At the Gran Colombia
University computer laboratory, students and teachers use the
Discoveries multimedia
teaching–learning software. During a typical
multimedia
session in the computer lab, each student sits (or two students)
in front of a computer terminal to work with multimedia programs.
I believe that to use interactivity effectively I must provide a
variety of learning activities. First, I should augment group
activities. Second, individual learning activities including
readings, net explorations etc. which can be done as home
assignments. Third, I must create a meaningful structure for
interactive learning, which includes topic, timeline, and clear
expectations. Finally, it is necessary to set clearly defined
roles for each participant and an evaluation format resources for
effective facilitation of the lab activities.
Working with
Discoveries Multimedia Program
The discussion that follows is limited to the
interactions of the participant’s with the Discoveries
Multimedia Program. To start and familiarizing my students with
the program, I gave them a demonstration of it. By doing so,
students started becoming acquainted with the English computer
terminology (mouse, click,
microphone, etc) in English and at the same time I introduced the
program itself. After the students had seen the demonstration, I
allowed them to explore the program to enable them to become
familiarize with many of the program’s icons and main
content areas.
To work with English Discoveries I have developed the
following guide that matches learners proficiency with the
different modules found in the English Discoveries software. It was designed
considering also the contents, aims and objectives of the
University teaching program’s textbook guide "Enterprise"
and the corresponding simulations and contents accessible from
the English Discoveries multimedia program as shown in the
following table:
University English | Discoveries Discs |
Levels 1 to 5. Módulo | Basic1, Basic2 and Basic3 |
Levels 6 to 10. Módulo | Intermediate1, Intermediate2 and |
Levels 11 to 15. Módulo | Advanced1, Advanced2 and Advanced3 |
For each lab class and according to the students’
level of proficiency there are four suggested activities (two for
listening and two for speaking). Before students explore the
computer activities, there are five minutes pre-listening and
pre-speaking activities, which mainly are student predictions
about the content of the activities. Just before the end of the
class, there are fifteen minutes post-listening and post-speaking
activities, where mainly students act out or role playing using
the contents that they have just explored through the activities
adapting the content to their personal contexts
and to their inner perception of their social and cultural
world.
Because, listening and speaking skills are one of the
Language Center students weaknesses, I have developed a
supplementary teacher’s guide to explore and practice the
various listening and speaking simulations that can be accessed
from the Discoveries multimedia program. (annex 2) For each lab
class and according to the student level, there are four
suggested activities (two for listening and two for speaking).
The teacher can require students to explore and practice the
activities and the last fifteen minutes of class ask them to
contextualize the simulations and ask students to socialize their
learnings from the multimedia program. Teachers can invite, at
least two students, to work in front of a computer screen; by
doing so, that way there is student to student collaborative
interaction and probably learning happens.
For instance to a group of students of level 1, Unit 1;
I request them to explore, practice, solve the game and take the
test of each one
of the following Discoveries simulated activities:
No | CD | Skill | Option | Simulated activity |
1 | Basic 1 | Listening | TV | Adventure: Two men waiting |
2 | Basic 1 | Listening | TV | Mystery: Three people. Mike, |
3 | Basic 1 | Speaking | Office Scene | Couple One: A black woman |
4 | Basic 1 | Speaking | Office Scene | Couple Two: A red-haired boy speaking to a |
In addition to the previous listening and speaking
directed guide, to work with the English language skills, I have
also developed a grammar oriented guide about the Enterprise
textbook versus Discoveries match content. (annex 3) Enterprise
is the textbook adopted by the English Program. In the next
pages, you can take a look to the guide.
During the multimedia sessions, I adviced students to
work in groups; at least two or three students interact and
collaborate with each other, in front of the computer screen,
during the learning activities. This methodology was better than
to let them work individually (human-machine) in a computer
because between machine and user the interaction is limited to an
action reaction process of the task at hand.
It is important to mention that this fact was noticed by
looking at the very beginning of the computer laboratory classes.
I observed that when just one student was working in a computer
then there was less chance for him to interact with his or her
classmates and the teacher. For instance, there are two main
types of questions that the computer cannot answer; one group of
questions in reference to technical handling of the computer and
its peripherals and a second group of questions in reference to
the computer’s screen language input. Advanced students
became more skillful to solve technical and language questions.
In fact, students need to collaborate with each other or with the
teacher to solve their questions.
The analysis that follows shows the combination of my
observations and consequent examination of the data collected.
While reading and analyzing during data collection, I noticed
that some categories emerged. Those emerging categories were
further refined by means of the theory reviewed for this project.
Based on Merrian (1988). I found recurring regularities in the
data, and I noticed that some of the data were similar or
homogeneous.
In order to develop the categories for this study I took
into account Guba and Lincon’s guidelines. These authors
suggest four guidelines for developing categories: first the
number of people who mention something or the frequency with
which something arises in the data indicates an important
dimension, second, one’s audience may determine what is
important, third, some categories stand out because of their
uniqueness and should be retained, and finally, certain
categories may reveal areas of inquiry not otherwise recognized
or provide a unique influence on an otherwise common problem (as
mentioned in Merriam,1988:135).
From the preceding guidelines I applied the first and
third ones. I categorized the data by the number of people who
raised a particular issue in the different data sources and some
categories stand out because of their distinctiveness and should
be maintained. In spite of this, there were specific features
that helped me to differentiate among the categories I had
already identified. A recurrent issue in the students’
interactions, students’ questionnaire, my observations, and
the interviewed conducted served to construct a more solid
holistic dimension for the analysis and
categorization.
This qualitative study is a descriptive one, the focus
on identifying categories that describe the roles and the social,
oral interaction that takes place at the computer lab. The
following analysis is based on the interpretation of the data
collected. I present here the categories developed for this
study. These categories act in response to the main question and
sub questions of this study which deals with the analysis of the
nature of interaction and the participant roles while working
with multimedia EFL software. In the following pages I describe
the categories.
This category describes two main aspects. The
first one is formed for three multiple-level interactions
and the second is an individual versus pair work inquiry.
Warschauer (1998) declared that one of the main benefits of
using CALL is the interaction at the computer: between
student and student, student and teacher, and student and
the computer. Due to the nature of the setting, at the lab
there are some interaction opportunities; as a consequence,
students can be allocated in groups or individually in
front of the computer while the teacher is available to
interact with them.During the multimedia sessions, I exploit the
instructional guides that I designed, I do make suggestions
and I frequently encourage my students to employ new
strategies to promote multiple-level interaction in the
lab. We have moved toward interaction taking place between
the learner and the Discoveries content, the learner and
the instructor, and between learners. From the analysis of
the data three main interaction patterns were found. First,
student-computer; second, student-student-computer and
third students-teacher-computer. On the next pages there
are descriptions of each one of them.5.1.1 Student- computer interaction
Student-computer interaction is characterized by
individual work in front of a computer; it is the opposite
of pair work in front of a computer. For a number of
reasons, some students like to interact individually at the
computer. For instance, students do not feel anxiety
working with the computer because if they do mistakes then
the computer does not make fun of them. According with
their personality, some students also feel better doing
things by themselves; they do not like to work with others.
Some students also like to manipulate the mouse by
themselves; they do not want somebody else to do it for
them. The following journal entries indicate human-computer
interactions:"I Suggested s5 to work with s6 at computer three
but she preferred to work unaccompanied at computer seven.
She told me that she felt relaxed working with the computer
because if she make a mistake then it does not make fun of
her"""She came to the lab and sat down at computer
number nine but it did not work. Then she tried at computer
number six. She is the only one from her class who came to
do extra discoveries work at the lab.""Teacher I want to work solo in this computer
because I like to operate the mouse."Some students also prefer to compete individually
against others to solve a problem. They like to work at a
separate computers. The following journal entry shows
students individually competing one against the other to
determine which one is going to be the first to find the
answer of a problem solving game proposed to them by the
multimedia software:"S1 and s8 are sitting each one at a different
computer; they are into intermediate 3 solving the game
adventure. They want to know which one is going to be the
first to find the answer asked by the game"In the laboratory there are enough computers; in
consequence, students can work individually at a separate
computer. It is up to them to work individually or in
pairs. Working individually in front of the computer
results in computer dominant interaction; in contrast,
pairs working in front of the computer, diminishes the
dominant feature of the computer because the two students
become interlocutors reducing some domination from the
computer. The following interaction subcategory describes
the pair work situation.5.1.2 Student-student-computer
interactionBrown 2001 acknowledged that pair and group work
provide opportunities for learners to use and improve
language in an individual manner as well as to increase
motivation. In this study, student-student-machine
interaction is characterized by pair work in front of a
computer; it is collaborative group or team work. The
following journal entries, and video
transcript indicate Student-student-computer
Interactions:"They started to work in basic 2, they sat down in
pairs to work in the listening and others are working in
the speaking modules.""I observed that s3 and s4 are working in a
listening activity they are having fun because the laugh a
lot.""S1 is manipulating the mouse while s3 is paying
careful attention to the computer screen. Sometimes s3
indicates whit his finger touching the computer screen to
request to his partner (s1) to make click on the cross road
icon.""both s3 and s4 are working as a team at computer
eleven; they are solving the game adventure at intermediate
2 level."The following video
transcripts also indicate student-student-computer
Interactions:"S5: ay! está mal la de arriba.
S6: si, él nos dijo. Ponga doesn’t
sheS5 no se puede
S6 ella tiene
S5 does she…si. who teach story…who
teach…teach..no..teach…ja..ja..S5 teach…"
"S1 food explore
S2: escuha.
S1 ya terminaste.. oh. No repeat porque no
escuché nada… este es un buen restaurante de
comida.S1: internacional.. café internacional.
S2 comida china..
comida americana…comer de esos perros.
Será? La direccion es tal. Ja! Ja!"Students working in pairs at a separate computer
seems to be a better learning option because they can tutor
each other. Huang 2000 discovered that when the computer is
used for instructional purposes; it becomes dominant and
the interaction between student and computer is unbalanced
because a feature of the teaching software is to tell the
learner what to do or where to go. However in this study,
it was observed a noticeable amount of student-student in
front of the computer which diminishes the usually dominant
computer control
that multimedia software exerts over learners. The
following table shows the results of one hour tallied of
individual and pair interactions. There is evidence that
during one hour of work two students in front of a computer
interacted each other 23 times and one student, during the
same period of time, in front of a computer interacted with
his partners just 3 times.Time (60
minutes)Individual
Pair
Student-student interactions
3
23
This fact evidences that by nature pair work in
front of the computer promotes student-student interaction
while by nature individual work in front of the computer
does not promote student-student interaction because the
student does not have a partner next to him to comment
about the computer activities; therefore, the student just
follows the computer navigation map. In contrast, when he
or she has a partner next to him there are times when he or
she stops the navigation route to comment with his or her
partner about any aspect of the computer activities. When
they stop the interaction with the computer and begin to
interact among them to comment there is a group negotiation
of meaning and a group construction of knowledge based on
collaborative interaction.In the collaborative process of construction of
knowledge there is another interlocutor. The teacher is
also an important interlocutor at the laboratory; he is the
laboratory teacher and by nature of his job he interacts
with both pairs or individual students working at the
computer. The description of the teacher exchange is shown
in the following interaction subcategory.5.1.3 Students-Teacher-Computer
At the language laboratory working in pairs or
individually by their own at one computer, students call
the teacher for a number of things; they range from
technical problems to the explanations and understanding of
the activities that the students are working with.
According with Brown 2001 the teacher is on the move
checking over shoulders, asking questions and teaching mini
lessons However, as it is shown in table 4 the frequency is
low; from 200 interactions, students just interacted with
the teacher only 10 times. The following journal entries
indicate students-teacher-computer Interactions about
technical problems:"S3 asked me the following: Jairo porque no puedo
ingresar a (Jairo: why I can not have access
to) intermediate 3· Which one is the
password?""S8 called me: Teacher no puedo (I can not) my
partner says that it is la the arriba, no se, no entiendo
(the one on the top I do not know, I do not understand). I
told her that try the restore button and she clicked on it
and it solved their navigation difficulty""Teacher Jairo, the microphone does not work, I
speak but it does not record by voice.""Teacher I can not continue, I clicked on the
dictionary and now it does not move."From the previous interactions it can be concluded
that at the laboratory students have to face diverse
technical problems. The main technical difficulties are
dealing with the password, link buttons, microphone and
navigation obstacles. An important teacher job is to help
them to solve the technical and the English learning
activities. The following journal entry indicates
students-teacher-computer Interaction about understanding
of one of the English learning activities:"Teacher, I do not understand why in the question:
Today isn’t your birthday, is it? the answer is:
No, it isn’t. I explained the student the
following: Ok! Let me see! In this particular sentence the
answer is No, it isn’t because it is a yes/no
question when a certain answer is already expected. In this
case a no is expected because it is a negative
question followed by two words tag which is formed by verb
to be + subject."The following video transcript also indicates
students-teacher-computer Interaction about understanding
of one of the English learning activities:"T: What word are
you looking in the dictionary?S1: huge
T: look for it in the context
S1: yes but that word is
not in the conversationT: do you thing that huge is big or small? Huge is
something that is enormous. For example an elephant is huge
while a mouse is not huge.S1: Ok I now I know; it is something gigantic,
like a mammoth."The previous teacher interactions evidence that
there are times when students need to interact with the
teacher to help them solve technical barriers and explain
those computer activities that they do not understand. In
both situations the teacher does a collaborative work to
help students construct understanding when they work around
the computer. It is important to the interlocutors to gain
knowledge from their interactions and probably there is a
link between knowledge gain and the frequency of their
interactions. Doing pair work they interact more between
each other and perhaps they gain more knowledge and if they
don’t interact enough then their chance to learn
might be poor. The previous aspects are examined in the
next section.- Students, teacher and
computer multiple-level Interactions emerged at the lab
generating an individual versus pair work
analysis. - Individual versus pair work analysis
The previous scrutiny of the multiple-levels of
interactivity demands an individual versus pair work analysis
because student-computer matches up to individual work and
student-student-computer exchange is compatible with pair work
and it is important to check which one is more effective to
promote language and knowledge gain. To reach this aim perhaps it
is necessary to observe the frequency between student-student
interactions and the frequency between student-computer
interactions
To explore in more detail the link between frequency of
interaction and knowledge gain; form the data I collected, I
counted 200 interactions. 100 student-student-teacher-computer
interactions plus 100 student-teacher-computer interactions.
About every 5 seconds, I tallied the interactions; the results
are shown in the following table:
Interactions | Student-student-computer | Student-computer | Students-Teacher-computer | total |
Pairs | 39 | 57 | 4 | |
Individual | 3 | 91 | 6 |
The table information shows that both students
interacted 39 times among them, 57 times with the computer and 4
times with the professor. This fact evidences that pair work
promotes a more balanced kind of interaction. In contrast, the
student working individually interacted 91 times with the
computer, 6 times with the professor and hardly 3 times with its
classmates. This reality shows that individual work facilitates
computer dominant interaction. He just in 3 occasions asked
questions to the student next to him who was working in a
different computer and only in 6 occasions he interacted with the
laboratory teacher.
As it is conclude by Huang, Shih-Jen. (2000)
interactivity between multimedia games and users is more balanced
than the interactivity between instructional multimedia and
students; in this study there is evidence that
student-student-computer is more balanced than student-computer.
Therefore, student-computer-interaction by nature is more
impersonal, cold and distant. The following student reflections
during the semi-interview supports this fact:
"t: how do you feel during pair work around the
computer?… S2: well during pair work one is more in equilibrium
than during individual work because you can talk, discuss, agree
or disagree with your partner but working individually with the
computer I feel like the computer is in control; it
becomes the dominant part and the communication is cold and
impersonal."
To explore a possible link between the multiple-level
interaction and test performance;
I collected data about students’ performance taking the
test individually versus in pairs during different lab sessions.
The test scores where taken from the multimedia Discoveries
results of the testing section at the time students took it just
after they worked with the explore, practice and tic tact game
sections of the task at hand. Each Discoveries task has the
following 4 sequential sections: explore, practice, tic tact game
and test. The individual versus pair test performance was then
analyzed. Analyzing the test scores there is tendency to relate
performance with language gain and knowledge acquisition.
Students who work in pairs are more successful. Pairs scores were
higher than individual scores; the results are shown in the
following graph.
In the next page there is also a "two better than one"
graph which is my metaphor that group work enhances both
interaction and the use of the language. There is also an example
of a excel
spreadsheet form that I designed to collect data. In the next
page there is a statistical graph that evidences a tendency to
superior pair test performance. I have found that in pairs
students score higher when they take the test of the activities
done in the Discoveries Multimedia Program. The individual versus
pair performance graph evidences that when students work
individually their scores aren’t as good as when they work
in groups.
Pool (1999) established that a growing number of
research indicates that group work is an efficient model. At the
laboratory, pair work seems to be more effective in terms of
language gain because test performance is higher at pair work
than to test performance at individual basis. This result to be
similar to the traditional classroom where theory informs that
most of the time pair work performance is higher than individual
one.
Warschauer (1998) invites teachers assigning students to
work in pairs or groups, both in and out of the lab, so that they
can provide assistance to each other. This project evidences the
fact that computer pair work interaction enhances test
performance. In this research, there is evidence that students
learn better when they cooperate with others students that when
they work alone by their own way. In the following excerpt from
the semi-interview there is evidence that students construct
knowledge in pairs:
"T: do you like to work in groups. S2: Yes, I like to
work in pairs because I can compare my knowledge with the
knowledge of my partner; if I am wrong he can correct my mistake
and the opposite is true; if I know that he is wrong then I can
correct his mistake."
Working with Discoveries multimedia software many, but
not all, activities are suitable for group or pair work. When one
student works individually with one computer there is a category
of human-computer interaction; in this case, social interaction
is almost absent. When a group of two or more students work at
one computer there are both human-computer and social
interaction. In one excerpt from the video S1 who was working
with S2 at computer No. 12 said: "para mi la segunda: a dog" in
fact, S1 was socially interacting with S2. Both S1 and S2 were
collaborating with each other to answer a problem solving
activity that was proposed by the frozen computer
drills.
Discoveries is an interactive software to teach and to
learn English but according with the results of this study it
would seem, then, that a genuinely interactive exchange is only
possible between two people, which must be of some comfort to
those teachers who fear that technology could replace them.
Ultimately, interaction – in the linguistic sense, at least – is
an incontrovertibly human activity; yet this does not diminish
the fact that multimedia can play an important role in
facilitating interactive language teaching when used in
conjunction with pair work.
The pair work in the computerized classroom also helps
to foster interpersonal skills. For instance, students learn to
work in teams; they learn how to teach to others. In sum, with
conviction, they learn to negotiate and to work with other
persons and it will be beneficial in a future time when they
might need to interact with people from other cultures. The
interpersonal contact and its oral interaction is explored in the
next sub-category.
5.2. Input
modification and interactions aim to reach comprehensible input
to problem solving.
According with Ellis 1994 the interaction hypothesis is
the name given to the claim that the interactional modifications
resulting from the negotiation of meaning facilitate acquisition.
Many authors like Pica 1987 also affirm that input modifications
have the objective to obtain comprehensible input which in turn
facilitates the acquisition of the target language. Krashen 1981
too postulates that language learning is directly related to the
amount of comprehensible input a learner receives.
Oral interaction and negotiation seem to make input more
comprehensible and facilitate language learning. Negotiation is
defined by Pica (1994) as "modification and restructuring of
interaction that occurs when learners and their interlocutors
anticipate, perceive, or experience difficulties in message
comprehensibility. Comprehension of message meaning is necessary
if learners are to internalize target language. Interactional
modifications due to negotiation for meaning facilitate language
learning.
During the semi-structured interview participants
confirmed that the main purpose to use the input modification
devices was to reach understanding and it is indicated in the
following excerpt from the interview:
"T: What is the purpose of your talking with your
partner while working in front of the computer? I talk with my
partner to arrive a point where I can understand. Sometimes he
does not understand then I explain to him but sometimes I also
don’t understand the computer conversations then he
explains the meaning to me or he explains to me the actions that
the computer is requesting us to do."
Some students also reach understanding working with
multimedia about aspects that they have not understood in the
traditional classroom. This fact is confirmed by the following
video transcript:
"s3: you see I did not understand in class about passive
voice but now I understand the computer explanations are clear
and the examples helped me to comprehend the difference between
active and passive voice.
S4: What happens is that in class the teacher does an
explanation and he uses good examples which we can expand with
the computer explanations"
At the lab students use a lot of input modification
devices such as clarification requests, interactive negotiations,
procedural negotiations, disputational talk and exploratory talk
that permits to enhance the quality of the input and to reach
understanding. Subsequent to the following video transcript there
is a line by line analysis about input modifications.
1 S1: ay! está mal la de arriba.
2 S2: si, él nos dijo. Ponga doesn’t
she
3 S1: no se puede
4 S2: ella tiene
5 S1: does she…si. who teach story…who
teach…teach..no..teach…ja..ja..
6 S2: teach…
7 S1: ay! Pero porque?
8 S2: si ve lo que usted dijo está
mal.
9 S1: entonces diga usted.
10 S2: haber él es un dancer
11 S1:[él es un dancer] what is my
doing…she dances… what is my doing
13 S2: [what is my doing] dancing
14 S1: [dancing] dancing…. pero porque? She
danc.. Uf!
15 S2: [uf] ja! ja!
16 S1: what are you sheila…going
tonigth…going … going tonigth
17 S2: [going] what are .. you and
sheila…
18 S1: no going tonight…we’re going
tonight… entoces we’re going to a dance club…
we’re… we go
19 S2: ellos fueron
20 S1: nosotros vamos…
21 S2: a un dance club..
22 S1: [un teatro] eh eh eh!
Do sheila? Do sheila dance? Yes she/?/ ai! ya! do sheila going
tonight…goes…no is
going…eh…
23 S2: ank! ank!
24 S1: eh!…is going… going…pero
ayude a una porque tambien
25 S2: yo le digo y usted no me pone cuidado y despues
/????????/
26 S1: ay! Tan linda…ja! Ja! Ja!
In lines 1, 2, 3 S1 and S2 (student 1 and student 2) are
spontaneously interacting to share meaning; according with
Littlejohn (2000) it is an interactive form of
negotiation of meaning. The input modification devices and
the speaker interaction moves promote the use of
language.
In lines 7, 8, 24 and 25 there is an evidence of what
Scrimshaaw (1995) calls disputational talk, characterized
by disagreement and individualized decision making and it
challenges other views. I lines 5,6,17, 18 students interact each
other in front of the screen seeking to reach agreement, this
type of oral intercourse is called procedural negotiation
by Littlejohn (2000).
Because S1 dominates the oral interaction she evidences
a dominant oral behavior while S2 shows submissive oral behavior;
however, dominant oral behavior doesn’t mean higher solving
problem capacity. In this video transcript there is also an
evidence that the teacher is a passive actor because the students
did not interact with him during their computer based
problem-solving task at hand.
Students engage In the `co-construction' of knowledge,
and the discovery of learnings. Problem solving involves learners
being in control of their learning and having freedom within
clearly defined parameters. Oral discourse is enhanced when two
or more interlocutors construct understanding in front of a
computer screen. This study has indicated that these input
modifications "are significantly more abundant during negotiation
than during the rest of learners' interaction.
In this study, the interactions analyzed can be
summarized considering Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998)
taxonomy. They established two possible interpretations as to how
these interactions assist language learning at the laboratory:
(1) they make input more comprehensible and (2) they draw
attention to target language form (e.g passive voice). After the
examination of the multi-level interactions and input
modifications devices, the next category to be analyzed in the
next section is the one related with teachers and students’
roles in the multimedia laboratory.
5.3. Students and
teachers emerging roles in the computer multimedia
setting
Teacher and learner roles
This category is an analysis of the role of the
laboratory teacher and the role of the students which are
observable in the laboratory while they work with Discoveries.
The distinct roles in the laboratory are compared and
differentiated from the roles assumed in the traditional
classroom. So far, in the previous categories I have pointed out
the various factors which influence the way students, the teacher
and the computers interact and interpret their roles in the
laboratory. My aim in this section is to find out what the
teacher and learners actually do in the laboratory; my focus is
on the teacher and learner roles behavior.
Warschauer, 1998 says that when multimedia is used the
role of the teacher as authority source and expert changes.
Hence, the teacher does not dominate the floor and does not do
most of the talking. Besides, he or she does not direct and
redirect the development of the topic, pose display questions,
nominate students as next speakers, or evaluate individual
student's contributions, all of which is the norm in traditional
teacher-fronted EFL classrooms.
There are several aspects that determine the role of the
students in the multimedia laboratory. Between them, but the
important ones that I can mention are the following: the setting,
the tools (the computers), the personality of the students, and
the way in which the teacher establishes the teaching learning
activities as well as the way that he or she interacts with them.
These aspects are interrelated each other and in the next section
they are expanded.
In the traditional classroom students are more willing
to pay attention to the teacher lecture. In contrast, at the
laboratory, according with Huang 2000 the student-teacher
communication seemed to be blocked to some extent by the layout
of the multimedia lab. Physically, the multimedia lab is larger
than the traditional classroom. The physical distance enlarged
the psychological distance. It has the tendency that the two-way
communication between the teacher and the students turned to be
the one-way teacher to student communication.
During the development if this research and from time to
time I encourage my students to interact with each other. I
constantly ask myself the way to combine more interaction into my
laboratory learning activities more often than I do. To enrich
the interaction, I try and determine what strategies will work
and how to do it. Therefore, using the instructional guides that
I have designed, I do make suggestions and I frequently encourage
my students to employ new strategies to promote multiple-level
interaction in the lab. We have moved toward interaction taking
place between the learner and the content, the learner and the
instructor, and between learners.
Traditional classroom roles are considerably changed.
There are two main types of roles that appear at the lab. On the
one hand, by the nature of the setting there are a number of
roles which emerge and come into sight. On the other hand there
are also a number of roles that learners begin to have. In the
computerized classroom there are some roles that emerge which are
very different from the traditional classroom. For instance, high
interactive computer programs have the power to catch student
attentions; sometimes, this power that multimedia technology
induces over learners is so high till the point that at times
students got so concentrated in the multimedia proposed
activities that they ignore the teacher’s
instructions.
The role of the teacher changes from source of knowledge
to instigator, promoter, coach, helper, model, and guide of
knowledge construction. It is not easy to change the teacher
traditional role of simply showing students how to do things and
providing then with the answers they seek. It would be much
better to require students to engage in activities that make them
be critical thinkers using multimedia as a learner partner. There
are evidences, presented in this document, both in the "Row Data
Collected to identify participants aspects such as pair versus
individual performance" and in the "example of video transcripts"
that the teacher intervention is almost absent. The teacher
absence of interaction in both examples is in line with theory
that suggests that the role of the teacher in the computer lab is
not the source of knowledge fact which is mentioned various times
in this paper.
5.3.1 Learners Roles
The following journal entry shows a student as an active
learner with multimedia software:
"S7 is very quit during activities in the traditional
classroom. In contrast, in the language laboratory he is very
loquacious; he is interacting with the computer activities, he is
also speaking with his partner about the listening activity
offered by the computer."
As active participants in the process of interacting
with multimedia, students became responsible for their learnings.
The following journal entry indicates that the student has an
autonomous learning style:
"S2 told me that he finds the program very good and that
he would like to get the Discoveries program to study at home. He
also told me that he is disciplined y responsible to study by
himself because he took a distance accounting course with Memphis
School and that it was great because he is now working as an
accountant assistant."
Students become problem solvers at the laboratory when
they have to find the answer to questions posted to them by the
discoveries computer software. In the following journal entry
students are collaborating with each other to solve a
problem:
"S3 and s4 are working in basic 3. They are playing the
game adventure. S3 is reading the game hints. S4 tells s3 that
they are going to read carefully the different options and then
it will be easy for them to find the object. They discuss to
agree which one is going to be the navigation route. Because all
the instructions are given in English they first try to
understand the meaning and second they decide where to
go."
In the following journal sample there is an evidence of
autonomous responsible for her own learning behavior attitude of
one of the subjects of this study. "S1= (student number 1). She
came by herself, individually, is the only one form her class.
She did not ask me nothing; she just walked into the lab, to star
working, she tried at computer number 9 but for technical
problems she moved on to computer 6. I observed that she clicked
in Advance disk and started working with
speaking-restaurant-activity."
Discoveries multimedia learning software can increase
students' motivation. The following journal entry indicates that
the student is motivated by the multimedia
activities:
"S5 is really stimulated to work with the multimedia
activities. She is exploring the different activities. She likes
to play the Discoveries computer adventure games. At times, she
laughs and she told me teacher I really like to learn with
computers because they are fast and you can work what you really
like it; she affirms that she gets stimulated by the Discoveries
animated pictures. After their classmates finished their
activities they left; however, she continued working with other
discoveries activities doing extra work"
Some students find the animated images very attractive;
during the sem-interview most of the students answered that they
like because images give life to activities transforming the
pictures into realistic interlocutors. They also believe that
using and learning computer skills is essential to their future
success.
Students use Discoveries to help them become learners by
doing. The following journal entry indicates that the learn by
doing:
"I told the students to open word and power point
before they start using Discoveries. They learned that they can
open more than one program simultaneously at the same time; I
told them how to switch from word
to Discoveries. I word, they created memos, faxes and letters
using the Discoveries models. They also created hyperstories
using Discoveries as a vocabulary and dictionary
tool."
In addition, during the semi-interview s4 manifested
that she feels motivated to work with Discoveries because she has
the chance to interact with authentic texts and materials. S3
also manifested that he feels motivated because he finds a match
between the classroom materials and Discoveries realistic
activities.
5.3.2 Teacher Roles
The following video transcripts shows the teacher as a
helper and as a guider of knowledge construction.
"s8: jairo is it time to change to another activity? t:
yes make clic on listening family icon and do the same go to
explore, pre-listen to it at least twice by clicking on play.
When you have finished listening to it I want you to speak about
what you have just understood. Next, make click in the flag icon
to see the scripts. Did you understand."
The following journal transcripts indicate that the
teacher is an instigator, promoter, and coach:
"S2 teacher we are listening to it one more
time.
T: it is good that you listen to it again from the
beginning."
The following video transcript show the teacher as a
troubleshooter solving technical problems:
"teacher the mouse does not work. I clicked on the icon
but it does not move. T: let me see. Oh I see it is the mouse
ball it is dirty let me clean it and it will be ready to
work."
The teacher’ journal indicates that he is a
circulator and participant at the lab:
"Today, I moved around the laboratory checking over my
student shoulders their job at the computers. I participated in a
problem solving activity by providing the student a suggestion to
solve the activity at hand."
The teacher’ journal indicates that he is a
monitor and an
observer at the lab:
"During the students’ interactions I spent most of
my time checking and observing their work; I noticed that they
were really focus at the activity suggested."
The teacher’ journal indicates that he is an
encourager and a motivator at the lab:
"I gave confidence to the students to do the listening
and speaking sections, I told them about the potential benefits
of the activities and the way other students had learned a lot by
exploring, practicing and solving the problems. I also stimulated
students about the richness of having sounds, videos, images and
text integrated in a program and available to facilitate their
learnings. All of them paid attention to me and started working
with enthusiasm."
The teacher’ journal indicates that the teacher is
a demonstrator at the lab:
"Students came the first time at the lab. At the
instructional computer, I demonstrated to them the basic
navigation map. I clicked on basic 1 and I showed to them how to
move through the different sections of the program. Most of them
knew how to operate computers so it was easy for them to start
using the program"
Before students start using the program, If the teacher
does not teach students to navigate the program then students
lose interest and motivation and they get discouraged. It is
crucial to demonstrate they how to start with it. However, during
next sessions students become computer literate then the teacher
is present but at times he is a virtual teacher because in the
lab during his mediator role between the program and the students
there are a few need of teacher’ explanations.
In the next page, I have compared and contrasted the
student versus teacher roles. Of course, those roles emerge in a
dynamic way and they change in accordance with the task at hand
and in accordance with the student’s ethnographic, human
and social distinct characteristics, The age, learning style and
needs of the participant also influence the learning role adopted
by him or her. During multimedia classes, the minimum
intervention of the teacher at the Gran Colombia
University language laboratory, presented in the samples of data
collected, is an evidence that multimedia earner role is framed
inside the principle of the student centered approach.
The students’ questionnaires evidences the
following inconsistency in subjects' thinking and action; to the
question: Do you think that as student you can interrupt the
teacher to ask him questions? All four subjects answered: 'Yes';
however, from the video and the teacher journal there is no
evidence that during the sessions they called for guidance from
the teacher.
In section B and C of the students' questionnaire the
subjects’ answers evidences intrinsic motivation, derived
from their personal
interests and their inner needs to learn, and extrinsic
motivation derived from external sources such as the Discovery
software. All subjects strongly agree in their answers to the
statements 11 and 18: "The listening and speaking sessions make
me want to use my knowledge of English to express my ideas and I
want to continue using the computer multimedia program in my
English Classes."
However, there is also another kind of evidence looking
through my journal notes an after having a class conference with
S4 said: "so far the activities are important and I do not get
bored… why I don’t know is because I like to work
with computers and can go to different activities like adventure,
etc." Students affirm that they want to continue using the
computer multimedia program. Students feel free navigating and
they can do so by moving at will through the various sections of
the program.
When students walk into the lab to take their multimedia
classes, they perceive it as a place where they claim and defend
their societal roles that has been given by the social
institutions which they have been previously exposed to. McLuhan
1989 has indicated that "The medium is the message." The students
of the new technological society are going to work for a
different environment than the one of their preceding
generations. The technological transformation is going to
influence the culture that embraces it. The students who belong
to that culture are the ones who will in a higher degree to
experience the acculturation process. A teacher obligation is to
have an open attitude towards the changing word of our students
and if we are capable to incorporate those changes to our lives
it is even more beneficial.
Trough participants interaction social aspects as social
role negotiation in the forms of social exchanges, groupthink,
role confusion, and vagueness are analysed to fulfil the aim of
this study. Students’ answers to question 1 "In your
opinion as student, what is your role in the computer laboratory"
from the student’s questionnaire (annex 1) range from "to
participate with interest and responsibility," "practice
listening and speaking," "work with the computers,"
etc.
Students’ answers do not evidence critical
thinking and commitment for hard work to learn the target
language. Their role seems to be passive. The Colombian social
difficulties that they face may have an influence in their
passivity to face the language learning task. Aspects like young
students social exclusion, difficulties to find a job and poverty
also contribute to lessen their commitment.
Finally, there are group and classroom judgmental social
norms, which seemed to have emerged as functional within the
group of students taking the multimedia classes. I observed that
students applied polite norms to computers because students
behave nice with the computers. For instance, students praise the
software when affirm that the program is very good. According
with Jonassen (1995) it is better to work with multimedia
software as an intellectual partners that enhances the learner
ability to think. Students cooperate with the computer programs
and it constitutes a social positive attitude to work with an
electronic partner.
It is important to have an idea of the social concepts
of conflict, affiliation, and ideology. Conflict is a state of
disturbance or tension resulting from opposing motives, drives,
needs, or goals. Indeed, conflicts are actions by groups or
individuals that are perceived by others in the social
interaction as having negative effects on their important
interests. Affiliation is the desire to have close friendly
relationships with others. We all would like to be members of
social groups of our personal concern; there is process we have
to go through to be accepted or to be rejected. In this research,
there is evidence of negotiation of conflict, and affiliation
among the participants in the laboratory and how they
socialize.
———————————————————————————————————-
To question 8 of the students’ qustionnaire (When
you have to do a group task, how do you solve a conflict with one
of your partners?) S1, S3, and S4 answered: "with dialogue".
However, S2 responded to the same question by saying: "No, we are
very friendly". S2 answer might mean that he is trying to avoid
conflict; indeed, he might not know the social skills to solve
conflict; however, sometimes conflict is unavoidable and the
outcome after solving it might be an opportunity for language
development.
This educational Discoveries software program supports
the communicative language teaching approach in an interactive
environment, under the cognitive development theory of
structuring and processing teaching and the active learner.
Whatever one's linguistic theory, we all yearn for more learner
opportunities to interact with the target language. Linguistic
accuracy is maintained throughout the program. The principles of
behavioral learning theory – contiguity, repetition, feedback and
reinforcement – are also evident in the activities. So, too, is
cognitive learning theory in recognizing that learning is built
upon prior knowledge and recall, as each previous structure
and/or area of communication is embedded in the successive
one(s). Adolescent and adult learners can reasonably be expected
to increase comprehension and second language acquisition through
exploitation of the facilitative translation tools which are
provided.
The program works best with individual users, but pair
work would also be possible. Use in the classroom situation would
be dependent upon the availability of computers. The video clips
could be listened to by the class as a whole, with the instructor
exploiting the authentic and contextual language situations
and/or preparing the learners for further practice. Ideally, this
software would be used in a language or computer lab.
Accurate socio-cultural representation is one of the
main features of Real English Interactive. Each area of
communication is presented in multiple video clips with
variations for listening comprehension which is a high motivation
factor in itself. The program provides for incidental learning
with background notes about the dialect and/or style of speech. (
See Figure 2) The content is free of ethnic or gender bias: "The
varieties of cultures, accents, walks of life, and their
different combinations, seem to be endless."
As it is conclude by Huang, Shih-Jen. (2000)
interactivity between multimedia games and users is more balanced
than the interactivity between instructional multimedia and
students; from this study an important conclusion would be that
student-student-computer is more balanced than student-computer.
Therefore, student-computer-interaction is impersonal,
unfriendly, cool and distant. Some facts support the previous
conclusion. First, higher pair test performance which is related
to student-student-computer interaction. Second, during the
student-student-computer interaction the multimedia program is
less dominant than during student-computer interaction because
the number of pair-computer interactions with the computer is
less than the number of individual-computer interactions with the
computer. Therefore it was demonstrated that interactions are
more balanced during pair computer work than during individual
computer work; for the duration of the later contact the computer
is extremely dominant.
From the present study, I can conclude that in relation
to the laboratory classroom interaction, teachers appeared no to
be at the center of the teaching learning processes. Fact that is
akin with recent theories such as Social Constructivist Model
which addresses the learner as the center of this process.
However, thanks to multimedia, teachers can explain old ideas by
new manners. Furthermore, this interaction is not what Malamah
(1988) called a mere action-reaction process where there is a
teacher action upon the class and a student reaction towards this
act with its subsequent teachers action. So far, all the results
obtained in this study highlight the fact that theory and
practice are still parallel lines.
In relation to the roles assumed by teachers and
learners, I can affirm that the most common role -the teachers of
this study demonstrated – is not the dominant one evident
through a variety of instructional lab sessions. The study show
evidences that interactivity promotes the learner’s active
participation in navigation and opportunities provided for
creative involvement. The importance of multimedia in the
improvement of oral production deals with intonation and rhythm.
The first recordings showed students producing slow broken
sentences, a pause after each word with an even intonation. The
last recordings showed the same students attempting to produce
native-like sentences at a normal speed. In most cases the pauses
are present according to meaningful chunks of
language.
Multimedia allows us to use the best combination of
media to present compelling information suited to specific
situations and allow user-control over how and when that
information is accessed. This technology empowers anyone with a
message to communicate his or her ideas effectively to others.
Students can construct meaning by interacting with the multimedia
listening and speaking segments that includes speakers of the
target language in authentic situations.
This is a preliminary analysis; however, a pedagogical
implication could be that teachers should take action to
challenge the social belief that some students might bring to the
computer lab setting of perceiving the teacher as an
authoritarian source of knowledge who can not be interrupted.
Indeed, teachers should be ready to allow students ask questions
at any time during the class sessions. This dynamics may foster
students’ collaboration and cooperation learning
styles.
In the case that teachers identify that students do not
know how to collaborate and how to cooperate then they can teach
these skills as purposefully and precisely as other academic and
social skills. Besides, they can teach leadership and group
dynamics skills if they realize that their students are not
equipped with the social skills needed to be a leader, to solve
conflict, or to work in group.
I have found that multimedia learning software can be a
useful English language tool that raises students' motivation by
increasing their confidence, encouraging them to work in group,
and broadening their listening and oral skills. Since sometimes
students get bored working at it, using a learning software once
a week, rather than as the main all-purpose tool for language
teaching may prove to be more pedagogically useful.
Many teachers who are new to multimedia software are
anxious about how will cope with the technology and unsure of how
it will affect their role in the classroom. However, it is my
experience after, my first, ten months of working with multimedia
at the Gran Colombia University language laboratory is an
invaluable experience in terms of my professional development. I
began to read the related literature, I make contacts, I
developed technical and various other interpersonal skills; in
short, I have learnt a great deal about multimedia teaching and
learning software.
I did not need to be an expert on multimedia before I
introduced it to my students. In fact, exploring the programs
together with my students was a tremendously valuable experience.
The natural interaction that it required helped the development
of both my teacher-student relationship and my students’
English language learning. Multimedia is a great treasure for
teachers and students because it has exactly what you need,
whether it is for an activity in class, and activity out of
class, to practice a specific skill, or to develop a specific
language topic. The key element is our responsibility in finding,
analyzing and adequating the task bearing in mind our
students’ needs.
In implementing the programs, I, the teacher, became a
facilitator and resource person. I have been able to work with my
students one-on-one individualized tutoring, while the majority
of the class is using the programs. Sometimes, I take a more
active role, going around the room and giving suggestions to
students and making sure they are on task. The choice of how to
use multimedia rests with the teacher.
My job became harder for a while, but as I became more
familiar and more competent with both the technology and the
program’s content, I found that both my students and me
were more motivated to learn. As I become a multimedia expert, I
am a role model not only for my students, but also for other
teacher at the Gran Colombia University.
Multimedia collaborative learning affords students
enormous advantages not available from more traditional
instruction because a group–whether it be the whole lab class or
a learning group within the lab class–can accomplish meaningful
learning and solve problems better than any individual can
alone.
In the computer lab it is confirmed that human beings
are products not only of biology, but also of their cultures.
Intellectual functioning is the product of our social history,
and language is the key mode by which we learn the social
principles of our cultures and through which we organize our
verbal thinking and regulate our actions. In the lab the
students’ social relationships promotes their mental
abilities development and language learning and it underlines the
importance of peer support for any form of learning.
The teacher must to be present during first sessions to
assist students in their technical and computer operation needs.
However, for the period of subsequent sessions, there are times
when the teacher becomes a virtual teacher because students do
not call him for technical assistance and Discoveries is dominant
with thousands of inputs that catch their and that they find good
and they rarely need to call the teacher for
assistance.
Multimedia software in the lab appears to provide a
context in which opportunities for language development are
enhanced, since students are motivated to extend their linguistic
resources in order to meet the demands of real communication in a
social context. It also entails meaningful use of the target
language and demands teachers and students to treat language as a
medium of communication.
Multimedia shows as an effective tool for language
learning and teaching. Although mutimedia is more affordable and
available today than ever before, unfortunately and despite the
incredible advances and advantages, not very many English as a
foreign language students and teachers benefit from its
potential. Computers have a meaningful application in the area of
foreign language teaching and learning. The incorporation of
multimedia into the curriculum and
language programs is important but there is a need to integrate
it into the course goals, based on research practices. In
addition, this may provide opportunities for authentic language
practice.
Learners interact a their own pace and according to
their learning styles; consequently, they tend to perceive the
computer activities as less threatening and inhibiting than
traditional classroom oral interactions. Furthermore, students
share the floor more often and they are expose to a substantial
amount of comprehensible input.
For teachers, it is critical to understand what makes an
application interactive, instructional and effective. The
creation of the learning environment is crucial to the success of
any project and it is much harder without appropriate software.
Teachers should also keep in mind that it is important to develop
pedagogy and methodology related to multimedia learning
software.
In conclusion, using multimedia in the language
laboratory is advantageous for both learners and teachers.
Nevertheless, its incorporation needs considering the changing of
goals of language education programs as well as teacher
attitudes. By using multimedia and related technologies we
prepare the students for the requirements of this new millennium
for a motivational and effective academic and personal
life.
In the contemporary educational environments, it is a
pity, that there are some schools that despite the fact of having
a computer room which is privilege, there is not a full possible
exploitation of that source of knowledge. Many people and some
teachers feel uncomfortable with technology even there are times
when they get scare of it; in that case, the best way to overcome
this fear is facing it by solving as many multimedia exercises as
possible.
Teacher’s computer literacy is important. A
feeling of satisfaction is received and accomplished when
teachers and students discover that multimedia provides another
way to acquire knowledge. It enhances motivation and promotes
interaction. An important implication of this study is to foster
the use of computer multimedia environments neglecting the
mystery that covers up the uses of new technologies.
In traditional classrooms, interaction has been limited
because of minimal physical possibilities or because of
teachers’ lack of training in using technology. Working
with multimedia there is a joint of motivational elements that
makes the students’ participation more free and
spontaneous. It is frequent that students bring English music
compact discs to the laboratory. Those elements also promote
interaction and new roles for both students and teachers.
Therefore, students have more responsibility, risk taking,
interaction and self-evaluation criteria towards the autonomous
learning.
The multimedia software should take individual
differences in preferences, and ability into account. For
example, interactivity is limited when there is only one way of
navigating the software, and the materials are presented in a
rigid manner. There are more ways of navigating the software, and
many different possible topics to explore. Students can select
different activities to read and study. Different aspects of
every day life and people work are listed to account for
individual differences in ability, and preferences. There are a
number stories to cater to different preferences, and a number of
different ways to navigate the software.
Questions for
further research
I expect further research to be developed in the area,
and that this study will become a possible starting point for
those interested in multimedia classroom interaction issues, so
as to contribute to the improvement and enrichment of not only
the Applied Linguistics field but also to language teaching
practices and teacher training purposes. Hypertext, hypermedia
and artificial intelligent environments for language learning
present an important area for research.
Situating the computer: how to do it in practice. It is
important to research the distributions of the computers in the
lab to check ways to promote interaction and language
development. There is a situation very easy to deal with. The
teacher and the student use one machine and the teacher is on
hand to help and comment as and when necessary. There are more
ideal circumstances, where the students all have their own
terminals and then get back together in the middle of the room.
Hhowever, the computers are situated to facilitate communication
and are not placed in long rows as in traditional language labs.
There is another ideal situation. All the students are able to
see the one main screen and control it by remote control and a
wireless
keyboard. At the same time are free to do both pair work and
group work.
Software for Language education, multimedia
teaching-learning materials development, software evaluation, and
testing and evaluation software could be areas of CALL which
present questions for further research. The use of the Internet and a variety of
forms of communication networks are prone to be research as tools
to promote second language acquisition. In a language lab aspects
like age, gender, social and cultural issues can also be the
matter of research.
Anderson, T. 1999. At:
Barker, P. 1994. Designing Interactive Learning, in T.
de Jong & L. Sarti (Eds), Design and Production of Multimedia
and Simulation-based Learning Material. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Brett, PA. 1998. Integrating multimedia applications
into the Business English. Curriculum ESP
Journal; Brett, PA, & Nash, M. Multimedia Language
Learning
Brown I. 2001. Muddled Methodology – CALL in the
classroom is not always communicative but it can be. Available
at: http://www.acl.edu.au
English Discoveries Teacher’s Pedagogical
Guide. Version 2.0. Edusoft.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heath, Joanne. 2002. The Language Centre, University
College London. Retrieved October 21, 2002, from the World Wide
Web: http://www.ilt.ac.uk/public/cti/ActiveLearning/issue3/heath/index.html
Huang, Shih-Jen. 2000. Communicative Language Teaching
in a Multimedia Language Lab. The Internet TESL Journal.
Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Huang-CompLab.htm.
Jonassen. D. 1995. Computers in the classroom: Mindtools
for critical thinking. New Jersey. Prentince Hall.
Hatch, E. 1978. 'Discourse analysis and second language
acquisition' in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House.
Hardisty, D. & Windeatt, S. (1989). CALL. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment
in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K.
Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition. Vol.
2: Second language acquisition. (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic
Press.
Malamah-Thomas, A. 1987. Classroom interaction. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Maley, Alan. Cited in English Discoveries
teacher’s pedagogical guide. Version 2.0.
Edusoft.
McLuhan, M. & Bruce R. 1989. The Global Village:
Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st
Century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Merriam, S. (1988) Case Study Research in Education. San
Francisco Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Ortega, L. 2002. Processes and outcomes in multimedia
classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for EFL
computer-assisted classroom interaction. Language Learning &
Technology.
Patton, M.Q. 1980. Qualitative evaluation methods.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pica T. & Doughty C. 1987. The Inpact of Interaction
on Comprehension Interactional Modifications.
Pool, B. 1999. Education for an Information Age.
Teaching in the Computerixed Classroom. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Scrimshaw. P. 1995. Oral Discourse and Education.
Encyclopedia of Language and Education Volume 3. Kluwer Academic
Publications, Boston
Sims, R. 1994. Seven levels of interactivity:
implications for the development of multimedia education and
training, in (Ed) M. Ryan, Proceedings of the Asia Pacific
Information Technology in Training and Education (APITITE)
Conference, Volume 3. Brisbane, Qld: APITITE.
Sims, Roderick. 1997. Interactivity: A Forgotten Art?.
[Online] Available http://intro.base.org/docs/interact/, January
27, 1997
Soo, K. & Ngeow y. 1998. Effective English as a
Second Language (ESL). In: Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia.
Vol. 7 Number 1. 1998.
Tinzmann, J. 1990. What Is the Collaborative Classroom?.
In:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/rpl_esys/collab.htm
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1986. Thought and Language. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and
language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31,
57-71.
Website:
http://www.bbcworldwide.com/talk/whyextra.htm#The benefits of
interaction in language learning.
Williams and Burden (1997). Psychology For Language
Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, T. (1991). Roles of Teachers and Learners.
Oxford : Oxford University Press.
CALL: Computer Assistance Language Learning
Click: to point to an item and then quickly press and
release the main mouse button once.
Constructivism: An education philosophy based on the
premise that students learn better when they are active
participants and control their own education, in such a way that
they construct in an individual way the foundations of knowledge
acquisition.
Computer: An electronic machine that stores and
processes data.
Collaborative learning: A learning environment where
students work together to expand their knowledge and their
education experience. At computer laboratories students can use
multimedia to foster collaborative learning.
Hypermedia: A structure of interactive multimedia of
linked elements through which the user can navigate.
Interactivity: A necessary and fundamental mechanism for
knowledge acquisition and the development of both cognitive and
physical skills.
Interface: The main menu from which learners can link to
what they want to explore, practice and learn.
Medium: A participant organism, an instrument or
mechanism, by which something is transmitted or by which
something is accomplished. Intervening substance producing an
effect.
Media: The plural form of Medium. Media is a plural
noun. There is an increasing tendency to use it also as a
singular noun because of the ambiguous senses of
medium.
Multiple-level Interaction in the Lab: The interaction
that takes place between the learner and the Multimedia Software
content, the learner and the instructor, and between
learners.
Nature of interaction: The interlocutors’
intentions and the makeup of their interaction as
well.
Quality interaction: The significant interaction which
promotes EFL learning.
Record: To register (sound or images) in permanent form
by mechanical or electrical means for reproduction.
Role: The characteristic and expected social behavior of
an individual.
Software: Written or printed data, such as programs,
routines, and symbolic languages, essential to the operation of
computers.
Troubleshooter: A worker whose job is to locate and
eliminate sources of trouble, as in mechanical
operations.
Jairo Agustin López Forero
 Página anterior | Volver al principio del trabajo | Página siguiente  |