I guess summer is over - it's time to update my blog:)
It has been a busy summer with all kinds of life-changing activities. From an ESL perspective, the next big thing happening to me is moving to Germany. I look at this relocation as a great opportunity to teach ESL. Germany, watch out! Here I come.
Ich spreche Deutch gern! - or at least I'd love to. Will try.
Have a good one!
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Great Song!
Well, this is rather different. In a good way. Great song by Cibelle and Devendra Banhart. How to use it in the ESL classroom? You can make a listening comprehension exercise out of it - if you have the right crowed. Or just enjoy the music!
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Article on changing trends in TESOL methods
TESOL Methods: Changing Tracks, Challenging Trends by B. Kumaravadivelu, TESOL Quarterly Vol. 40, No. 1, March 2006
This article is about recent shifts in SLA methodology:
1. from communcative to task-based language teaching
2. from method-based pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy
3. from systematic discovery to critical discourse
This article is about recent shifts in SLA methodology:
1. from communcative to task-based language teaching
2. from method-based pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy
3. from systematic discovery to critical discourse
Article Review - The Cognitive-Socio divide in ESL Research
If you have read and liked the Wegner and Firth vs. Gass "academic back and forth" on the issue of cognitivist and sociocultural views of SLA (Second Langauge Acquisition) from the mid 1990s, here is something intresting for you.
Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives: Two Parallel SLA Worlds? by Jane Zuengler and Elizabeth R. Miller, TESOL Quarterly Vol. 40, No. 1, March 2006.
It's a great summery on the cognitive-socio divide that has been influencing the SLA research in the past 15 years or so.
The authors identify two major breaking points in what the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives differ.
1. The understanding of learning in SLA (langauge learning vs. langauge acquisition)
2. The tension between Positivism and Relativism.
What is fascinating about this article is that it gives you the big picture on the issue + all the big names in SLA research that you have come across in your ESL research readings.
I really enjoyed this article. It's a must have for comps!!!
Don't miss Kent Hill's response: Comments on J. Zuengler and E.R. Miller's "Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives: Two Parallel SLA World?" TESOL Quarterly Vol 40 No. 4, December 2006.
Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives: Two Parallel SLA Worlds? by Jane Zuengler and Elizabeth R. Miller, TESOL Quarterly Vol. 40, No. 1, March 2006.
It's a great summery on the cognitive-socio divide that has been influencing the SLA research in the past 15 years or so.
The authors identify two major breaking points in what the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives differ.
1. The understanding of learning in SLA (langauge learning vs. langauge acquisition)
2. The tension between Positivism and Relativism.
What is fascinating about this article is that it gives you the big picture on the issue + all the big names in SLA research that you have come across in your ESL research readings.
I really enjoyed this article. It's a must have for comps!!!
Don't miss Kent Hill's response: Comments on J. Zuengler and E.R. Miller's "Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives: Two Parallel SLA World?" TESOL Quarterly Vol 40 No. 4, December 2006.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Course Reflection - ESL 6973
This course has been one of the most interesting and most useful of all the classes I have taken at UTSA. I truly enjoyed learning about the new ways of teaching ESL through various technological tools. I feel I have a much better understanding of what is out there in terms of techonology when it comes to teaching, learning, and keeping in touch with others. The readings and presentations were interesting and yes, the reading reflections turned out to be very useful when preapring for comps.
I am very excited about my blog. I can't wait to use blogs in my classroom together with other technology that I have learned about in this course.
Thank you Dr. Wright!
I am very excited about my blog. I can't wait to use blogs in my classroom together with other technology that I have learned about in this course.
Thank you Dr. Wright!
Quick Share - Learn ESL with BBC
Though ESL is not BBC's main profile, nonetheless it provides some really cool ESL exercises on its website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/
News in English - reading and listening activities
Watching and Listening - a nice variety of music, pictures, stories
The Flatemates (my favorite) - an interactive dialogue with new episods every week
Grammar and Vocabulary - with explanations and examples
Business English
Lesson Plans + Support
ELLs from all around the world leave comments on BBC's website about their language learning experiences and opinions. Check it out!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/
News in English - reading and listening activities
Watching and Listening - a nice variety of music, pictures, stories
The Flatemates (my favorite) - an interactive dialogue with new episods every week
Grammar and Vocabulary - with explanations and examples
Business English
Lesson Plans + Support
ELLs from all around the world leave comments on BBC's website about their language learning experiences and opinions. Check it out!
Podcast Project
This project was an international cooperation between Carol, Koyin, and myself. We had this idea of talking about our langauge learning experiences to motivate other English as a second language learners - in podcast format. We had a great time. We got to try out different aspects of "film making". Next stop is Hollywood.
The URL’s:
http://streamer.utsa.edu/ramgen/2007/Spring/FS/ESL6973.901.Wright/Trial.Interviews.mp3
http://streamer.utsa.edu/asxgen/2007/Spring/FS/ESL6973.901.Wright/recording.studio_output.wmv
The URL’s:
http://streamer.utsa.edu/ramgen/2007/Spring/FS/ESL6973.901.Wright/Trial.Interviews.mp3
http://streamer.utsa.edu/asxgen/2007/Spring/FS/ESL6973.901.Wright/recording.studio_output.wmv
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Wiley on Kloss
Heinz Kloss revisited: National Socialist ideologue or champion of language-minority rights? - by T.G. Wiley in International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2002, 154, 83-97
I came across this interesting article from T.G. Wiley. It’s about the work of Heinz Kloss – a prominent figure on the history of bilingualism and language policy in the U.S. You may have heard about Kloss’s major work, The American Bilingual Tradition (1977, 1998).
Heinz Kloss is one of the major scholars on American minority language policy, language rights, and language maintenance. His contribution includes a detailed account of language laws, territorial language policies, and other language-related primary data. Kloss’s scholarly work spans from the early 1930’s to 1987 (ended posthumously).
He was an interesting figure. He was born and raised in Germany then in the early 1930s he traveled to the U.S. and studied the language practices of German American immigrants. Later he expanded his scope of interest to other immigrant groups and language communities in the U.S.
Though the importance of his scholarly work is unquestionable due to the wealth of primary data he collected, his theoretical perspective and ideological standing has been extensively critiqued. This critique is typically based on two grounds: Kloss’s typology of multilingualism and his ideological perspective. In his article Wiley comments on the critique of Schiffman and Hutton. Schiffman analyzed Kloss’s typology and found that though Kloss did identify a number of linguistic variables relevant for language-policy, his perspective lacked predicative value. That is, Kloss failed to explain whether multilingualism is the outcome of the language policy, or if it develops contrary or independently of the policy (Schiffman, 1998).
Hutton’s analyzed the work of Kloss under National Socialism (the Nazi era). Hutton argues that it is important to consider a scholar’s ideological orientation since it greatly affects his/her alleged neutrality of scholarship (Wiley 2002). Hutton found that Kloss was affiliated with the German Foreign Institute during the Nazi era. In fact, Kloss provided information to the Third Reich on the number and language practices of German Americans in 1936-37. These were the years when the German Reich was interested in reuniting its people so they needed such information about Germans living outside the Reich.
Though later in his life Kloss distanced himself from the National Socialist period, Hutton argues that his early ideological perspectives can be traced in his later works.
What is striking in Kloss’s work is his distinction between racial minority and language minority status. Kloss argued that discrimination against language minorities was typically racial, not linguistic – while today it is widely understood that linguistic discrimination is connected to race, class, and other social discrimination (Wiley, 2002). That is, linguistic discrimination is never just about the language.
In the same line of thought, Kloss argued that language minority groups in the U.S. generally enjoyed tolerance-oriented policies toward language use and maintenance, and restrictive policies were only “isolated instances”. Clearly, Kloss focused on German immigrants, therefore he did not consider other people who had to face language and racial discrimination. Also, Kloss held the individual – not the state - accountable for heritage language maintenance: “… the non-English ethnic groups in the United States were Anglicized not because of nationality laws which were unfavorable toward their languages but in spite of nationality laws which were relatively favorable to them” (as cited in Wiley, 2002). He did not blame the state.
Maybe Kloss was right when he said that he was a “complicated young man with a complicated fate, in a complicated time”. I tend to believe that he remained the same in his later years. Regardless his past and his ideological orientation, as Wiley puts it, Kloss’s was an outstanding scholar because of the wealth of information he provided on the U.S. bilingual tradition. I highly recommend Wiley’s article. It is a very interesting reading and it gives a better understanding of how the current view of the U.S. bilingual tradition evolved throughout the past decades.
I came across this interesting article from T.G. Wiley. It’s about the work of Heinz Kloss – a prominent figure on the history of bilingualism and language policy in the U.S. You may have heard about Kloss’s major work, The American Bilingual Tradition (1977, 1998).
Heinz Kloss is one of the major scholars on American minority language policy, language rights, and language maintenance. His contribution includes a detailed account of language laws, territorial language policies, and other language-related primary data. Kloss’s scholarly work spans from the early 1930’s to 1987 (ended posthumously).
He was an interesting figure. He was born and raised in Germany then in the early 1930s he traveled to the U.S. and studied the language practices of German American immigrants. Later he expanded his scope of interest to other immigrant groups and language communities in the U.S.
Though the importance of his scholarly work is unquestionable due to the wealth of primary data he collected, his theoretical perspective and ideological standing has been extensively critiqued. This critique is typically based on two grounds: Kloss’s typology of multilingualism and his ideological perspective. In his article Wiley comments on the critique of Schiffman and Hutton. Schiffman analyzed Kloss’s typology and found that though Kloss did identify a number of linguistic variables relevant for language-policy, his perspective lacked predicative value. That is, Kloss failed to explain whether multilingualism is the outcome of the language policy, or if it develops contrary or independently of the policy (Schiffman, 1998).
Hutton’s analyzed the work of Kloss under National Socialism (the Nazi era). Hutton argues that it is important to consider a scholar’s ideological orientation since it greatly affects his/her alleged neutrality of scholarship (Wiley 2002). Hutton found that Kloss was affiliated with the German Foreign Institute during the Nazi era. In fact, Kloss provided information to the Third Reich on the number and language practices of German Americans in 1936-37. These were the years when the German Reich was interested in reuniting its people so they needed such information about Germans living outside the Reich.
Though later in his life Kloss distanced himself from the National Socialist period, Hutton argues that his early ideological perspectives can be traced in his later works.
What is striking in Kloss’s work is his distinction between racial minority and language minority status. Kloss argued that discrimination against language minorities was typically racial, not linguistic – while today it is widely understood that linguistic discrimination is connected to race, class, and other social discrimination (Wiley, 2002). That is, linguistic discrimination is never just about the language.
In the same line of thought, Kloss argued that language minority groups in the U.S. generally enjoyed tolerance-oriented policies toward language use and maintenance, and restrictive policies were only “isolated instances”. Clearly, Kloss focused on German immigrants, therefore he did not consider other people who had to face language and racial discrimination. Also, Kloss held the individual – not the state - accountable for heritage language maintenance: “… the non-English ethnic groups in the United States were Anglicized not because of nationality laws which were unfavorable toward their languages but in spite of nationality laws which were relatively favorable to them” (as cited in Wiley, 2002). He did not blame the state.
Maybe Kloss was right when he said that he was a “complicated young man with a complicated fate, in a complicated time”. I tend to believe that he remained the same in his later years. Regardless his past and his ideological orientation, as Wiley puts it, Kloss’s was an outstanding scholar because of the wealth of information he provided on the U.S. bilingual tradition. I highly recommend Wiley’s article. It is a very interesting reading and it gives a better understanding of how the current view of the U.S. bilingual tradition evolved throughout the past decades.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Kidpix Project
Students write the names of the items in the right-hand corner. Then they grap and drop those items that match well with the jungle theme. Next students look for some more images to add to the picture. Finally, they color the picture.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Reading Prompt #9
EGBERT Ch. 9. Limitations, Caveats, and Challenge
Which of the limitations, caveats, and challenges with regards to computer assisted language learning apply to your current (or future) classrooms? How could these be overcome?
In my workforce ESL class we do not have access to computers. Most of my students are computer illiterate, but would like to learn how to use computers. My students take ESL classes in their duty hours which is a great idea on part of UTSA, however, it also limits the time and resources that we can use in the classroom.
What I would like to do is for my students to familiarize themselves with what they can do with, around, and through the computer. It would be nice to take a laptop to class and just show them about the wealth of information and ESL resources that it has to offer. I tell them that some public libraries not only offer free computer use, but also have free or very inexpensive computer classes. Well, let’s hope that I can do something about it. I might be able to
Which of the limitations, caveats, and challenges with regards to computer assisted language learning apply to your current (or future) classrooms? How could these be overcome?
In my workforce ESL class we do not have access to computers. Most of my students are computer illiterate, but would like to learn how to use computers. My students take ESL classes in their duty hours which is a great idea on part of UTSA, however, it also limits the time and resources that we can use in the classroom.
What I would like to do is for my students to familiarize themselves with what they can do with, around, and through the computer. It would be nice to take a laptop to class and just show them about the wealth of information and ESL resources that it has to offer. I tell them that some public libraries not only offer free computer use, but also have free or very inexpensive computer classes. Well, let’s hope that I can do something about it. I might be able to
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Reading Prompt #8
CUMMINS Ch. 3. Assessment
EGBERT Ch. 8. Assessment
What is the difference between traditional standardized testing and authentic assessment? Describe how computers can be used for both. Which do you feel is a better use of computers? Describe examples from the readings or from your own experiences how comptures can be used effectively for assessment, and/or how to effectively assess the work students do via the computer?
A good example for traditional standardized testing is the current practice in US schools claiming to assess academic quality. However, as research shows, standardized testing as prescribed by NCLB focuses mostly on noneducational factors such as social economic status and ethnicity of students instead of assessing and facilitating students academic development. Moreover, standardized testing not only focuses on noneducational factors of assessment, but also reinforces them when branding low-income schools as failing.
This twisted form of looking for accountability and achivement in US schools generates numerous problems.
Standardized testing is forcing educators to narrow the curriculum leaving important subjects out of the curriculum. To be able to pass the tests, schools need to spend a lot of money to purchase test-preparation materials further shortening their resources to support student development. Needless to say, low-income schools are the most affected by standardized testing. Students simply miss out on opportunities that the educational system could and should provide for them.
Haney (2002) documented some of the serous shortcomings of the Texas miracle (the sudden improvement of test scores in the 1990s) Haney’s observations are still present in Texas schools. Students are marginalized by bureaucratic practices aimed at showing false improvement in AYP that is, raising the scores. Among some of these practices are student replacement, retention, and dropout (Haney (2002).
In contrast, authentic assessment or as Cummins calls it, instructionally sensitive assessment takes a more integrative perspective to student assessment in an educational environment that is both supportive and challenging. It focuses on student work both in terms of process and product. In addition, it embraces the tenets of a globalized knowledge society, and therefore promotes critical literacy, higher order thinking, and knowledge generation. (the idea of the New London Group)
Technology can play an important part in authentic assessment. It is an incredible source of information for both teachers and students.
Egbert mentions two forms using the computer as an assessment tool. Computer-based and Computer-adaptive testing. While the first one is fixed and linear, just like any type of pen and pencil test would be, the second one generates the test questions based on students’ previous responses. I like the idea of using computer-adaptive testing because it is better reflecting students’ knowledge, it’s more creative, and I imagine that students would find it more interesting. Even better, teachers can use more authentic ways of assessment through technology. It doesn’t have to be a computer generated test, after all. Of course, using technology in assessment fits well with authentic assessment including student portfolios, running records, self and peer assessment, and collaborative work.
As far as standardized testing - I don’t think technology can help much with that. Unless policy makers want to sell it to the public as the idea of incorporating technology and standardized testing – to make it look more advanced and more marketable. Well, I think it would be just another way of wasting money.
EGBERT Ch. 8. Assessment
What is the difference between traditional standardized testing and authentic assessment? Describe how computers can be used for both. Which do you feel is a better use of computers? Describe examples from the readings or from your own experiences how comptures can be used effectively for assessment, and/or how to effectively assess the work students do via the computer?
A good example for traditional standardized testing is the current practice in US schools claiming to assess academic quality. However, as research shows, standardized testing as prescribed by NCLB focuses mostly on noneducational factors such as social economic status and ethnicity of students instead of assessing and facilitating students academic development. Moreover, standardized testing not only focuses on noneducational factors of assessment, but also reinforces them when branding low-income schools as failing.
This twisted form of looking for accountability and achivement in US schools generates numerous problems.
Standardized testing is forcing educators to narrow the curriculum leaving important subjects out of the curriculum. To be able to pass the tests, schools need to spend a lot of money to purchase test-preparation materials further shortening their resources to support student development. Needless to say, low-income schools are the most affected by standardized testing. Students simply miss out on opportunities that the educational system could and should provide for them.
Haney (2002) documented some of the serous shortcomings of the Texas miracle (the sudden improvement of test scores in the 1990s) Haney’s observations are still present in Texas schools. Students are marginalized by bureaucratic practices aimed at showing false improvement in AYP that is, raising the scores. Among some of these practices are student replacement, retention, and dropout (Haney (2002).
In contrast, authentic assessment or as Cummins calls it, instructionally sensitive assessment takes a more integrative perspective to student assessment in an educational environment that is both supportive and challenging. It focuses on student work both in terms of process and product. In addition, it embraces the tenets of a globalized knowledge society, and therefore promotes critical literacy, higher order thinking, and knowledge generation. (the idea of the New London Group)
Technology can play an important part in authentic assessment. It is an incredible source of information for both teachers and students.
Egbert mentions two forms using the computer as an assessment tool. Computer-based and Computer-adaptive testing. While the first one is fixed and linear, just like any type of pen and pencil test would be, the second one generates the test questions based on students’ previous responses. I like the idea of using computer-adaptive testing because it is better reflecting students’ knowledge, it’s more creative, and I imagine that students would find it more interesting. Even better, teachers can use more authentic ways of assessment through technology. It doesn’t have to be a computer generated test, after all. Of course, using technology in assessment fits well with authentic assessment including student portfolios, running records, self and peer assessment, and collaborative work.
As far as standardized testing - I don’t think technology can help much with that. Unless policy makers want to sell it to the public as the idea of incorporating technology and standardized testing – to make it look more advanced and more marketable. Well, I think it would be just another way of wasting money.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Software Evaluation #3
Software Evaluation # 3
Tell Me More
Title of Software: Tell Me More
Producer: Aurolag Inc
Target students (e.g., age or grade-level of students): middle school and up
Proficiency level (e.g., beginning, intermediate, advanced): from absolute beginner to advanced + and business
Description:
Tell Me More is a comprehensive and interactive program for learners of English, Spanish, German, French, Italian, Dutch, Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese. The program targets a variety of audiences in the sphere of education, government, corporate world and individual students. The program is available in the following formats: CD-Rom, Network Lab, and Online.
The software uses two lesson modes: Free-to-Rome Mode and Guided Mode. The Free-to-Move Mode enables the learners to select activities and workshops of their choice and therefore create individual lessons. The Guided Mode allows personalized lessons based on specific objectives and time constraints set by the learner.
To program is built around the following skills: reading, writing, listening, speaking, vocabulary, grammar, and culture.
The activities are built around six workshops: Lesson, Cultural, Grammar, Vocabulary, Oral, and Written. All together there are 37 types of activities distributed within these six workshops.
Language skills targeted: skills reading, writing, listening, speaking, vocabulary, grammar, and culture.
Evaluation:
The program has some incredible properties to promote successful language learning. One of the outstanding characteristics of the program is that it offers a wide range of activities for students to choose from. The activities are more engaging and less mechanic than in other language programs.
In addition, it is interactive and gives immediate feedback in form of scoring, correction, and providing the correct forms. The program uses speech recognition technology to analyze pronunciation and therefore recognize pronunciation errors.
Another strength of the program is that the activities are structured based on performance. Since the learner’s performance is constantly evaluated throughout the learning process, the subsequent activities are based on the results of the previous activities.
The software includes grammar explanations with examples for some of the activities. Also, the software has a built-in classroom administrative system and a student assessment area. I think this is a great tool for teachers or language instructors to keep track on classroom management and student development.
Some of the weaknesses of the program that I found it a little bit difficult to navigate between or across the different activities. In addition, the writers of the program refer to it as a program using the immersion method. I cannot see how a language software can be used as an immersion program or method without the learner having actual or direct interaction with other speakers of that language and the culture in which the foreign language is practiced. Obviously something that a software program is unable to offer.
As a language software, the program is very interactive providing a lot of opportunities for language production. For that reason, and because there is lot of communication involved during the activities, I believe that Tell Me More represents the Communicative Language Teaching method.
All in all I believe this language program is probably the best I have seen so far. As long as we are aware of its strengths and weaknesses, it is an excellent program to enhance language learning both for the individual learner, classroom and other group settings.
Tell Me More
Title of Software: Tell Me More
Producer: Aurolag Inc
Target students (e.g., age or grade-level of students): middle school and up
Proficiency level (e.g., beginning, intermediate, advanced): from absolute beginner to advanced + and business
Description:
Tell Me More is a comprehensive and interactive program for learners of English, Spanish, German, French, Italian, Dutch, Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese. The program targets a variety of audiences in the sphere of education, government, corporate world and individual students. The program is available in the following formats: CD-Rom, Network Lab, and Online.
The software uses two lesson modes: Free-to-Rome Mode and Guided Mode. The Free-to-Move Mode enables the learners to select activities and workshops of their choice and therefore create individual lessons. The Guided Mode allows personalized lessons based on specific objectives and time constraints set by the learner.
To program is built around the following skills: reading, writing, listening, speaking, vocabulary, grammar, and culture.
The activities are built around six workshops: Lesson, Cultural, Grammar, Vocabulary, Oral, and Written. All together there are 37 types of activities distributed within these six workshops.
Language skills targeted: skills reading, writing, listening, speaking, vocabulary, grammar, and culture.
Evaluation:
The program has some incredible properties to promote successful language learning. One of the outstanding characteristics of the program is that it offers a wide range of activities for students to choose from. The activities are more engaging and less mechanic than in other language programs.
In addition, it is interactive and gives immediate feedback in form of scoring, correction, and providing the correct forms. The program uses speech recognition technology to analyze pronunciation and therefore recognize pronunciation errors.
Another strength of the program is that the activities are structured based on performance. Since the learner’s performance is constantly evaluated throughout the learning process, the subsequent activities are based on the results of the previous activities.
The software includes grammar explanations with examples for some of the activities. Also, the software has a built-in classroom administrative system and a student assessment area. I think this is a great tool for teachers or language instructors to keep track on classroom management and student development.
Some of the weaknesses of the program that I found it a little bit difficult to navigate between or across the different activities. In addition, the writers of the program refer to it as a program using the immersion method. I cannot see how a language software can be used as an immersion program or method without the learner having actual or direct interaction with other speakers of that language and the culture in which the foreign language is practiced. Obviously something that a software program is unable to offer.
As a language software, the program is very interactive providing a lot of opportunities for language production. For that reason, and because there is lot of communication involved during the activities, I believe that Tell Me More represents the Communicative Language Teaching method.
All in all I believe this language program is probably the best I have seen so far. As long as we are aware of its strengths and weaknesses, it is an excellent program to enhance language learning both for the individual learner, classroom and other group settings.
Software Evaluation #2
Software Evaluation #2
ESL Reading Smart
Title of Software: ESL Reading Smart
Producer: Alloy Multimedia, 2006
Target students (e.g., age or grade-level of students): This software is targeted for late elementary to high school learner population (grades 4-12)
Proficiency level (e.g., beginning, intermediate, advanced): Lessons plans and instructional materials are written at 4 levels of difficulty: newcomers (Level 1), beginners (Level 2), intermediate (Level 3), and advanced (Level 4).
Description: ESL Reading Smart is a language software specifically designed to English Language Learners (ELLs). The software is in line with currant TEKS and TESOL requirements. The software offers over 100 lesson plans with instructional materials – vocabulary and comprehension activities, worksheets, and printable handouts. The program overview claims that the software addresses students’ diverse learning styles, reading levels and interests.
The software is easily accessible. There is a 30 day free trial on line.
For teachers, reading materials can be chosen based on Lesson Plan, Standards, and Syllabus. The Lesson Plan option is broken down into Levels (see above), Genres (Poetry, Myth and Legends, Short Stories, Bibliographies, Articles) and Regions (North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa). The Standards can be chosen for AZ, CA, OH, FL, TESOL, and TX. The Syllabus option includes Newcomers’ Program and Reading Program.
The student or the teacher selects a topic and level of difficulty. Then in the Students’ Option the student can follow or choose from the following activities: reading, listening, vocabulary (multiple choice, word search puzzle), comprehension quiz (true or false, multiple choice, sequencing of events). In the comprehension quiz the student is given the percentage of his or her correct answers. The correct answers are not revealed, therefore the student can try to guess the correct answer again. There are two additional activities or sections – background information about the writer of the reading material and a collection of web resources.
Evaluation:
One of the program’s strengths is that it is student-centered. It offers a large variety of reading materials for learners with different interests. Also, it considers the learner’s geographical location and provides culture specific reading materials and related activities.
The overview claims that the software is designed to facilitate the development of listening, speaking, reading, writing, and vocabulary acquisition. I think the software itself is a great source to improve reading skills, vocabulary acquisition, as well as pronunciation. It also facilitates listening skills. I was not able to access the printable learning resources, but I assume that those resources are designed to address speaking and writing skills as referred to in the overview.
Another advantage of the program is that it comes with a classroom administrative system and a student assessment area. I think this is a great way of tracking classroom management and student development.
Another important characteristic of the program is that the pricing is tailored for the individual district, campus, or classroom. Hopefully it means that poorer educational sites receive a discount and therefore, are able to benefit from the software.
The disadvantage of the program is that though it considers the students’cultural background as far as reading selection, it is not able to assess and incorporate the students’ individual schemata- a crucial source in ESL reading.
Also, the program description claims that the program promotes critical thinking and collaborative work. I do not see how the software facilitates such educational goals. It is possible that the web resources (that I was not able to access from the ESL Reading Smart website) include activities that address these educational goals. Regardless, I believe the readings and the related activities can be easily extended to promote critical thinking and collaborative work by a creative teacher.
To sum it up, I think ESL Reading Smart is a great tool in a classroom setting where individual students need to improve their reading skills. I think with this software, the teacher is able to focus on certain aspects of reading development, let the student work individually, in pairs or, in small groups. I think the program may be a good additional source for improving students’ reading skills, but cannot stand alone as a source for teaching students how to read efficiently. Besides improving reading skills as part of the educational curriculum, this program seems to be an excellent source to promote Sustained Silent Reading.
I think the reading materials and subsequent activities of this program can be easily extended into classroom objectives where critical thinking, collaborative work, and various other skills (writing, speaking, etc.) are incorporated.
Title of Software: ESL Reading Smart
Producer: Alloy Multimedia, 2006
Target students (e.g., age or grade-level of students): This software is targeted for late elementary to high school learner population (grades 4-12)
Proficiency level (e.g., beginning, intermediate, advanced): Lessons plans and instructional materials are written at 4 levels of difficulty: newcomers (Level 1), beginners (Level 2), intermediate (Level 3), and advanced (Level 4).
Description: ESL Reading Smart is a language software specifically designed to English Language Learners (ELLs). The software is in line with currant TEKS and TESOL requirements. The software offers over 100 lesson plans with instructional materials – vocabulary and comprehension activities, worksheets, and printable handouts. The program overview claims that the software addresses students’ diverse learning styles, reading levels and interests.
The software is easily accessible. There is a 30 day free trial on line.
For teachers, reading materials can be chosen based on Lesson Plan, Standards, and Syllabus. The Lesson Plan option is broken down into Levels (see above), Genres (Poetry, Myth and Legends, Short Stories, Bibliographies, Articles) and Regions (North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa). The Standards can be chosen for AZ, CA, OH, FL, TESOL, and TX. The Syllabus option includes Newcomers’ Program and Reading Program.
The student or the teacher selects a topic and level of difficulty. Then in the Students’ Option the student can follow or choose from the following activities: reading, listening, vocabulary (multiple choice, word search puzzle), comprehension quiz (true or false, multiple choice, sequencing of events). In the comprehension quiz the student is given the percentage of his or her correct answers. The correct answers are not revealed, therefore the student can try to guess the correct answer again. There are two additional activities or sections – background information about the writer of the reading material and a collection of web resources.
Evaluation:
One of the program’s strengths is that it is student-centered. It offers a large variety of reading materials for learners with different interests. Also, it considers the learner’s geographical location and provides culture specific reading materials and related activities.
The overview claims that the software is designed to facilitate the development of listening, speaking, reading, writing, and vocabulary acquisition. I think the software itself is a great source to improve reading skills, vocabulary acquisition, as well as pronunciation. It also facilitates listening skills. I was not able to access the printable learning resources, but I assume that those resources are designed to address speaking and writing skills as referred to in the overview.
Another advantage of the program is that it comes with a classroom administrative system and a student assessment area. I think this is a great way of tracking classroom management and student development.
Another important characteristic of the program is that the pricing is tailored for the individual district, campus, or classroom. Hopefully it means that poorer educational sites receive a discount and therefore, are able to benefit from the software.
The disadvantage of the program is that though it considers the students’cultural background as far as reading selection, it is not able to assess and incorporate the students’ individual schemata- a crucial source in ESL reading.
Also, the program description claims that the program promotes critical thinking and collaborative work. I do not see how the software facilitates such educational goals. It is possible that the web resources (that I was not able to access from the ESL Reading Smart website) include activities that address these educational goals. Regardless, I believe the readings and the related activities can be easily extended to promote critical thinking and collaborative work by a creative teacher.
To sum it up, I think ESL Reading Smart is a great tool in a classroom setting where individual students need to improve their reading skills. I think with this software, the teacher is able to focus on certain aspects of reading development, let the student work individually, in pairs or, in small groups. I think the program may be a good additional source for improving students’ reading skills, but cannot stand alone as a source for teaching students how to read efficiently. Besides improving reading skills as part of the educational curriculum, this program seems to be an excellent source to promote Sustained Silent Reading.
I think the reading materials and subsequent activities of this program can be easily extended into classroom objectives where critical thinking, collaborative work, and various other skills (writing, speaking, etc.) are incorporated.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Reading Prompt #7
Egbert Chapter 7
Egbert talks about the integration of language and content objectives. Teaching language in isolation dangerously reminds me of the Grammar-Translation Method. Even if we combine it with some communicative techniques, without content, language objectives will not result in effective language learning.
I have tested some adult ESL learners in one of the local school districts’ ESL program earlier today. While I was waiting to get the list of students who needed to be tested, I noticed that one of the teachers started out talking about present perfect to his class. He wrote 5 sentences on the board – 3 sentences with present perfect and 2 sentences with simple past. 2 of the 5 sentences were related – mentioned the flu and measles. There was one sentence about a castle in Spain, and another about shopping. I can’t remember the fifth sentence. Clearly, there was no real content there, but language in isolation. Moreover, when I swung by the same classroom an hour later, there was a student adding some words to the same 5 sentences. I wonder what they were talking about – the flue, measles, castles in Spain or shopping?
Egbert did not mention adult ESL in her discussion, but I think what is true for K-12 in relation to combining academic content objectives with language objectives, is true for adult ESL too. ELLs need content to be able internalize the foreign language.
Adding technology to combined content and language objectives is really simply taking it up a notch. Technology enhances content and language instruction and therefore supports language learning.
Egbert talks about the integration of language and content objectives. Teaching language in isolation dangerously reminds me of the Grammar-Translation Method. Even if we combine it with some communicative techniques, without content, language objectives will not result in effective language learning.
I have tested some adult ESL learners in one of the local school districts’ ESL program earlier today. While I was waiting to get the list of students who needed to be tested, I noticed that one of the teachers started out talking about present perfect to his class. He wrote 5 sentences on the board – 3 sentences with present perfect and 2 sentences with simple past. 2 of the 5 sentences were related – mentioned the flu and measles. There was one sentence about a castle in Spain, and another about shopping. I can’t remember the fifth sentence. Clearly, there was no real content there, but language in isolation. Moreover, when I swung by the same classroom an hour later, there was a student adding some words to the same 5 sentences. I wonder what they were talking about – the flue, measles, castles in Spain or shopping?
Egbert did not mention adult ESL in her discussion, but I think what is true for K-12 in relation to combining academic content objectives with language objectives, is true for adult ESL too. ELLs need content to be able internalize the foreign language.
Adding technology to combined content and language objectives is really simply taking it up a notch. Technology enhances content and language instruction and therefore supports language learning.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Software Evaluation #1
Software Evaluation #1
Rosetta Stone
Title of Software: Rosetta Stone
Producer: Fairfield Language Technologies
Target students (e.g., age or grade-level of students): This software is applicable for any age groups. Adult assistance for young learners under the age of 6 is recommended.
Proficiency level (e.g., beginning, intermediate, advanced): Contains lessons from Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3.
Description: Rosetta Stone is a comprehensive language learning software. The program is designed to provide language learners with the option of self-study in their own pace. It targets all four of the mains skills: listening, reading, writing, and speaking. It is considered to be suitable for all language learning backgrounds.
The software is presented in a CD-format. The program is broken down into units. Each unit consists of several lessons. The units incorporate a variety of real-life situations and topics such as getting directions and looking for a job together with some grammar structures. The lessons are structured systematically. The quality of the images is excellent.
The individual lessons target one of the four main skills: reading, listening, writing, or speaking. Some lessons target both listening and reading skills. For each exercise there is a preview and guided exercises.
What are the program’s strengths or weaknesses? Do you feel it would be effective for helping ELLs learn English? Why or why not? Would you use it in your classroom? Why or why not? What method or approach to language teaching does this program appear to represent?
Evaluation: The program’s strength is that it is well structured and interactive. It is logical and easy to follow. There is constant and immediate feedback. The language learner can learn in his/her own pace and return to difficult or problematic lessons any time throughout the learning process.
Among the weaknesses of the program is that it is limited in what it has to offer for the overall purpose of language learning. It inherently lacks social interaction that many believe language learning is based on. It is very scripted, there is no chance for negotiation of meaning, and it does not support constructive language learning.
Though Rosetta Stone does target all four main skills, it is may be more effective in the teaching of some skills than others. The reading sections test reading comprehension in multiple-choice format – not a very original idea. I like the idea of the built-in vocabulary in Level 3, where students can get the meaning of words by clicking on them.
The writing practice is limited to typing the recorded prompts or reconstructing the prompts by arranging phrase blocks in order. In my opinion, typing the recorded prompts is more like a listening comprehension than real writing practice. However, I do believe it may be beneficial for elementary-level learners. In addition, this activity comes with a great feature for feedback. Feedback is provided through two difficulty settings: the easy one (default) does not require correct capitalization or punctuation, while the strict setting does.
The speaking practice is not more than the repetition of prompts – very ‘audiolingualish’. While I do acknowledge the speech recognition aspect (recording and replaying option) of this exercise as very useful for checking and refining pronunciation, I do not believe this exercise has anything to do with real language output.
The program’s most effective part is probably the listening or listening-reading combination. It is easy to see how listening skills can be improved through Rosetta Stone. It is still limited and scripted, but it is a good way of practicing listening skills and/or augmenting listening comprehension with text.
To sum it up, I think Rosetta Stone can be a good tool to improve certain skills such as listening, reading comprehension, and pronunciation, especially in the elementary and intermediate level. It can be beneficial in a classroom where students have very different proficiency levels and therefore, the teacher needs to assign different tasks for each subgroup of students.
Besides the speaking section, I think the program is rather boring and typical of its kind. I do not think a language learner can fully acquire a foreign language using solely the Rosetta Stone. This program should only be used as a tool accompanied by other sources that provide opportunities to be exposed to unscripted language, interaction and opportunities to create the language.
As far as methods, some aspects of the program definitely follow the audiolingual method. I can also see traces of competency-based language teaching. I find it ironic that the cover of the demo mentions “immersion-learning techniques” as one of the program’s characteristics. Nice sales pitch.
R.
Rosetta Stone
Title of Software: Rosetta Stone
Producer: Fairfield Language Technologies
Target students (e.g., age or grade-level of students): This software is applicable for any age groups. Adult assistance for young learners under the age of 6 is recommended.
Proficiency level (e.g., beginning, intermediate, advanced): Contains lessons from Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3.
Description: Rosetta Stone is a comprehensive language learning software. The program is designed to provide language learners with the option of self-study in their own pace. It targets all four of the mains skills: listening, reading, writing, and speaking. It is considered to be suitable for all language learning backgrounds.
The software is presented in a CD-format. The program is broken down into units. Each unit consists of several lessons. The units incorporate a variety of real-life situations and topics such as getting directions and looking for a job together with some grammar structures. The lessons are structured systematically. The quality of the images is excellent.
The individual lessons target one of the four main skills: reading, listening, writing, or speaking. Some lessons target both listening and reading skills. For each exercise there is a preview and guided exercises.
What are the program’s strengths or weaknesses? Do you feel it would be effective for helping ELLs learn English? Why or why not? Would you use it in your classroom? Why or why not? What method or approach to language teaching does this program appear to represent?
Evaluation: The program’s strength is that it is well structured and interactive. It is logical and easy to follow. There is constant and immediate feedback. The language learner can learn in his/her own pace and return to difficult or problematic lessons any time throughout the learning process.
Among the weaknesses of the program is that it is limited in what it has to offer for the overall purpose of language learning. It inherently lacks social interaction that many believe language learning is based on. It is very scripted, there is no chance for negotiation of meaning, and it does not support constructive language learning.
Though Rosetta Stone does target all four main skills, it is may be more effective in the teaching of some skills than others. The reading sections test reading comprehension in multiple-choice format – not a very original idea. I like the idea of the built-in vocabulary in Level 3, where students can get the meaning of words by clicking on them.
The writing practice is limited to typing the recorded prompts or reconstructing the prompts by arranging phrase blocks in order. In my opinion, typing the recorded prompts is more like a listening comprehension than real writing practice. However, I do believe it may be beneficial for elementary-level learners. In addition, this activity comes with a great feature for feedback. Feedback is provided through two difficulty settings: the easy one (default) does not require correct capitalization or punctuation, while the strict setting does.
The speaking practice is not more than the repetition of prompts – very ‘audiolingualish’. While I do acknowledge the speech recognition aspect (recording and replaying option) of this exercise as very useful for checking and refining pronunciation, I do not believe this exercise has anything to do with real language output.
The program’s most effective part is probably the listening or listening-reading combination. It is easy to see how listening skills can be improved through Rosetta Stone. It is still limited and scripted, but it is a good way of practicing listening skills and/or augmenting listening comprehension with text.
To sum it up, I think Rosetta Stone can be a good tool to improve certain skills such as listening, reading comprehension, and pronunciation, especially in the elementary and intermediate level. It can be beneficial in a classroom where students have very different proficiency levels and therefore, the teacher needs to assign different tasks for each subgroup of students.
Besides the speaking section, I think the program is rather boring and typical of its kind. I do not think a language learner can fully acquire a foreign language using solely the Rosetta Stone. This program should only be used as a tool accompanied by other sources that provide opportunities to be exposed to unscripted language, interaction and opportunities to create the language.
As far as methods, some aspects of the program definitely follow the audiolingual method. I can also see traces of competency-based language teaching. I find it ironic that the cover of the demo mentions “immersion-learning techniques” as one of the program’s characteristics. Nice sales pitch.
R.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Prompt #6 On Inquiry and Problem Solving in the ESL Classroom
EGBERT Ch. 6. Inquiry and Problem SolvingRICHARDSON Ch. 8. Podcasting and Screencasting: Multimedia Publishing for the Masses
Describe an inquiry or problem solving activity appropriate for ELLs that you have used, participated in, read about, or just now thought of. Describe which critical thinking skills it requires students to use and develop. Then, describe how this activity supports language and content learning for ELLs. Finally, comment on how podcasting could be used within the inquiry and problem solving process in a manner which supports language and content learning for ELLs.
Just this past week I discussed the problem of getting junk mail with my adult ESL class. We started out defining the meaning of "junk". It generated some great examples and new vocabulary: junk food, garage sale and such. Then we read an article from Access Reading (a great book based on the Equipped for the Future Content Standards specifically designed for adult learners) about junk mail and scams. We finished the class with a guided-writing activity - we constructed a short paragraph together summing up the problem of getting junk mail. For the following class I brought in a bag of junk mail that I had recently "collected". I asked the students to help me sort my mail separating the junk mail from the important mail. They really enjoyed opening my mail and pointing out how much I was supposed to pay for this and that....
This activity involved some critical thinking, seaparting the useful from the useless and organizing information. Each student picked a word from the mail that they shared with the class. At the end of the class we made some suggestions on how to deal with junk mail. This was a follow-on for a previous activity when we had talked about using diffferent language stuctures to give advice.
It would have been great to use some technology to make this topic a little bit more intersting and relevant for students. It would have been interesting to find out about big companies' marketing expenses. We could have done a research on how to avoid junk mail e.g. discussing consumer rights. Podcasting would have been great to generate or share some ideas on the issue. We could have had a broadcasting on junk mail and encouraged listeners to contribute their ideas to our beatthejunkmail-wiki. It would have been a great way of combining different language skills and develop critical thinking together with language content through technology.
Describe an inquiry or problem solving activity appropriate for ELLs that you have used, participated in, read about, or just now thought of. Describe which critical thinking skills it requires students to use and develop. Then, describe how this activity supports language and content learning for ELLs. Finally, comment on how podcasting could be used within the inquiry and problem solving process in a manner which supports language and content learning for ELLs.
Just this past week I discussed the problem of getting junk mail with my adult ESL class. We started out defining the meaning of "junk". It generated some great examples and new vocabulary: junk food, garage sale and such. Then we read an article from Access Reading (a great book based on the Equipped for the Future Content Standards specifically designed for adult learners) about junk mail and scams. We finished the class with a guided-writing activity - we constructed a short paragraph together summing up the problem of getting junk mail. For the following class I brought in a bag of junk mail that I had recently "collected". I asked the students to help me sort my mail separating the junk mail from the important mail. They really enjoyed opening my mail and pointing out how much I was supposed to pay for this and that....
This activity involved some critical thinking, seaparting the useful from the useless and organizing information. Each student picked a word from the mail that they shared with the class. At the end of the class we made some suggestions on how to deal with junk mail. This was a follow-on for a previous activity when we had talked about using diffferent language stuctures to give advice.
It would have been great to use some technology to make this topic a little bit more intersting and relevant for students. It would have been interesting to find out about big companies' marketing expenses. We could have done a research on how to avoid junk mail e.g. discussing consumer rights. Podcasting would have been great to generate or share some ideas on the issue. We could have had a broadcasting on junk mail and encouraged listeners to contribute their ideas to our beatthejunkmail-wiki. It would have been a great way of combining different language skills and develop critical thinking together with language content through technology.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Reading Prompt #5
On technology, creativity and language production
Egbert chapter 5., Richardson chapter 4.
Most L1 and L2 theories agree on the importance of the environment in language acquisition, however, they differ in the role of environment. Some theorists like Chomsky and Krashen see the environment as the necessary source for input that will generate the learner’s innate language capabilities. From this point of view, the environment’s only contributions for language acquisition is input. Other theorists emphasize the role of the environment on a broader spectrum – they see the role of the environment as a much more comprehensive and vital for language learning. Ideally, the learner’s environment provides input and the learner will react to this input with output. Language production then will facilitate language learning. This exhange between input and output is mediated through interaction. This is where I believe the position of Long and Swain intervene on the issues of interaction and output in SLA.
Interaction is delivered through some sort of communication (verbal or written). This interaction between language learners, or language learner and native speaker can be characterized with all kinds of language acquisition processes such scaffolding, feedback, and testing hypotheses. I like to think that these processes are the building blocks of SLA.
Egbert points out that output in itself does not promote language learning. This is an important realization for me. I must admit before I read chapter 5 in the Egbert book, I liked to imagine that the role and importance of output in SLA is a given. It’s the key or at least one of the keys in SLA. And it is true, but as Egbert points out, output or language production needs to be meaningful and promote creativity. Drills and reciting does not promote language learning. To make language production meaningful SLA teachers need to encourage interaction among language learners. Cooperation is the next step or ingredient in this process toward successful language learning.
Now, what does technology has to do with this all? It makes language learning more interesting and facilitates learners’ creativity. But above all, “it makes it stick”. It will make language learning more successful.
I must admit I kind of felt a little bit overwhelmed reading about Mr. Lin’s class (right at the beginning of the chapter). It just seems to be a little bit too much – I thought. Isn’t it a language class? Is Mr. Lin training future film makers? Then I read the “Activities that Encourage Creativity and Production” section and I felt better. The amount of technology used in the classroom is really up to the teacher, the students, and the goals of the language program. There are many options out there how two utilize technology in the classroom.
Wikis play an important part in combining interaction with technology to support SLA. Through Wikis, students can constantly provide feedback, modify input, negotiate meaning, and test hypotheses – those very processes that I have referred to earlier as important components of SLA. Wikis can create learning environments through interaction and collaboration among learners. They promote language production and creativity using technology.
Egbert chapter 5., Richardson chapter 4.
Most L1 and L2 theories agree on the importance of the environment in language acquisition, however, they differ in the role of environment. Some theorists like Chomsky and Krashen see the environment as the necessary source for input that will generate the learner’s innate language capabilities. From this point of view, the environment’s only contributions for language acquisition is input. Other theorists emphasize the role of the environment on a broader spectrum – they see the role of the environment as a much more comprehensive and vital for language learning. Ideally, the learner’s environment provides input and the learner will react to this input with output. Language production then will facilitate language learning. This exhange between input and output is mediated through interaction. This is where I believe the position of Long and Swain intervene on the issues of interaction and output in SLA.
Interaction is delivered through some sort of communication (verbal or written). This interaction between language learners, or language learner and native speaker can be characterized with all kinds of language acquisition processes such scaffolding, feedback, and testing hypotheses. I like to think that these processes are the building blocks of SLA.
Egbert points out that output in itself does not promote language learning. This is an important realization for me. I must admit before I read chapter 5 in the Egbert book, I liked to imagine that the role and importance of output in SLA is a given. It’s the key or at least one of the keys in SLA. And it is true, but as Egbert points out, output or language production needs to be meaningful and promote creativity. Drills and reciting does not promote language learning. To make language production meaningful SLA teachers need to encourage interaction among language learners. Cooperation is the next step or ingredient in this process toward successful language learning.
Now, what does technology has to do with this all? It makes language learning more interesting and facilitates learners’ creativity. But above all, “it makes it stick”. It will make language learning more successful.
I must admit I kind of felt a little bit overwhelmed reading about Mr. Lin’s class (right at the beginning of the chapter). It just seems to be a little bit too much – I thought. Isn’t it a language class? Is Mr. Lin training future film makers? Then I read the “Activities that Encourage Creativity and Production” section and I felt better. The amount of technology used in the classroom is really up to the teacher, the students, and the goals of the language program. There are many options out there how two utilize technology in the classroom.
Wikis play an important part in combining interaction with technology to support SLA. Through Wikis, students can constantly provide feedback, modify input, negotiate meaning, and test hypotheses – those very processes that I have referred to earlier as important components of SLA. Wikis can create learning environments through interaction and collaboration among learners. They promote language production and creativity using technology.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Reading Prompt #4
Reading Prompt #4
Communication and collaboration facilitates language learning. Communication conveys knowledge, and collaboration creates the route for it via social interaction.
What I really like about this chapter and about the Egbert book in general is that it gives very good examples. It not only talks about the importance of using technology in the classroom, but also shows how to apply it in real classroom situations.
I find it very important, as Egbert points out, to engage students by assigning specific roles to each one of them, so that everybody gets involved in the classroom work. I also like the idea of students presenting their work for the class. If the class is involved in a presentation through various tasks and/or activities, it will give added value to the presentation for both the presenter and the class.
I must admit, I have never used computers in my ESL classrooms other than my laptop for testing. I know it’s sad, but I simply do not have access to a computer that I could utilize. But reading about these methods and activities that Egbert brings up, I constantly catch myself planning all kinds of computer-based activities that I would like to use with my class – one day.
Communication and collaboration facilitates language learning. Communication conveys knowledge, and collaboration creates the route for it via social interaction.
What I really like about this chapter and about the Egbert book in general is that it gives very good examples. It not only talks about the importance of using technology in the classroom, but also shows how to apply it in real classroom situations.
I find it very important, as Egbert points out, to engage students by assigning specific roles to each one of them, so that everybody gets involved in the classroom work. I also like the idea of students presenting their work for the class. If the class is involved in a presentation through various tasks and/or activities, it will give added value to the presentation for both the presenter and the class.
I must admit, I have never used computers in my ESL classrooms other than my laptop for testing. I know it’s sad, but I simply do not have access to a computer that I could utilize. But reading about these methods and activities that Egbert brings up, I constantly catch myself planning all kinds of computer-based activities that I would like to use with my class – one day.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Reading Prompt #3
Reading Prompt #3
CUMMINS Ch. 4. TechnologyEGBERT Ch. 3. Developing and Practicing Listening and Speaking Skills
Cummins et al. discussed the pedagocial divide that separates instruction for low-income and for more affluent students. Discuss some of the technology-supported strategies from their chapter. Also comment on one of the examples from Egbert's chapter and describe how computers can assist ELLs with learing and practicing listening and speaking in English.
(Due 2/6/07 before class -- Post answer on own blog, and respond to another students' answer on their blog).
Cummins et al. discussed the clash between transmission-based orientation and inquiry-based orientations to pedagogy. The transmission-based orientation promotes the internalization of curriculum, while the inquiry-based orientations to pedagagogy are aimed at constructing knowledge. As Cummins et al. pointed out, this conflict between these pedagogical practices translates into literacy in the following way: ELLs and low-income students have greater difficulty in reading to learn than in learning to read. I think it sums up the situation really well.
Research suggesst that literacy development lays in combining extensive reading with effective comprehensive strategies. What follows as far as strategies is really nothing more or less than what I have learned about in my reading-writing class (ESL 5053 ?) adding technology to it: engaging prior knowledge, cognitive challenge, creative thinking, reading strategies, and extensive engaged reading. See, again - technology is not an end, but a tool.
That takes me back to the first part of the chapter. What really matters is to use technonolgy wisely. We need to learn how to benefit from what it has to offer.
My favorite example from the Egbert chapter is when the Japanese students are planning to visit the US and they worry that they will not be able to understand spoken English. The teacher uses technology to model the language - situations that students may come across in the US. It is like sampling the language. I can see how it gives support for students and motivate them. Of course, students should never rely too much on such samples. I mean memorizing e.g. dialogues or routines is unlikely to work in real-life situatons.
I feel I have learned a lot from these chapters.
CUMMINS Ch. 4. TechnologyEGBERT Ch. 3. Developing and Practicing Listening and Speaking Skills
Cummins et al. discussed the pedagocial divide that separates instruction for low-income and for more affluent students. Discuss some of the technology-supported strategies from their chapter. Also comment on one of the examples from Egbert's chapter and describe how computers can assist ELLs with learing and practicing listening and speaking in English.
(Due 2/6/07 before class -- Post answer on own blog, and respond to another students' answer on their blog).
Cummins et al. discussed the clash between transmission-based orientation and inquiry-based orientations to pedagogy. The transmission-based orientation promotes the internalization of curriculum, while the inquiry-based orientations to pedagagogy are aimed at constructing knowledge. As Cummins et al. pointed out, this conflict between these pedagogical practices translates into literacy in the following way: ELLs and low-income students have greater difficulty in reading to learn than in learning to read. I think it sums up the situation really well.
Research suggesst that literacy development lays in combining extensive reading with effective comprehensive strategies. What follows as far as strategies is really nothing more or less than what I have learned about in my reading-writing class (ESL 5053 ?) adding technology to it: engaging prior knowledge, cognitive challenge, creative thinking, reading strategies, and extensive engaged reading. See, again - technology is not an end, but a tool.
That takes me back to the first part of the chapter. What really matters is to use technonolgy wisely. We need to learn how to benefit from what it has to offer.
My favorite example from the Egbert chapter is when the Japanese students are planning to visit the US and they worry that they will not be able to understand spoken English. The teacher uses technology to model the language - situations that students may come across in the US. It is like sampling the language. I can see how it gives support for students and motivate them. Of course, students should never rely too much on such samples. I mean memorizing e.g. dialogues or routines is unlikely to work in real-life situatons.
I feel I have learned a lot from these chapters.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Reading Prompt #2
Readings: Egbert Ch. 2, Cummins Ch. 2, Richardson Ch. 3
What are "multiliteracies" as described by Cummins et al.? How does this relate to Egbert's assertions about the need for authentic materials to support ELL students' reading and writing? Discuss
how blogs and blogging can be a tool for achieving these ideals with ELL students. Finally, describe your own experience creating your blog this week. Was it harder than you thought? What ideas do you have about the kind of stuff you want to blog about (besides what is required for this course)?
The concept of “Mulitliteracies” is considering the skill of reading and writing from a new prospective. Traditionally literacy was considered, as Cummins puts it, a paper and pencil issue. In this sense, the ability of reading and writing solely meant reading and writing. The concept of multiliteracies goes beyond this tradition and extends reading and writing to a more comprehensive set of skills.
The idea of multiliteracies generated from recent societal changes, namely globalization and technological change. This new societal environment is diverse in nature – diverse cultures, languages, personalities, skills, learning styles, choices, etc.
Egbert reinforces Cummins’ thought in that the concept of one fits all is no longer an option in education – or at least it shouldn’t be. And it doesn’t need to be. If we combine the phenomena of globalization and technological changes that is, diversity with new choices via technology, we realize that we have the option of supporting individual needs and intelligences.
I like the way Egbert questions the authenticity of authentic materials. It is relative what we consider authentic. I can clearly see the connection between multiliteracies and authenticity. I think it’s naïve to assume that let’s say an ELL living in San Antonio will eventually only interact with reading and writing materials originated from Texas. I think students should be exposed to different sources.
And that brings me to my blog. What an exciting way of interacting, sharing, and discussing information about teaching ESL! I found it pretty easy to set up my blog. However, I had some difficulties logging in for the first time. I am really hoping that my blog will be a good way of sharing my ESL experiences with my friends and relatives who are current ELLs. I plan on using my blog as a forum to share and discuss web-based ESL sources.
What are "multiliteracies" as described by Cummins et al.? How does this relate to Egbert's assertions about the need for authentic materials to support ELL students' reading and writing? Discuss
how blogs and blogging can be a tool for achieving these ideals with ELL students. Finally, describe your own experience creating your blog this week. Was it harder than you thought? What ideas do you have about the kind of stuff you want to blog about (besides what is required for this course)?
The concept of “Mulitliteracies” is considering the skill of reading and writing from a new prospective. Traditionally literacy was considered, as Cummins puts it, a paper and pencil issue. In this sense, the ability of reading and writing solely meant reading and writing. The concept of multiliteracies goes beyond this tradition and extends reading and writing to a more comprehensive set of skills.
The idea of multiliteracies generated from recent societal changes, namely globalization and technological change. This new societal environment is diverse in nature – diverse cultures, languages, personalities, skills, learning styles, choices, etc.
Egbert reinforces Cummins’ thought in that the concept of one fits all is no longer an option in education – or at least it shouldn’t be. And it doesn’t need to be. If we combine the phenomena of globalization and technological changes that is, diversity with new choices via technology, we realize that we have the option of supporting individual needs and intelligences.
I like the way Egbert questions the authenticity of authentic materials. It is relative what we consider authentic. I can clearly see the connection between multiliteracies and authenticity. I think it’s naïve to assume that let’s say an ELL living in San Antonio will eventually only interact with reading and writing materials originated from Texas. I think students should be exposed to different sources.
And that brings me to my blog. What an exciting way of interacting, sharing, and discussing information about teaching ESL! I found it pretty easy to set up my blog. However, I had some difficulties logging in for the first time. I am really hoping that my blog will be a good way of sharing my ESL experiences with my friends and relatives who are current ELLs. I plan on using my blog as a forum to share and discuss web-based ESL sources.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
