Monday, January 28, 2008
Reactions to articles read for TIFLE class
I have found the article "Why call CALL "CALL"?, by Levy and Hubbard very interesting. Going beyond the discussion on terminology I think this article offers an interesting insight on the different ways we can address students needs and expectations in the classroom by using technology.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Do you feel any disturbed at all by the fact that our technology (in the classroom) resources today could be completely obsolete in the next 10 years? Oh by the way...congratulations on your first blog....a escribir!
JAvier
Javier,
To be honest, no at all. At the beginning I was auditing this class because I felt completely behind of the new classroom technologies. And I think that it will probably be like that always, since I am not a very technological person.
I am teaching two courses: literature and advanced conversation. And I feel like I could have had these tow classes fifty thirty years ago, or that I can have them in the next ten years. Students look for places, and people, to talk face to face, in the unique environment created by the other's presence.
I still believe that thinking and learning process is very much related to that "group" experience and habits.
Now, I think I like this class because it just makes me think in how I should use technology to better adapt my courses to students needs.
Comments on the article about Second Language Acquisition and Technology.
I find out this article interesting because it brings about the effects of using CALL with different purposes. I like this article dares to compare the benefits of CALL with face to face interactions.
Although I undestand that many researchs can demonstrate that CALL be very useful in grammar and composition classes, I consider that always these results depend on the sociocultural characteristics of the classroom, and the interactions with the targer language in the students social environment.
The first aspect I do not agree with this article is when it says that "Language learners engaged in computer-mediated contact with others - for exmaple, in chat rooms where writing becomes speaking - tend to produce more language than face-to-face discussion...". In effect, I consider that this affirmation needs first to clarify what is understood as "to produce language". Also, I find out problematic to consider writen communication as verbal communication. A writen speech it is not the same --it has not the same effects and impact, and purposes-- than the spoken speech.
I understand that chatting can become a central, and essential, form for communicating when physical distances are not possible to avoid. In fact, we all probably feel that there are things we can say in a chatroom that we would not be able to say in a face to face conversation. But I find that many times the fact that we write as if we were writing make us to make many mistakes in writing. Many times, in effect, these mistakes produce real missunderstandings. For me, writing it is not the same as speaking. Both are forms for communicating, and their boundaries are blurred --in our perceptions-- in the chatrooms. However, i still consider that they are different form for producing language, and for inviting to discussions and communication.
Post a Comment