Today is podcast review day.
The first one was titled, "iSpeak Hawaiian." This sounded interesting, because as I live in Hawaii, and am surrounded by the language, at least in place-names. I am curious to know some of the language. However, this podcast had only a Hawaiian version of Stille Nacht. No other explanation or raison d'etre. One would expect something as to rationale for choice, or why that song; something.
Grade: Fail.
I then downloaded a few, titled as "One Minute_____". I tried one for Polish, one for Gaelic, one for Irish, and one for Zulu. This series is lead in for Radio Lingua, and most begin with one loooooong advertisement for their network, and then something about how you can pay for their courses. Then about something about how you can access materials. Finally, I found one which targeted the language. Here, it focused on phrasology. No mention of grammatical structure or vocabulary. I felt like I listened to either Berlitz course, only on-line, or was listing to one of the Lonely Planet guidebooks. Now, I really should not expect too much of something that titles itself as "one minute" anything---- unless it is "one minute eggs", because I like soft boiled eggs.
I was still disappointed, because I hoped for something a little bit meatier.
Grade: D
What we can learn from this is that podcasts vary in quality, and if you want to have people come back again and again, you have to be very careful how you structure the podcast. People who really want to hear the language should have some context as to what they are doing and why, not just listen to words from native speakers. Here's how I would do it: first, explain the process of what you are doing, give some vocabulary, give some simple phrases, include a dialogue, and then expand on it a little. Like a language teacher, I guess, which may or may not be something people are looking for. Maybe I should try and see?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
I started using blogspot a few years ago, when blogging was new and trendy, and I am glad that the website has a lot of new features, but that it is essentially user friendly, especially for computer semi-literates such as myself. Also, I forgot how powerful, and empowering, a blog can be. The best part? No one can interrupt me. Oh, sure, navigate away! Turn off the computer! I shall never know.
In space, no one can hear you scream. On the interweb, no one can hear you singing madly as you type.
In space, no one can hear you scream. On the interweb, no one can hear you singing madly as you type.
Thinkings about thinking
Sometimes I like to fall back on old cliches, because they give me a comfort. Yes, they are well worn, but despite their trite and often hackney tone, they do have truth to them, and that is why they survive. I want to start my reflection this way, because I am going to use one now, and also reflect on how this ties into the readings for this week. Here goes: Learning is a process.
Brandl (2002) introduces several ideas towards how learners learn, and how they think about their learning. These two ideas are connected, because we can understand a process toward greater cognition from input and thus a way to understand the output of language. He mentions three approaches towards internet teaching, and ways that language teachers can learn to use these when either building a website designed for language learning, or for finding appropriate materiel for students. These are listed as:
This overview gives us some consideration about how we can use the interweb to better teach learners who view this source as the primary destination for all things to be known. Brandl seems to favour learner-determined lessons for this medium, because the great scope of information affords one the best window on the world, and he seems to think this will truly activate self motivated learning the best, of all three options.
Following this assessment of how to use the interweb, we read about the findings of Chun (2001). Chun studies an actual case of learning language, and plots both the effectiveness of the media and the comfort level/interest level of the learners using the tool. She compares two sets of data, where the group using the site (here, where the students learn German, and are given access to an on-line glossary for certain words) and an on-line dictionary; and then the students reading a second text online, but having access only to an online dictionary. Students were asked a variety of questions, including how they compare using online dictionaries and paper form dictionaries.
She finds something interesting, and it is worth quoting at length:
The key here is that the learners did better when they looked up more words, no matter what the medium. One question for Chun is: what would the scores be like if, instead of a glossary, there was a full on-line dictionary available as they clicked over words? Would they use that more or less often, and would they then comprehend better if they had easy access to definitions?
This makes me think that learning is, after all, a process. Using the internet as a tool is good, but, like any tool, it must be crafted well for its purpose. In my own language learning/teaching journey, I have gone to many sites for both English and Japanese, and some of them are great, some of them are not so well designed, some are better at explaining one thing than another, and so on. Some sites are just so bad, they are funny. I have been exposed to quite a few styles, and I want to be able to trust one or another of them. But how? Who is the authority with enough gravitas to trust over and over? This leads me to believe that, if the interweb is to be used as a tool, then the process of learning should not be completely learner centered, as Brandl seems to support. Rather, because of the maddening array of links, and their rabbit-warren of links away from these to places obscure and strange, that a guided tour of language still should hold sway even when a student has access to a lot of information. We have talked about this before in class: teachers need to be the final arbiter of what is good and what is bad information, and students need to learn to trust this. However, a teacher should be aware that, in order to encourage a learners sense of language owning and empowerment, that they have to let go sometimes, and let learners find resources outside of the strictures of the classroom--- whether one of four walls or one behind a screen.
What I learn, then, is that teaching is a process, too.
Brandl (2002) introduces several ideas towards how learners learn, and how they think about their learning. These two ideas are connected, because we can understand a process toward greater cognition from input and thus a way to understand the output of language. He mentions three approaches towards internet teaching, and ways that language teachers can learn to use these when either building a website designed for language learning, or for finding appropriate materiel for students. These are listed as:
- Teacher determined lessons
- Teacher facilitated lessons
- Learner-determined lessons
This overview gives us some consideration about how we can use the interweb to better teach learners who view this source as the primary destination for all things to be known. Brandl seems to favour learner-determined lessons for this medium, because the great scope of information affords one the best window on the world, and he seems to think this will truly activate self motivated learning the best, of all three options.
Following this assessment of how to use the interweb, we read about the findings of Chun (2001). Chun studies an actual case of learning language, and plots both the effectiveness of the media and the comfort level/interest level of the learners using the tool. She compares two sets of data, where the group using the site (here, where the students learn German, and are given access to an on-line glossary for certain words) and an on-line dictionary; and then the students reading a second text online, but having access only to an online dictionary. Students were asked a variety of questions, including how they compare using online dictionaries and paper form dictionaries.
She finds something interesting, and it is worth quoting at length:
The data show that, when reading two German texts of comparable length on the same topic, (1) learners looked up more words in the internal glossary than in the external dictionary; (2) learners looked up more words when an internal glossary and an external dictionary were available than when only an external dictionary was available; (3) learners did better on the measure of comprehension (recalling main propositions in the text) when they had access to both an internal glossary and an external dictionary (and looked up more words) than when they had access to only an external dictionary (and looked up fewer words). (381)
The key here is that the learners did better when they looked up more words, no matter what the medium. One question for Chun is: what would the scores be like if, instead of a glossary, there was a full on-line dictionary available as they clicked over words? Would they use that more or less often, and would they then comprehend better if they had easy access to definitions?
This makes me think that learning is, after all, a process. Using the internet as a tool is good, but, like any tool, it must be crafted well for its purpose. In my own language learning/teaching journey, I have gone to many sites for both English and Japanese, and some of them are great, some of them are not so well designed, some are better at explaining one thing than another, and so on. Some sites are just so bad, they are funny. I have been exposed to quite a few styles, and I want to be able to trust one or another of them. But how? Who is the authority with enough gravitas to trust over and over? This leads me to believe that, if the interweb is to be used as a tool, then the process of learning should not be completely learner centered, as Brandl seems to support. Rather, because of the maddening array of links, and their rabbit-warren of links away from these to places obscure and strange, that a guided tour of language still should hold sway even when a student has access to a lot of information. We have talked about this before in class: teachers need to be the final arbiter of what is good and what is bad information, and students need to learn to trust this. However, a teacher should be aware that, in order to encourage a learners sense of language owning and empowerment, that they have to let go sometimes, and let learners find resources outside of the strictures of the classroom--- whether one of four walls or one behind a screen.
What I learn, then, is that teaching is a process, too.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Blogging is a process, and we can think of ways that this communicative tool helps us to understand the thoughts and minds of students. This week, we have a few articles on the topic. These two reading give us a lot of food for thought. The first one, Invited Commentary: New Tools for Teaching Writing, Mark Warschaur, (2010), discusses blogs as a medium for intellectual exchange between people who may not be necessarily experts in the field, but who are interested enough to contribute. In this way, anyone can pitch in, and say their piece. Blogging here is powerful, but in many ways it is a lot of people talking at once.
We can also turn to the idea of wikis as expanding on the world, and there are two minds of this. One is that it is an easy, on line dictionary or encyclopedia, giving quick information about a subject for the casual reader. However, the open nature of a wiki can make anyone an "expert," including those who may not be as well versed on the subject as they think. In fact, because these are lauded open source materials, they can be changed at whim, perhaps by critics who may wish to give disinformation, or quite simply lies. Who will be the wiki police? And why should we trust them? With some wikis, like wikipedia.org, so many people are monitoring the site, and have a stake in maintaining the veracity of the site, that few saboteurs get through for long---as is in this example of Stephen Colbert's fans' prank.
The next article, Abdullah's Blogging: A Generation 1.5 Student Enters the Blogosphere, Joel Bloch (2007) talks about one students progress in his schoolwork and thought process by using a blog. Here Abdullah, perhaps his real name, is a student who has two ties, one to his native Sudan, which he left before his mid-teens, and the United States, his newly adopted home. His schooling in Sudan was patchy at best, and his real scholarship began in the US. Here, he was encouraged to use the modern tool of blogging, and had a stable environment in which to do it. Bioch tracks his progress, through using the medium. The suggestion is that students can learn to improve their ability to critically reason by writing on a blog. The question arises, however, about whether this is better or worse than having traditional homework assignments. Bloch argues that the constant use of blogging allows students to get better, because they have a place to write their feelings, but share it with others. Blogging can become a way to make students more aware of their progress, and to show how they can write their way to success.
We can also turn to the idea of wikis as expanding on the world, and there are two minds of this. One is that it is an easy, on line dictionary or encyclopedia, giving quick information about a subject for the casual reader. However, the open nature of a wiki can make anyone an "expert," including those who may not be as well versed on the subject as they think. In fact, because these are lauded open source materials, they can be changed at whim, perhaps by critics who may wish to give disinformation, or quite simply lies. Who will be the wiki police? And why should we trust them? With some wikis, like wikipedia.org, so many people are monitoring the site, and have a stake in maintaining the veracity of the site, that few saboteurs get through for long---as is in this example of Stephen Colbert's fans' prank.
The next article, Abdullah's Blogging: A Generation 1.5 Student Enters the Blogosphere, Joel Bloch (2007) talks about one students progress in his schoolwork and thought process by using a blog. Here Abdullah, perhaps his real name, is a student who has two ties, one to his native Sudan, which he left before his mid-teens, and the United States, his newly adopted home. His schooling in Sudan was patchy at best, and his real scholarship began in the US. Here, he was encouraged to use the modern tool of blogging, and had a stable environment in which to do it. Bioch tracks his progress, through using the medium. The suggestion is that students can learn to improve their ability to critically reason by writing on a blog. The question arises, however, about whether this is better or worse than having traditional homework assignments. Bloch argues that the constant use of blogging allows students to get better, because they have a place to write their feelings, but share it with others. Blogging can become a way to make students more aware of their progress, and to show how they can write their way to success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)