عدد المساهمات : 97
تاريخ التسجيل : 14/11/2008
|موضوع: تابع تعلم اللغه من الكومبيوتر(دودو) الثلاثاء ديسمبر 02, 2008 4:21 pm|| |
Generally speaking, the use of technology inside or outside the classroom tends to make the class more interesting. However, certain design issues affect just how interesting the particular tool creates motivation.  One way a program or activity can promote motivation in students is by personalizing information, for example by integrating the student’s name or familiar contexts as part of the program or task. Others include having animate objects on the screen, providing practice activities that incorporate challenges and curiosity and providing a context (real-world or fantasy) that is not directly language-oriented.
For example, a study comparing students who used “CornerStone” (a language arts development program) showed a significant increase in learning (compared to students not using the program) between two classes of English-immersion middle-school students in language arts. This is because CornerStone incorporate personalized information and challenging and imaginative exercises in a fantasy context.  Also, using a variety of multimedia components in one program or course has been shown to increase student interest and motivation. 
One quantifiable benefit to increased motivation is that students tend to spend more time on tasks when on the computer. More time is frequently cited as a factor in achievement. 
 Adapting learning to the student
Computers can give a new role to teaching materials. Without computers, students cannot really influence the linear progression of the class content but computers can adapt to the student.  Adapting to the student usually means that the student controls the pace of the learning but also means that students can make choices in what and how to learn, skipping unnecessary items or doing remedial work on difficult concepts. Such control makes students feel more competent in their learning.  Students tend to prefer exercises where they have control over content, such as branching stories, adventures, puzzles or logic problems. With these, the computer has the role of providing attractive context for the use of language rather than directly providing the language the student needs. 
“Authenticity” in language learning means the opportunity to interact in one or more of the four skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking) by using or producing texts meant for an audience in the target language, not the classroom. With real communication acts, rather than teacher-contrived ones, students feel empowered and less afraid to contact others. Students believe they learn faster and better with computer-mediated communication.  Also, students learn more about culture in such an environment.  In networked computer environments, students have a conscious feeling of being members of a real community. In situations where all are learners of a foreign language, there is also a feeling of equality. In these situations students feel less stressed and more confident in a language learning situation, in part because surface errors do not matter so much. This works best with synchronous CMC (e.g. chats) as there is immediate feedback but email exchanges have been shown to provide most of the same benefits in motivation and student affect. 
 Critical thinking skills
Use of computer technology in classrooms is generally reported to improve self-concept and mastery of basic skills, more student-centered learning and engagement in the learning process, more active processing resulting in higher-order thinking skills and better recall, gain confidence in directing their own learning. This is true for both language and non-language classrooms. 
 Problems and criticisms of CALL instruction
The impact of CALL in foreign language education has been modest.  Several reasons can be attributed to this.
The first is the limitations of the technology, both in its ability and availability. First of all, there is the problem with cost and the simple availability of technological resources such as the Internet (either non-existent as can be the case in many developing countries or lack of bandwidth, as can be the case just about anywhere).  However, the limitations that current computer technology has can be problematic as well. While computer technology has improved greatly in the last three decades, demands placed on CALL have grown even more so. One major goal is to have computers with which students can have true, human-like interaction, esp. for speaking practice; however, the technology is far from that point. Not to mention that if the computer cannot evaluate a learner’s speech exactly, it is almost no use at all. 
However, most of the problems that appear in the literature on CALL have more to do with teacher expectations and apprehensions about what computers can do for the language learner and teacher. Teachers and administrators tend to either think computers are worthless or even harmful, or can do far more than they are really capable of. 
Reluctance on part of teachers can come from lack of understanding and even fear of technology. Often CALL is not implemented unless it is required even if training is offered to teachers.  One reason for this is that from the 1960’s to the 1980’s, computer technology was limited mostly for the sciences, creating a real and psychological distance for language teaching.  Language teachers can be more comfortable with textbooks because it is what they are used do, and there is the idea that the use of computers threatens traditional literacy skills since such are heavily tied to books.   These stem in part because there is a significant generation gap between teachers (many of whom did not grow up with computers) and students (who did grow up with them).
Also, teachers may resist because CALL activities can be more difficult to evaluate than more traditional exercises. For example, most Mexican teachers feel strongly that a completed fill-in textbook “proves” learning.  While students seem may be motivated by exercises like branching stories, adventures, puzzles or logic, these activities provide little in the way of systematic evaluation of progress. 
Even teachers who may otherwise see benefits to CALL may be put off by the time and effort needed to implement it well. However, “seductive” the power of computing systems may be, like with the introduction of the audio language lab in the 1960’s, those who simply expect results by purchasing expensive equipment are likely to be disappointed.  To begin with, there are the simple matters of sorting through the numerous resources that exist and getting students ready to use computer resources. With Internet sites alone, it can be very difficult to know where to begin, and if students are unfamiliar with the resource to be used, the teacher must take time to teach it.  Also, there is a lack of unified theoretical framework for designing and evaluating CALL systems as well as absence of conclusive empirical evidence for the pedagogical benefits of computers in language.  Most teachers lack the time or training to create CALL-based assignments, leading to reliance on commercially-published sources, whether such are pedagogically sound or not. 
However, the most crucial factor that can lead to the failure of CALL, or the use of any technology in language education is not the failure of the technology, but rather the failure to invest adequately in teacher and the lack of imagination to take advantage of the technology's flexibility. Graham Davies states that too often, technology is seen as a panacea, especially by administrators, and the human component necessary to make it beneficial is ignored. Under these circumstances, he argues, "it is probably better to dispense with technology altogether".
^ a b c "CALL (computer assisted language learning) Guide to Good Practice 3". Davies Graham. Retrieved on 2007-12-01.
^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p "Computer-assisted language learning: Increase of freedom of submission to machines?" (Domingo Noemi). Retrieved on 2007-12-10.
^ a b c d e f "Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction". Warschauer Mark. Retrieved on 2008-04-11.
^ a b c Ten Hacken, Pius (May 2003). "Computer-assisted language learning and the revolution in computational linguistics". Linguistik online 17.
^ a b c d e f Ehsani, Farzad; Eva Knodt (July 1998). "Speech technology in computer-aided language learning: Strengths and limitations of a new CALL paradigm". Language Learning and Technology 2 (1): 45–60.
^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Stepp-Greany, Jonita (January 2002). "Students perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium". Language Learning and Technology.
^ Mitchell, R; F. Myles (1998). Second Language Learning Theories. London: Arnold.
^ a b c Thelmadatter, Leigh (July/Sept 2007). "The Computers Are Coming … Are Here!". TESOL Greece Newsletter 95.
^ a b "ICT4LT Module 1.1". Retrieved on 2008-07-11.
^ "Introduction to multimedia CALL". Retrieved on 2008-07-11.
^ a b "Managing a multimedia language centre". Retrieved on 2008-07-11.
^ Reinders, Hayo (July 2007). "Big brother is helping you. Supporting self-access language learning with a student monitoring system". System 35 (1): 93–111. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.10.009, http://www.hayo.nl.
^ a b Traynor, Patrick (July 2003). "Effects of computer-assisted instruction on different learners". Journal of Instructional Psychology.
^ a b Ravichandran, T (2000). Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in the perspective of the interactive approach: Advantages and apprehensions.
^ a b Bollin, G.G. (Mar/Apr 2003). "The Realities of Middle School for Mexican Children". The Clearing House 76 (4): 198