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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
