A. The
Domains Of
Networked CALL
These domains have
not all been investigated with the same degree of in depth attention in the
literature, and this reflects both in their description and in the presentation
of the most significant experimentations on their teaching: in the case of social
networks, for instance, there are no studies or examples of Teacher Education
about that domain. The connection between CMC and communicative competency is
rather an intuitive fact, reconfirmed by literature (Hampel & Stickler,
2005): if we sum the advantages of distance with the Web’s potential, this
tool’s possibilities may be fully understood.
Asynchronous
communication, for example, allows groups of several learners to discuss and
elaborate contents without all having to be connected simultaneously; it allows
single individuals to elaborate their message carefully, without the worry of
having to keep communication active and, finally, it enables single individuals
to reconstruct the evolution of the conversation, so as to be able to join in
without mishaps. CMC may be developed on different levels; the simplest
dimension is the textual one (chat room, forums and blogs), whilst audio- and
video-conferences are more complex.
Teacher Training for
CMC is, from a technical viewpoint, quite limited. Either the tools are rather
simple, albeit with various options (as in the case of CMC tools in the Moodle
platform), or the technical questions are outside the range of ICT skills
teachers are likely to have: this is the case of the video-conference, which
involves the presence of a qualified technician for the bigger problems.
An important ambit, albeit one that has been rather
neglected by research, is the use of the Web for contents distribution
(Torsani, 2009). In this case there are numerous possible options and, above
all, platforms and, or more simply, web logs4 are a rather flexible tool for
distribution of contents and tasks. Although such usage of the web might seem
less appealing for researchers than CMC, its flexible and light nature might be
a first step towards technology integration.
Online language
teaching, both in the “distance” model (Lamy, 2013) and in the blended model,
i.e. coursework alternating online and classroom activities, represent an
important development, for they are complex phenomena revolving, to differing
extents, around the adaptation of language pedagogy to the Web. If online
language teaching was, as all e-learning, originally conceived as a fast and
economic way to distribute materials according to a tutorial model, the evolution
of distance learning is an example of the progresses made by research and
practice, which coincided with the diffusion of “good practices” (for example
Polisca, 2006 shows how an online class improves learners’ motivation), and
through studies which endeavour to systemise the various competences necessary
for online language pedagogy (Hampel & Stickler, 2005).
The last ambit is the
one, mentioned above, of social networks. These, which are mostly used outside
the influence of institutions (Dettori & Torsani, 2012), have exercised a
great appeal upon research, which is not surprising, considering their
analogies with constructivist and interactionist developments in language
teaching. There are no examples, in the reference literature, of teacher education on
social networks; however, given their being outside the school environment and
their diffusion, the topic remains an important one; training, in this case,
might be limited to a presentation of the individual features of such systems
(and perhaps trying them), in order to allow teachers to gain knowledge of
their mechanisms and lead to an awareness of how they may influence language
learning.
B. Models
For Online Language Teaching
In this paragraph some frameworks and models for online
language education are illustrated. With respect to the frameworks seen in
Chapter 2, those presented in this paragraph are perhaps less theoretical and,
above all, they provide models of the competences language teachers need to
approach online language learning. In these works, in other word, it is
language teachers, their needs and their competences that come to the fore.According
Hampel and Stickler (2005) A crucial reflection on online language teaching is the
already mentioned work by Hampel and Stickler (2005), which presents the
elaboration of the well known pyramid of skills necessary for teaching
languages online; the model proposed by the two authors develops the idea,
already proposed by Bennett and Marsh (2002, quoted in Hampel & Stickler,
2005), that technical skills are not sufficient and that it is also necessary
to:
a.
be
able to acknowledge the differences with in-presence teaching;
b.
identify
strategies and techniques to facilitate interaction;
The model is,
therefore, CMC-oriented. The skills individuated by Hampel and Stickler are,
starting from the lowest level:
i.
Basic
informatic skills. They are the most diffused skills and form the basis of the
pyramid: knowledge of the basic mechanisms of operating systems, of how to use
the Internet, and of the most common programmes.
ii.
Specific
knowledge of the application being used. This is the immediately higher level,
at which the procedural mechanisms of the software application used for
language teaching, be it e-mails, an instant-messaging programme or a complete
platform, are known.
iii.
The
ability to manage the limits and individual features of the software
application. This is a more elaborate skill, in the sense presented above: the
software applications provide affordances to be used and also limits, with
which language educators need to be able to come to terms. In the specialised
literature we may find numerous analyses in that direction. For instance, in
audio communication that part which passes through visual perception is
missing; or, in communication through synchronous systems, there is not much
time to check one’s output. All of these features influence communication and
need to be carefully taken into consideration when designing tasks.
iv.
The
next level consists in the ability to create a sense of community in the
classroom. This is, as may be noticed, the first completely “non-technical”
point. This ability, which is related to the social turn that has occurred in
language pedagogy (Block, 2003) is fundamental in order to create in the
(virtual) classroom a sense of community, as the authors say (p. 318):
In the context of communicative language teaching, there
is no doubt that a classroom without a sense of community will be ill-suited
for successful learning. Role-plays, dialogues, information gap exercises, simulations—basically
any form of ‘‘meaningful communicative interaction’’ (Canale & Swain, 1980,
p. 27)—would hardly take place in a classroom without social cohesion and would
certainly not provide successful practice opportunities for communicative encounters.
This, however, is not a universally attainable goal and
success in this sense cannot be guaranteed by any endeavour. In other words,
the ability to create and support a sense of community and socialisation –
these being fundamental elements for the success of communicative approaches –
is something that may be taught, but not necessarily learnt. This is, in any
case, a sensitive point, the preserve of professional figures who work beyond
the boundaries of the linguistic framework, to tackle the difficult task of
successfully managing interpersonal relationships. Such is the price of
humanist, social and communicative approaches.
v.
An
even higher level presents the ability to facilitate communicative competency.
This is a simpler task than the previous one, for communicative competency is
developed through designing specific tasks or, more simply, by discussing
contents.
vi. The following level is that of creativity in task design (see previous
point) and in contents choice. Creativity is made manifest by the ability to
use tools in an innovative manner; that is to say, by adapting them to any
specific needs emerging from teaching activities. In this case also, this skill
is difficult to formalise.
vii. The final level, personal style, coincides with teachers’ ability to
integrate technologies with their own teaching style. Personal style develops
with time, en one is able to exploit and integrate all the basic skills.
The second application, instead, relates to a discussion forum (see Table
2.1).
Table 2.1. Competences for forum based activities
|
Application
|
Discussion
forum
|
|
Basic
competences
|
Minimal and
general knowledge of how Internet applications work. Problems relating to
surfing the Internet: e.g. activating a script, cancelling personal data, knowing
data input boxes and how to fill them in.
|
|
Specific
competences
|
Knowledge of
the different types of forum (tree-forum, sequential etc.). Creating new
forums, starting a conversation, cancelling/modifying messages, modifying
one’s profile, managing non-linguistic text elements (emoticons). Knowledge
of accessory elements, e.g. enclosing documentsto messages.
|
|
Limits and
strong points management
|
In
asynchronous systems, the fact of knowing how much time participants have
will allow them to investigate autonomously and to take care of language
form.
|
|
Socialisation
|
Creation of
specific rules (netiquette) for socialisation in this kind of environment:
e.g. do not write in capital letters; do not write off -topic messages.
|
|
Communicative
competency
|
Designing of
activities suitable for the asynchronous communication form, such as complex
group works requiring documentation and discussion. Defining homogeneous
groups so that all participants may contribute. Kol and Schcolnik (2008)
illustrate a series of rules in a pilot project, established in order to
“force” their students to communicate (e.g. posting a question on a topic
from a text which was not understood, answering at least one question).
|
|
Creativity
Personal style
|
|
According Compton
(2009) The
model proposed by Compton (2009) starts from a reviewing of Hampel and
Sickler’s work, and it makes an attempt to bring online language teaching into
the framework of Chapelle’s reflection (2001), which has, as seen before, a
strong linguistic matrix. Compton starts from a criticism to Hampel-Sickler’s
model, which develops in two directions. First the author questions the model’s
vertical and progressive approach; that is to say, the idea that some
competences ought to be learnt before others, of which they form the basis: for
instance, there is no reason to think that managing social skills on the
Internet should be a prerequisite to be able to develop communicative
competency: these two aspects can be developed simultaneously or in a different
order. The second point is the generic character of this model which, maintains
the author, might be applied to any branch of knowledge, since only one of the
skills listed by the authoresses, i.e. the ability to develop communicative
competency, is strictly pertaining to language pedagogy.
Compton’s model of
competences takes the form of a grid in which the columns represent the
different ambits – technology, pedagogy and evaluation whereas the lines
describe the different competence levels – i.e. novice, proficient or expert.
The importance of the first two ambits is almost obvious: technological skills
are necessary in order to choose and use applications (in an increasingly
creative and original manner), whilst pedagogic (language teaching) skills are needed
to design and develop language tasks. Knowledge about evaluation is an explicit
reference to Chapelle’s work8 (2001) which forms one of the most important
theoretical foundations for Compton’s work; the ability to evaluate is needed
in order to understand whether or not a certain activity has reached the aim
for which it was designed.
ü Technology
·
Novice.
Basic digital skills: working with an operative system and with its main
applications. On the basis of such skills, technologies for online teaching need
to be learnt; for example, learning platforms (e.g. Moodle). The different
mechanisms of applications as concerns communicative competency need to be
known; for example, the difference between synchronous and asynchronous
communication applications; it is also necessary to be able to use the main
applications for Computer-mediated communication. Finally, it is necessary to
be able to compare programmes with similar functions, for example Yahoo
Messenger and Skype.
·
Proficient.
At this level the teacher will be able to choose which application to use in
order to attain his or her goals. He or she should be able to autonomously find
applications and evaluate them; the teacher should, furthermore, be able to
deal with any limits of the various programmes. He or she will be able to
recognise the main extensions and to find the right programme to process the
various documents. Chapelle and Hegelheimer (2004) include among competences
the ability to solve browser-related problems and to work with the HTML language.
·
Expert.
The expert teacher is able to use applications creatively for didactic
activities. Many applications, in fact, were not designed for language
pedagogy, and they need to be adapted. The author quotes the example of virtual
worlds, in which experimentations in language teaching were carried out.
ü Pedagogy
·
Novice.
The basic level envisages knowledge of the most important phenomena of online
language pedagogy. The first of these is knowledge of the various strategies,
in order to foster socialisation on the Web; the second is knowledge of
strategies to foster communicative competency; the third aspect, finally, is
knowledge of online language evaluation methods. In addition to these three
aspects, the differences with in-presence language pedagogy need to be known.
·
Proficient.
At this level teachers should be able to choose suitable activities for online
language pedagogy, as well as to exploit the various language theories and
their potentials.
·
Expert.
At the expert level, having gained confidence with the items of the previous
levels, teachers should be able to use them in a creative manner; likewise they
should feel comfortable in carrying out evaluation.
ü Evaluation.
·
Novice.
The basic level envisages the knowledge of an evaluation model, such as
Chapelle’s (2001).
·
Proficient.
At this level teachers should be able to apply evaluation models and, if an
activity does not produce the results hoped for, they should be able to use
their technical and language-teaching competences to modify the tool or the
activity, or both.
·
Expert.
At the expert level teachers know several evaluation methods and are able to
integrate them with full autonomy; furthermore, at this level, teachers have no
difficulty in assessing the impact of technologies/activities over learning.
The importance of
pedagogy and the pivotal role of the teacher in online language education
clearly emerges from these works. Network technologies, and especially CMC, may offer an
original contribution to language pedagogy as they are based on interaction
among people: telecollaboration is perhaps the most significant example.
Precisely because they are integrated into language education, network
technologies need to be framed within a solid pedagogical and linguistic
rationale.
Pedagogy is indeed so
important in this online language learning that it expands outside its own
natural borders to inform, for instance, technical competences: a closer look
at the “digital competences” proposed by O’Dowd, may reveal how they are
heavily influenced by pedagogy, e.g. competence C8 “model social presence and
online identity for his/her students and help to create an online community of
trust and learning” (a perspective quite in line with Hampel & Stickler’s
pyramid).
CALL frameworks shown
in Chapter 2 focused on different elements, e.g. Underwood’s focused on the use
of technology, while Egbert & Hanson Smith focused on the environment; all
the works shown in this paragraph, on the contrary, focus on the teacher. It
might be argued that it is the interactive nature of network technologies that
causes the role of the teacher to become crucial, as shown, for instance, by
the fact that all these authors stress the importance for online language
education of the ability to build and manage a community.
C. Processes
In Teacher Education For The Internet
After
presenting the various options and models relating to online language teaching,
in this paragraph we will focus on training for them.
1.
Computer-Mediated
Communication
Computer Mediated Communication, in its various forms,
holds, as already mentioned above, a particular position with respect to
technologies: communication tools usually work in rather a simple and immediate
way, with a relatively low number of technical options. In spite of such
simplicity, however, digital media allow the connection of real persons:
following Warschauer and Kern’s principle (2000), the interaction no longer
occurs with the computer, but rather, through the computer. Research, then, has
moved towards the analysis of how tools influence such interaction, and how
online activities should be designed.
2. Distance-Teaching
In this ambit we resume Hampel and Stickler’s pyramid,
which was utilised by these two authors on several occasions.
Hampel and Stickler (2005) illustrate an online tutor
training course based on that model and applied to the platform in use in their
University (Lyceum) for distance-teaching. The part relating to tool knowledge
(point 2 – Specific competences on tool) was first carried out by means of a
tutorial, then through an in presence meeting, during which also the knowledge
of its limits and potentials was developed (point 3 – Strengths and limitations
management). A workshop in two sessions then followed, in order to improve
further knowledge of tools: while the first one served to illustrate more in
depth the platform systems, the second consisted in a simulation: the higher
levels of the pyramid are mostly developed autonomously andthrough experience.
D. Social
Networks And Mobile Technologies
Next to nothing has been written on training teachers for
social networks, and research on that subject seems to be still far from
defining this ambit: Blake (2013), for example, places among social
applications autonomous learning in portals specialised in language learning
(e.g. LiveMocha), as well as tandem learning. However, as we have already
remarked, social networks represent an external element that escapes the
control of educational institutions: their integration into Language Teacher
Education appears, therefore, to be rather complex, and may require further
steps in the reconstruction of the teaching practice itself; steps which the
educational institutions may not be willing to make, unless they can clearly
perceive obvious advantages deriving from them. It must, however, be noticed
that social networks may constitute a source of information for language
learners: Dettori and Torsani (2012), for instance, show how the Yahoo! Answers
portal is used by learners to ask questions about languages. Language teachers should
be aware of the potential and limits of these services for language learning.
On mobile learning the literature offers much as regards
experimentations, but again little is said about teacher training. And yet
research on this area, however quantitatively limited, offers useful insight
into a novel domain. Traxler (2005), for instance, does not focus on
pedagogical issues, but rather presents a series of point which are worth
considering for teachers interested in Mobile technology. The points are
interesting because, again, they show the role of the institutional context as
regards technology integration and also innovation becoming widespread.
Traxler’s work is also interesting as it shows how academia, institutions and
researchers deal with a technology that is still developing and diffusing while
it is researched as a potential tool for education.
