.jpg)
Results of Grgurovic & Hegelheimer’s study revealed a couple things about the ‘help options’ choices—using subtitles and/or using a transcript, or not using help at all. Subtitles were used more frequently and longer than the transcript; the higher proficient group more so than the lower proficient group. Possible rationale for subtitles preference was that participants were predisposed to such in daily life, for example watching TV with subtitles. Along with that finding, the ‘help options’ were not used as the researchers had anticipated. This occurred more so with members in the lower proficient group whose non-interaction resulted in the weakest performance. A couple implications from this study were raised. The best solution is to offer choice to students as this study did, including adding an option to skip help altogether to accommodate various learning styles/preferences. The other implication involves how to encourage ‘help options’ usage on future CALL designed activities of this nature, if help use is found to be beneficial. Using software demos and tutorials were ideas mentioned to promote such, along with creating CALL tasks requiring help use.
Levy’s chapter on practice contains lots of practical information and issues to consider when employing CALL to language skills and areas. My first consideration would be to define my language-learning objective. For example, is it text comprehension? Or perhaps grammar usage? Only then does CALL become a tool of choice. As Levy points out, a common trap for many teachers is to consider the computer first and then a lesson objective. I think the chapter conclusion sums up the practice of CALL best. Namely, that CALL is multifaceted with a variety of technologies, materials, and resources. In the same way many L2 teachers select material appropriate for the curriculum and their students, CALL should be managed the same way. With that, essential to CALL practice is knowing your learners in terms of their linguistic and technology skills, along with their backgrounds. Good common sensical stuff!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your observation about the Help Options articles, "the best solution is to offer choice to students including adding an option to skip help altogether to accommodate various learning styles/preferences" summarizes the content article. I completely agree with your assertion that if the learners feel that they are in control they would feel more invested in reaching their personal goal.
ReplyDeleteYour last observation on Levy's Chapter about practice "using common sense" sums it up. The goal, the appropriate use of available tools, and taking into account the student as a whole make the right combination for success.
Hey Alison. You're right, it's basically all about common sense. It's weird. All these CALL technologies are hovering around us in kind of a cloud and sometimes it is easy to grasp the closest thing. Sometimes tools are grasped out of desperation, like a lone carpenter who grabs a pipe wrench when his nearly-finished cabinets are about to go crashing down... he should've grabbed the hammer, ya know? I guess it is all about remaining calm and assessing the situation and thinking about the students...
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that teachers should circumnavigate his/her students’ technical background, interests/goals and level of proficiency to choose an appropriate learning options whether subtitles or transcripts.
ReplyDeleteWe have to put these essentials on our consideration before conducting any CALL practice. The technology and any other CALL materials are sort of aids to facilitate delivering the core message of a course/language skill;therefore,they are supportive ways for acheiving the target knowledge.