www.tcd.ie/CLCS/languageresources.html). However, the major advantages even of these resources have often been overlooked. Resources can be as topical as live radio or television programmes that are now available with streamed audio and video technology. The authentic material available on these sites provides much more context for learners than authentic material that is half a year old. In particular newspapers and magazines provide similar reports to L1 news information that students may have heard only a day before. Students are thus enabled to see the relevance of their world knowledge for language learning, and the scaffolding provided by an L1 resource on local TV allows them to tackle much more difficult information resources than before, which of course can influence motivation significantly.
Language resource collections also allow for data-driven learning. Many newspapers, search engines, and web-based concordancers offer access to vast corpora that can be accessed via the Internet. Thus, students can search the corpus of the German online-newspaper Die Welt (http://www.welt.de) using any keyword. They could, for example, explore prepositional phrases, word order, and idioms (for a discussion of data-driven learning, see for instance Rautenhaus, 1996).
Relatively unobtrusive communicative technology like text-based email or MOO have been around for a number of years, and there is now some evidence to show that they are effective in language teaching, while being low-cost and easily manageable (see Warschauer, 1995; Warschauer, 1996). When these two technologies are combined with an approach such as tandem learning, they become powerful tools to break up the artificiality and inauthenticity of the traditional language classroom. Tandem learning, which in turn is based on learner autonomy, relies on the principles of reciprocity, bilingualism, and learner autonomy to connect two partners with complementary combinations of L1 and L2 in an ongoing learning partnership (for more detailed information on tandem learning see Little & Brammerts, 1996).
A recent addition to information and communicative resources are user-extensible and sometimes customisable and/or collaborative databases. They offer private and public spaces where individual learners can organise their own learning, but where they can also collaborate with others on documents and databases. Breffni O'Rourke's prototype of a lexical organiser is a good example (O'Rourke, 1998), and the aforementioned resource collection aims to permit student participation and customisation in its next edition.
O'Rourke's example also points to an important feature of web resources within the context of learner and teacher autonomy. Resources need to allow teachers and students to extend and individualise resources, thus giving students the chance to participate in the selection and organisation of learning material. The goal needs to be to create extensible web resources within a modular approach that allows for the integration of new technology as it emerges. There are two major questions that arise, however. The first is the question of interactivity: how, in the light of all these diverse resources and development tools, can increasingly complex information and communication resources and development tools be made available to teachers and students without being disorientating, while at the same time being participatory so that teachers and students can collect and manipulate their own selection of tools/ resources? The second question regards interaction: how can we ensure that asynchronous and synchronous communication resources are available that can replicate the great diversity of teacher-student, student-student, and group interaction we can find in the real-life language classroom? In addition with an approach such as tandem learning, this problem is multiplied into international contexts. The simple question is really: how can we transfer the integrity of the autonomous language classroom à la Leni Dam to an integrated learning environment on the Internet?
The MOO as a Collaborative Environment
The problem of integrating the various web resources described above into a common learning environment can be solved within the framework of virtual reality (Schwienhorst, 1998). Virtual reality uses a spatial metaphor to reduce the learner's
need for abstract, extero-centric thinking by presenting processed information in an apparent three-dimensional space, and allowing us to interact with it as if we were part of that space. In this way our evolutionarily derived processes for understanding the real world can be used for understanding synthesized information (Carr, 1995, p. 1).
The MOO is a text-based virtual environment that has recently been extended to support and organise a variety of web-based tools. In addition, the MOO offers text-based synchronous and asynchronous modes of communication. The asynchronous mode of communication functions like a kind of in-house email system, including mailing lists. Text-based live communication may sound antiquated, but can be particularly effective in language teaching. Learners and teachers connect to a MOO via a specially created character that is individually customisable. They are represented by that character in a virtual environment in which they can participate and collaborate.
This strength of the MOO becomes apparent when we compare it with other synchronous distance education tools. While the combination of missing non-verbal and verbal cues in a text-based environment may be a drawback compared to audio or video conferencing, the major advantage of the MOO lies in its breakdown of distance between participants. In order to allow for collaboration as well as interaction, learners and teachers must be enabled to share tools and resources in real time. This is what Short et al., even before the age of the Internet and Virtual Reality, have labelled the 'coffee and biscuits problem' (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976, p. 140). Neither can be offered to the other party in a teleconference, because 'no matter how elegant the telecommunications system is, the two parties are still in different places and this precludes certain types of activities' (Short et al., 1976, p. 143). Participants in a telecommunications activity sense that 'there is a very obvious barrier between the two parties communicating, no matter how 'transparent' that barrier may be' (Short et al., 1976, p. 140). The creation of a character within a virtual environment can provide an alternative to audio and video conferencing and also supports the experimental element within learning.
But live communication within the same, shared environment is not the only advantage of the MOO over audio and video conferencing. With peers or a tandem partner, students can record transcripts of sessions into a text file which is then instantly available for error analysis, a resource for future learning, and a basis for new activities. The (re)use of transcripts is a decisive advantage over audio- and video conferencing modes, which in addition are often unreliable and relatively expensive. We will return to the transcripts in our next section.
All participants in a MOO can create their own learning spaces and decide to share them with peers. The easy-to-use interface allows for simple building mechanisms, such as building/writing a room description, right up to more complex programming tasks, such as interactive Scrabble games that can be played in real time, or conversational robots that can be used as vocabulary tutors or to perform tasks such as message relaying. The importance of creating personally meaningful artefacts has repeatedly been emphasised in learning approaches such as Kelly's personal construct psychology (Kelly, 1963) or Papert's constructionism (Papert, 1993). It was also confirmed in the success of a project in the language modules at the Centre for Language and Communication Studies (CLCS), Trinity College Dublin, where students created their own web site (for a general overview and evaluation of our language modules programme see Little & Ushioda, 1998). At MundoHispano MOO (telnet://admiral.umsl.edu:8888), students and teachers have over time recreated a number of locations from the Spanish-speaking world as text-based virtual environments. Students' own experiences and perceptions of the target culture are not necessarily limited to the spatial metaphor of the classroom. As all MOO objects are created first and foremost in text (although multimedia material may be linked), any student creation is by definition an exercise in language and programming, and may be particularly well suited to raising intercultural awareness, especially within the tandem context.
The advantages of MOO are diverse. It is participatory and user-extensible, learner determined, and it allows for a loop that is fed by synchronous and asynchronous communication as well as authentic information resources. The MOO provides a laboratory in the sense that students and teachers are encouraged to experiment with their respective roles in a new learning environment.
MOO Support for Teacher Autonomy
The last few years have seen the development of a variety of learning and teaching tools to counter one of the most obvious problems of synchronous text-based communication. As there is no way for students and teachers to signal their intention to speak, conversations very quickly may become forked, and with the addition of more participants and topics more forks are added. This can make conversation difficult or even impossible. Although the MOO has been reported to be generally non-hierarchical in nature (Crump, 1998; also see Haynes, 1998), it supports a number of teaching tools that can usefully organise and enhance multi-directional communication within larger groups.
Ken Schweller (1998) mentions the classroom-object, which has a number of built-in tools such as blackboards, clocks, tables, and chairs, all of which can help to maintain conversational coherence. By using a command in the classroom-object like 'sit blue table', a student would only 'hear' (read: see on screen in text) what is 'said' (read: typed) by others who have also sat down at the blue table. A command like speakup would then go to the whole class. Teachers can stifle all conversation, lock classrooms so as not to be disturbed, etc. The Educore database of MOO objects, developed at Diversity University MOO (http://moo.du.org:8000), includes the Visiting Student Player Object (VSPO). This object allows teachers to set up for instance a group of 30 students as characters (with their email addresses) in a matter of seconds. For this group, the teacher becomes a kind of manager, allowing students to extend the virtual environment or even program new objects. The VSPO also enables the teacher to communicate to all and organise members of that group with a one word command. It is arguable whether these commands repeat the hierarchies of the traditional classroom or whether they are simply a practical necessity. In any case, the decision to use them remains with the teacher. Tort-Moloney (1997, p. 30-1) has summarised the various simultaneous or sequenced interaction types that take place in a 'scientific' model of the classroom: we can find intrapersonal voices, peer voices (one-to-one or one-to-group), and a pedagogical voice (teacher learner(s)). Leni Dam saw the problem that arises from the superimposing voices in the spontaneous classroom and called it 'octopus syndrome' (Dam, 1995, p. 26). She countered the problem by nominating helpers 'to reinstate the original one-to-one "scaffolding model" through peer interaction' (Tort-Moloney, 1997, p. 31).
In the MOO, these different processes of peer interaction or peer tutoring are encouraged through the use of a variety of communication commands that determine recipients. Groups can be formed and changed regularly. While taking part in a group discussion, learners can consult the teacher on an individual basis, even if they are in different 'rooms'. Indeed, the occurrence and maintenance of multiple conversational threads (for instance by working with a class while paging people in other 'rooms' of the MOO) is a common feature of MOO communication. The existence of commands like 'whisper', 'say', 'page', and 'think' allows for the formation of learning partnerships on a continual basis and supports a Vygotskian model of peer support as well as teacher-learner support in the classroom (see Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).
Maybe the most important tools in the context of learner and teacher autonomy are recording objects that allow students and teachers to 'record' (read: save as text file) any conversation they have. These transcripts can then be stored in the MOO, read, made available to others in the MOO (and edited in collaboration), sent to a student's email address and printed out. In addition, they could of course form the basis for data-driven learning by individual students and teachers. Schweller reports on a more teacher-focused tool, the $intercom tool, designed by Jan Rune Holmevik at LinguaMOO, that can 'monitor and record activity in up to five rooms connected by a central control room' (Schweller, 1998). This points towards the major strength of an environment such as the MOO. Language use in the communicative classroom, even with native speakers, is all very well, but students rarely get the chance to use a transcript of their L2 efforts for analysis. Similarly, teachers rarely have the chance to evaluate classroom activity by using transcripts, especially in a classroom characterised by group activity. Individual transcripts and tools such as $intercom can help the teacher in supporting the pivotal goal of learner and teacher autonomy, which is the evaluation of learning and teaching 'on the one hand to ensure that work undertaken is discussed and revised, and on the other to establish a basis of experience and awareness that can be used in planning further learning. It is a recurrent activity between the teacher and individual learners, groups of learners, of the whole class. It can also be undertaken by the learners themselves' (Dam, 1995, p. 49). Like evaluation itself, the transcripts should be fed back into new activities in a continuous loop.
The support for teachers interested in bringing classes to a MOO is manifold. There are several 'video' tutorials and work sheets available. Many managers of MOOs offer free and extensive technical support which is available 24 hours a day. In addition, some MOOs offer live teacher workshops and introductory sessions on a regular basis. The sessions organised and published through the neteach-l mailing list at SchMOOze University MOO (http://schmooze.hunter.cuny.edu:8888) or the computers and writing workshops at LinguaMOO (http:://lingua.utdallas.edu:7000) are only two examples.
The ICT Course at TCD
The undergraduate degree in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) at Trinity College contains a language course as a required component. Students have a two hour classroom session plus a one hour individual tutorial per week. Native speaker assistants (mostly students on the Socrates exchange program) assist the teachers during the second half of the classroom session by moderating group work and providing target language input for their project work.
Each class has to complete four projects during the course of the year. For first year students, these include a TV programme, a campaign poster, a debate, and a newsletter presentation. For second year students, the projects are a technology report, a software review, an evaluation of web resources, and data-driven language analysis. Many of the projects encourage using the MOO and/ or email for communication with the tandem partners.
The tutorials focus on the students' individual progress in class and the co-ordination of their European Language Portfolio that CLCS has piloted in 1998-9. The portfolio includes a language passport, which includes the learner's own evaluation of his/her proficiency in the languages he/she knows; a language biography; and a dossier of work illustrating the learner's foreign language skills.
In 1997/98 we carried out a successful German-English email tandem project between the University of Bochum, Germany, and Trinity College Dublin (see Little et al., 1999). In 1998/99, we ran a pilot project using MOOs and the framework of tandem learning with the Fachhochschule Rhein-Sieg near Bonn, Germany (the same co-ordinators were involved). This time we focused on pairing ICT students from two courses (first and second year). The author created a MOO solely for this project, based on the educore MOO database developed at Diversity University, which allowed us to customise the database for our purposes. Jackie McPartland, the organiser in Bonn, and I were able to synchronise many components of the course (such as project-based work and the structure of two classroom hours and one tutorial session per week). However, we were unable to synchronise a scheduled MOO session per week, taking place at the same time both in Germany and Ireland. This proved a major stumbling block for all students. Usually, the German University system allows for and encourages a relatively unrestricted choice of courses for students, so that students are fairly flexible in their daily class timetable. The schedule of Irish University students, however, is almost completely structured in advance and there are very few free periods during the week. We found out relatively late in the planning process that the German ICT course would also be tightly scheduled. This left us with only one session when both German and Irish students had a free period, Fridays from 9-10 (10-11) am. Not surprisingly, the project found very little support from the students. In addition, the few students who connected reported that the interface looked too unprofessional (we should not forget that many ICT students are used to the graphical standard of multi-user games such as Quake).
For 1999/2000, we made a number of changes. First, we started organising the project much earlier, in April 1999. This, together with help from both ICT departments in Germany and Ireland, allowed us to synchronise the weekly one-hour tutorial sessions. A new teacher in Germany, Peter Kapec, was introduced to the course structure and the MOO technology in regular online sessions during the summer, and during regular MOO sessions (about 2-3 times a week) we discuss current classroom work and project stages. By using the MOO system for ongoing teacher co-operation, we become more aware of the problems and opportunities that lie within the system. We developed a cycle of four mini-projects, which students can work on at their own pace, and situated them within virtual study areas in the MOO (see Figure 1). These mini-projects are related to the four computer-related projects in the language course, in which students groups create software reviews, web site reviews, web-based exercise cycles, and debate general topics that affect computers and society.
-- Figure 1 about here --
Altogether, there are 22 study areas in the MOO (there are 22 German students and 29 Irish students involved) (See Figure 2). These are virtual locations with access to the mini-project descriptions and a picture gallery (containing photos of all students). Students selected partners according to interests, and they work in pairs or in groups of three. The study areas serve to channel communication, a vital component in synchronous online environments.
-- Figure 2 about here --
We also changed the database used for the project. In June the enCore database (available at http://lingua.utdallas.edu/encore/), developed at LinguaMOO, was officially published. It includes a much improved form-based interface for building and programming. With the help of Sindre Sorensen and Jan Rune Holmevik from LinguaMOO, we also established an automatic logging system. This automatically records all sessions, from each participant's perspective, and sends these transcripts by MOO- or email to the respective participant (with a copy to the author).
For 8-9 weeks, from October to early December 1999, Irish students meet with their German counterparts during their regular contact sessions with the teachers. After the first few weeks into the project, we can already say that students have literally started "talking" to each other within seconds. They have immediately reported on the intuitive interface and showed great enthusiasm about working with their partners. Overall, our first experiences with the new database are extremely positive: it is reliable and responsive, and students find it extremely easy to use. Teacher intervention is limited to announcing when the half-way point of sessions has been reached and students switch languages (half the session takes place in English, half in German). Each session is finished with an entry in the MOO notebook, where students write down what they did, what they liked/disliked about the session, and how they want to proceed in the following week. Several students have already created their own virtual environments in the MOO, and many students were noted to connect to the MOO outside class hours. This may suggest that they accept the system as a personally meaningful communication tool, not only another tool for classroom work.
By including a rich language and programming environment like the MOO, we hope to increase the motivation of the students to actively participate in the learning process. As mentioned before, any project that is created in the MOO uses by definition both language and ICT skills. As such, we see MOO technology as an ideal complement to current ICT courses.
The current project has so far confirmed observations by Donaldson and Kötter (1999) and Aarseth and Jopp (1998) that the position of the teacher is completely transformed. During the sessions, students are selecting the topics they want to discuss, and the teachers intervene only to remind them to switch languages or to announce the end of the session. We will discuss the MOO sessions with the students about half way during the project, with the aim of making the partnership more profitable and raising more awareness of the learning process.
Collaborative Writing and Literacy
Especially in the light of recent audio and video conferencing tools, some may see the typed exchanges in the MOO as outdated and second-best. This position, however, ignores the major functions of writing in developing literacy. Written language serves as an external memory, and the transcripts from MOO sessions record complete exchanges between language learners and native speakers. As such, they become much more immediately accessible for reflective or awareness-raising activities than video tapes or audio recordings. Of even greater significance for literacy is "the increased level of cognitive functioning which is encouraged by the more detached and critical attitude to experience that use of the written language promotes" (Wells, 1981, p. 242). Whereas in oral communication, meaning is defined by an interplay of speaker, recipient, and context, in writing, to a large extent, readers try to infer meaning from the text alone. Olson (1977) therefore argues that the reader's efforts
to make the organisation of the written text act as the autonomous and explicit representation of intended meaning leads to the development of a greater awareness of the abstract relationship between language and experience and a greater willingness to exploit the symbolic possibilities inherent in language. The acquisition of literacy, he [Olson] argues, thus provides a tool for, and the spur to, higher levels of analytic thinking and formal reasoning - skills which are amongst the chief forces in the development of civilisation, both in whole cultures and in its individual members (Wells, 1981, p.244-5).
While many discussions of literacy have focused on reading, it is in the actual creation of text, the writing process, that "the individual is made most aware of the symbolising function of language, and of the power that it has to capture experience so that it may be considered, questioned and modified in the interests of increased understanding and future applications" (Wells, 1981p. 254). Through processes of writing, learners are thus required to develop those literacy skills that we most associate with higher cognitive skills. This involves a greater awareness of their learning processes, and in the case of language learners, a greater metalinguistic awareness (Olson, 1991). Collaborative writing in real time, such as in MOO, can add to this a social and pragmatic dimension (Murray, 1992), contrary to early predictions that the shift away from orality in new media necessarily brings with it social alienation and a lack of interpersonal involvement in the dissemination of information and participation in entertainment and teaching activities (also see McLuhan, 1967; Ong, 1982; Scholes & Willis, 1991).
Developing Learning and Teaching Communities
Learner and teacher autonomy are inextricably linked. When we apply these concepts to Internet technology for language teaching, there are some technologies and ways of using them that are more appropriate than others. If we use only authentic non-participatory information resources in the target language, we neglect the wide variety of communication resources that are available to us. Some, such as the MOO, are reliable, free of charge and have many supportive teachers who are willing to exchange ideas and help with projects. In this way, we can not only develop a community of learners, but also a community of educators on the Internet, and both are far from being virtual.
Correspondence
Klaus Schwienhorst,
Centre for Language and Communication Studies,
Arts Building,
Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2,
Ireland.
Email: kschwien@tcd.ie
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Sindre Sorensen and Jan Rune Holmevik from LinguaMOO for continued support and programming help.
Illustrations
Figure 2: The basic entry window of CLCS Campus with menu bar, output and input window on the left, and web content on the right.
Figure 1: A sample exercise in CLCS Campus with external web links.
References
Aarseth, E., & Jopp, C. (1998). CALLMOO fase I - Sluttrapport. http://cmc.hf.uib.no/dreistadt/eval/sluttrapp.html.
Carr, K. (1995). Introduction. In K. Carr & R. England (Eds.), Simulated and Virtual Realities (pp. 1-10). London: Taylor and Francis.
Crump, E. (1998). At home in the MUD. In C. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High Wired: On the Design, Use, and Theory of Educational MOOs (pp. 177-191). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Donaldson, R. P., & Kötter, M. (1999). Language learning in cyberspace: Teleporting the classroom into the target culture. Calico, 16(4), 531-557.
Hauenschild, C., & Heizmann, S. (Eds.). (1997). Machine Translation and Translation Theory. Berlin: Morton de Gruyter.
Haynes, C. (1998). Help! There is a MOO in this class! In C. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High Wired: On the Design, Use, and Theory of Educational MOOs (pp. 161-176). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kelly, G. (1963). A Theory of Personality. New York: Norton.
Kuhlmann, U. (1999). Wie bitte? Vier Diktiersysteme im Vergleich. C't. Magazin für Computertechnik(3), 124.
Kurth, H. (1997). Radebrecher. Der Verbmobil-Forschungsprototyp. c'tplusrom. Wissen zum Abruf '97(7).
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues, and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D. (1994). Words and their properties: arguments for a lexical approach to pedagogical grammar. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: the dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175-181.
Little, D., & Brammerts, H. (Eds.). (1996). A Guide to Language Learning in Tandem via the Internet. CLCS Occasional Papers. (Vol. 46). Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language & Communication Studies.
Little, D., & Ushioda, E. (1998). Institution-Wide Language Programmes. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Little, D., Ushioda, E., Appel, M. C., Moran, J., O'Rourke, B., & Schwienhorst, K. (1999). Evaluating Tandem Language Learning by E-Mail: Report on a Bilateral Project. CLCS Occasional Paper. (Vol. 55). Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language & Communication Studies.
McLuhan, M. (1967). The Medium is the Message. New York: Random House.
Murray, D. E. (1992). Collaborative writing as a literacy event: implications for ESL instruction. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 100-117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olson, D. (1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 257-281.
Olson, D. R. (1991). Literacy as metalinguistics. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Literacy and Orality (pp. 251-270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen.
O'Rourke, B. (1998). A network-based tool for organizing second-language vocabulary. Paper presented at the ED-Media/ ED-Telecom, Freiburg.
Papert, S. (1993). The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books.
Rautenhaus, H. (Ed.). (1996). Authentische Texte und Konkordanzprogramme im Englischunterricht. Oldenburg: Carl v. Ossietzky Universität.
Rötzer, F. (1997). `Sinn aus der Welt machen´. c'tplusrom. Wissen zum Abruf '97(15).
Schlumberger, A., & Clymer, D. (1989). Teacher training through teacher collaboration. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students (pp. 146-159). New York: Longman.
Scholes, R. J., & Willis, B. J. (1991). Linguistics, literacy, and the intensionality of Marshall McLuhan's Western man. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Literacy and Orality (pp. 215-235). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schweller, K. (1998). MOO educational tools. In C. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High Wired: On the Design, Use, and Theory of Educational MOOs (pp. 88-106). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Schwienhorst, K. (1998). The "third place"- virtual reality applications for second language learning. ReCALL, 10(1), 118-126.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: Wiley.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in a Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tort-Moloney, D. (1997). Teacher Autonomy: A Vygotskian Theoretical Framework. CLCS Occasional Paper. (Vol. 48). Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language & Communication Studies.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1995). Virtual Connections: On-line Activities and Projects for Networking Language Learners. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1996). Telecollaboration in Foreign Language Learning. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Wells, G. (1981). Language, literacy and education. In G. Wells (Ed.), Learning Through Interaction (pp. 240-276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zink, M. (1999). Zusammenspiel: Mensch-Maschine-Schnittstellen in Sprachsystemen. C't. Magazin für Computertechnik(3), 133.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
A Trend of CALL Research in China
Abstract
The research on Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) has been in discussion for several decades in the academic world, both overseas and in China; however, no proper systematic approach to the identification of research trend of CALL comes to our attention. Based on the author’s previous studies in this field, this paper integrates the understanding of Action Research (AR) into the introduction of two pilot studies, then makes a comprehensive study on AR in literature, including a survey on published articles on CALL in China in recent decade, and finally ends up with the concept that AR and the research on AR can be interpreted to be the trend of CALL in China. AR is an inevitable choice to teachers involved in the study of CALL, and also, from the perspective of practice, it is the embodiment of the core bearing in CALL definition and of the concept ‘nomalisation’- the only road to the future of CALL. From the perspective of the main contents in CALL study, AR is a closely-connected cycle of reflective thinking involving teacher, students and computer, in which, both teacher and students are in pursuits of professional development and the improvement of computer/ information literacy, while computer will gradually integrate into our life in this process. Moreover, in the discussion of integrating AR into CALL research, this paper puts forward a further explanation on defining AR in a new way, which means AR can not only be regarded as the research of researchers, but also the research of its participants.
The main purpose of this essay is: to make a general and systematic summary of the author’s previous studies in this area and propose a theoretical framework on CALL research; to serve those researchers/ teachers/ practitioners, especially entry-levels, for a clear and straightforward understanding on CALL study; to inform those professional researchers about the importance of the involvement of all potential CALL researchers, and about the fact that they will also benefit from the process of AR and the research on AR; and finally to indicate that the cognition on trend of CALL research helps to make a bright future for CALL activities in China.
Key words: computer-assisted language learning (CALL) research trend action research research on action research
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)