Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
Yüklə 0,63 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
|
. Mediate interaction through various communication media and use different media for different interaction purposes Course structure . Apply task-based instruction to foster a learner-centred learning environment . Strive for focus on form and emergent, learner-based linguistic ‘instruction’ . Vary the course structure to cater to various learning needs and styles . Conduct constant formative assessment to construct individualised learning support
. Incorporate activities that help learners to strengthen their ability to manage their learning . Encourage learners to co-construct class resources and the learning environment Computer Assisted Language Learning 85
intended to evaluate CALL tasks, it can be adapted to evaluate online language learning tasks. Additionally, it can help to inform the task design process. Besides knowledge about task and software evaluation, the novice teacher should also know different ways to evaluate the course. For example, knowing the difference between formative and summative evaluation and the functions of these evaluations are important for any course evaluation. Based on the knowledge acquired at the novice level, the proficient teacher can learn to apply the different frameworks and use various strategies for task, software, and course evaluations. If evidence from the evaluations show that the learning outcome is not met, the proficient teacher is able to rely on his/her pedagogical and technological skills to make the necessary modifications. While the proficient teacher is capable of using one or more frameworks to evaluate the three areas (task, software and course) on their impact on learning outcomes, the expert teacher is able to conduct the evaluation using integrative methods, i.e. combining several ways of evaluation. Moreover, the expert teacher is more insightful than the proficient teacher and is able to quickly identify the impact on learning outcomes based on their extensive knowledge of evaluative frameworks. Evaluation may even become a subconscious effort. This proposed framework in this section attempts to address the limitations in Hampel and Stickler’s (2005) skills pyramid. This alternate framework divides online language teaching skills into three categories (technology, pedagogy, and evaluation) and describes the different skills at three levels of expertise (novice, proficient and expert). This framework will be used to guide the recommendations for teacher education in a later section. The following section will review the different roles and responsibilities of an online teacher using a systems view. Role and responsibilities of an online language teacher and other stakeholders: a systems view This section reviews the role and responsibilities of an online language teacher using Moore and Kearsley’s (1996) systems view to show how the teacher and other stakeholders contribute to the success of online learning. This literature review will not analyse the roles played by the online teacher within the virtual classroom (e.g. facilitator, moderator, motivator and modeller) because it has been done by other writers (see Harasim, Hiltz, Table 2.
Criteria for CALL task appropriateness (Chapelle, 2001, p. 55). Language learning potential The degree of opportunity present for beneficial focus on form Meaning focus The extent to which learners’ attention is directed toward the meaning of the language Learner fit The amount of opportunity for engagement with language under appropriate conditions given learner characteristics Authenticity The degree of correspondence between the learning activity and target language activities of interest to learners out of the classroom Positive impact The positive effects of the CALL activity on those who participate in it Practicality The adequacy of resources to support the use of the CALL activity 86 L.K.L. Compton Teles, & Turoff, 1997; Hauck & Haezewindt, 1999; Lynch, 2002; White, 2003). Instead, this literature review looks at online language learning as a system, and the role of the teacher as one of the stakeholders in the learning process. This approach will allow us to understand how different components work together, with whom online language teachers have to work and the scope of assistance other stakeholders can provide. Moore and Kearsley’s (1996) systems view was used to describe the distance education (DE) system. Because online learning is a form of DE, the use of the systems view is easily adapted for this literature review. From this point onwards, any reference to DE by these authors and others will be used to refer to online language learning. According to Moore & Kearsley (1996): a distance education system consists of all the component processes that make up distance education, including learning, teaching, communication, design, and management . . . [and] anything that happens in one part of the system has an effect on other parts of the system (p. 5) They believed that the use of a systems view as a conceptual tool can help us to understand DE and that it can act as a control mechanism that ‘ensures all the component processes are well integrated and interact with each other’ (p. 6). Based on this systems view, neither the teacher nor the technology alone will make DE work because there are other critical components. Moore and Kearsley (1996) identified eight key stakeholders in the DE system: student, course developer, site coordinator, tutor, proctor, student support services, management/ administration and teacher. Table 3 summarises the stakeholders and their responsibilities. While each stakeholder has his or her own responsibilities, these responsibilities affect those held by the teacher. Additionally, the teacher’s responsibilities may overlap with those of other stakeholders, depending on the circumstances at the local and remote sites. 1 Also, depending on the resources available at the remote institution, the roles of some Table 3. Stakeholders in a distance education system and their responsibilities. Stakeholder Responsibilities Student Self-directing and have learner autonomy Course developer Works in a team of specialists including technology, content, media, and instructional design specialists Site coordinator Communicates with the teacher, student, and the larger community, organises and manages local circumstances, provides learner support at local site for administrative, technological, and content issues Tutor
Provides individualised instruction, grade assignments, and monitor student progress Proctor Proctors exams and quizzes at local sites Student support services
Counsellor provides guidance; administrative staff provides routine administrative assistance Management/ administration Manages policy, planning, staffing, budgets, scheduling, resources, etc Teacher
Humanises the learning environment, facilitates and encourages interaction, organises and presents information, and provides feedback Computer Assisted Language Learning 87
stakeholders, particularly the site coordinator, tutor, proctor and student support services, may overlap. As an online student, the responsibilities include self-direction and conducting learner autonomy. White (2003) stated that learner autonomy can be developed in two ways. The first approach emphasised learner training while the second emphasised on learners’ choice in opportunities and negotiation of meaning in social interactions. In the first approach, learner strategy training is especially important for CALL because language learners cannot be expected to take a significant amount of responsibility for their own learning if they do not know how languages are learned. As pointed out in Smidt and Hegelheimer (2004), some low level learners engaged in wrong input enhancements and they were less likely to use metacognitive strategies while listening to online academic lectures. These resulted in low success rates in comprehension tasks. Hubbard (2004) stressed that CALL learner training is part of the teacher’s responsibility to help students make ‘informed decisions about how to use computer resources effectively to meet their learning objectives’ (p. 51). However, because learner training takes preparation and class time, teachers need to consider the pros and cons before implementing them. The second learner autonomy approach emphasises negotiation of meaning. White (2003) stated that learner autonomy includes the ‘capacity to negotiate and develop control of learning experiences while interacting with others in the learning community’ (p. 161). Therefore, teachers should ensure that there are ample interaction opportunities and provide sufficient guidance and support for learners in their selection of learning options. The next stakeholder in the DE system is the course developer. Moore and Kearsley (1996) identified two common models for course design. The first was the author–editor model, in which the subject matter expert drafted the curriculum and an editor produced the final document. The second model was the course team model, which included technology, media, content and instructional design specialists at different stages of the course development. Each model has its strengths and weaknesses. For example, the author–editor model is a faster and cheaper model but may lack the good instructional design features of the course team model. The role of the teacher can vary significantly depending on which model is used for the creation of the online language course. In many cases where the online language course is a new innovation that is not supported by the department or institution, the teacher may end up becoming the course developer and having to invest a lot of personal resources (time, money and energy) to design the course by himself. The teacher should therefore have some knowledge of free or cheap resources that can be used for online language learning as well as some basic instructional systems design. On the contrary, an online language course that is supported and implemented by the department may have access to resources needed for the course team model. The site coordinator (SC) plays an important role in a DE system. His responsibilities can vary depending on the resources available at the remote site. However, his primary responsibility is to maintain excellent communication. Moore and Kearsley (1996) said that the SC needed to communicate well with the instructor so he can carry out the instructor’s plans. Additionally, the SC has to maintain good communication with the students so he can assist them with their needs. The SC may also need to communicate with the larger community so that information about the course can be disseminated to potential students. Because the SC is in charge of everything at the remote site, he needs to have some technical competence. Some basic technical knowledge required might include software/hardware installation and the ability to troubleshoot or recognise the problems so the appropriate specialists can be contacted. The SC also needs to have some content knowledge so that they can discuss matters with the instructor and assist the students if 88 L.K.L. Compton necessary. If the SC has some content knowledge, it would be easier to understand the instructor’s instructions and ‘arrange local circumstances [at the remote site] to see the goal is achieved’ (Moore & Kearsley, 1996, p. 245). In the US K-12 virtual schooling (VS) system, the SC is known as the facilitator and also plays the role of a DE course counsellor where s/he advises students in their selection of DE courses based on their learning needs (Harms, Niederhauser, Davis, Roblyer & Gilbert, 2006). Additionally, Harms et al. said that the facilitator may also serve as ‘a coach to prepare students for VS, including the development of organisational and other study skills necessary to be successful online learners’ (p. 9). In other words, the facilitator might help students to develop their responsibilities for self-direction and learner autonomy. Harms et al. also added that the facilitator needs to promote co-presence, especially if there is more than one student at the same remote site. The promotion of co- presence can help to increase motivation and peer support. These responsibilities are similar to those shouldered by the student or learner support services in some learning institutions. White (2003) listed three primary functions of learner support: cognitive, affective and systemic. In the first two columns, Table 4 lists the functions and scope of learner support services according to White (2003). The third column in Table 4 lists the roles that, according to different studies, hold similar responsibilities to illustrate the overlap among the roles and responsibilities of site coordinators or facilitators, tutors and student services. Moore and Kearsley (1996) identified the tutor as a stakeholder in the DE system. They pointed out that some DE systems (especially correspondence courses and open university courses) that have limited or no student–student or student–instructor interactions often appoint a personal tutor to students. This tutor is usually neither the course designer nor the person who presents the course content. The responsibilities of this Table 4.
Functions and scope of learner support services and the overlap in roles. Functions of learner support Scope of learner support services Role as listed in studies Cognitive Tutoring
Tutor (Moore & Kearsley, 1996) Study groups and centres, actual and virtual Student support services (Moore & Kearsley, 1996) Learning support (including study and exam skills seminars, 1:1 assistance) Facilitator (Harms et al., 2006) Student support services (Moore & Kearsley, 1996) Affective
Guidance and advisory services (including motivational counselling) Facilitator (Harms, et al., 2006) Student support services (Moore & Kearsley, 1996) Residential schools 1 n/a Peer contact Facilitator (Harms et al., 2006) Systemic Enquiry and admission services Facilitator (Harms et al., 2006) Student support services (Moore & Kearsley, 1996) Course/academic information and guidance Facilitator (Harms et al., 2006) Site coordinator (Moore & Kearsley, 1996)
Note: Residential schools in this context refer to those offered by the Open University, UK. ‘There are now more than 50 Open University courses running a residential school. These last from one day to a full week and are based at universities, hotels, conference and field study centres in the UK and mainland Europe. Language schools run in France, Germany and Spain.’ (Retrieved May 8, 2008 from http://css2.open.ac.uk/resschools/ AboutResSchools.aspx) Computer Assisted Language Learning 89
tutor are to interact on a one-to-one basis with the student and to provide individualised instruction. White (2003) listed tutoring responsibilities under learner support services. She shared an example where a weekly one-to-one telephone tutorial allowed the tutor to support the student in the following manner: . negotiating learning targets for the week; . identifying further materials for each learner based on individual needs; . advice on learning routes and language learning strategies; . feedback on performance – simple error correction offered instantaneously; evaluation and correction of pronunciation and intonation; summary of errors and correction of structures at the end of interchanges; evaluation of progress as a whole. (White, 2003, p. 178) In addition to the mentioned support, the language tutor can also provide opportunities for oral practice through phone (Radic, 2000, 2001 in White, 2003). In forms of DE other than correspondence and open university courses, the responsibilities of the tutor as listed by Moore and Kearsley (1996), such as grading assignments and monitoring student progress, can be shouldered by the SC. In the state of Iowa in the USA, the online learning system (Iowa Learning Online (ILO)) mandates the role of a student coach that is similar to Moore and Kearsley’s (1996) SC. In addition to the administrative, technical, and content responsibilities, the student coach is also responsible for monitoring student progress and providing reports to both the instructor and the students’ parents (see Iowa Learning Online, n.d.). This ILO student coach is also responsible for Moore and Kearsley’s proctor’s duties, including proctoring quizzes and exams and managing the passwords for students’ access to the assessment tools. However, the ILO student coach does not grade the quizzes and exams. In a different Iowa context that is unaffiliated with ILO, the grading responsibilities are taken on by the SC using a rubric provided by the instructor (see Davis & Compton, 2005). Besides counselling and tutoring services, White (2003) also listed technical support to be a systemic function of learner support services. Examples of technical support included informational technology orientation at the beginning of the course and subsequent support for technological matters throughout the course. This differs from the SC’s technical responsibilities listed by Moore and Kearsley (1996), which focused more on the technical matters before and during instruction. White cited Radic (2000) who set up a technical help desk for students. He believed that it was essential to the effectiveness of the course because it not only helped to solve students’ technical problems but also established students’ confidence in the institution, the delivery mode, the teaching method and the tutor/moderator. The next stakeholder in Moore & Kearsley’s DE system is the management/ administration. This level of administrative duty differs from the administrative duties that are held by the SC or the learner support services. Generally, management/ administration deals with the budget, resources, staffing, scheduling, policies and other institutional matters. At the remote site, the administrative duties are held by the SC and they include dissemination and distribution of content materials, record keeping and other administrative procedures relating to instructional matters. Meanwhile, learner support staff might provide administrative assistance that includes course registration, fees and other administrative aspects of a course or programme. The case study of a high school partnership provides a good example of the three levels of administrative duties (see Davis & Compton, 2005). In this case study, a rural Iowa high 90 L.K.L. Compton school was unable to hire a chemistry teacher. The principal then negotiated with another Iowa high school to offer the course at a distance via the Iowa Communication Network (ICN), a two-way interactive video system with studio classrooms in all school districts and most high schools in Iowa. The two high school principals and school counsellors determined the timetable of the course so students from both schools could work on the course at the same time. They also decided on the teacher who should teach the course and the amount of compensation provided to that teacher. Meanwhile, the SC at the remote site was in charge of administrative procedures such as receiving and distributing materials and record keeping. On the other hand, the secretary at the remote school provided administrative assistance by making copies of a faxed paper quiz from the teacher. The final stakeholder in the DE system is the online teacher. The responsibility of the online teacher is to develop co-presence in their virtual classroom so the learning environment feels less distant (Harms et al, 2006; Moore & Kearsley, 1996). Building a learning community can promote group rapport and full participation from students. Hiltz (1994) reported that when an online community was successfully fostered, students said they learned more and felt closer to their peers and instructor compared to traditional classroom settings. Additionally, the online teacher has to facilitate and encourage active participation and high levels of interaction. The online teacher also has to be effective in providing feedback so the students can monitor their progress. All these require skills that have been discussed in the previous section. Moore and Kearsley (1996) pointed out that the responsibilities of the online teacher not only differ from traditional classroom but also depending on which level of DE. They used Michael Mark’s (1990) typology that divided DE into four levels as listed in Table 5. An online teacher at the distance learning programme will undoubtedly play more roles than those at the other three levels. For example, an online teacher of a single DE course in a conventional learning institution may have to handle the administrative duties, whereas a distance learning institution would have staff designated specifically for such matters. Additionally, an online teacher of a single course may have to personally provide technical, cognitive affective and systemic support if students are not located at any remote sites where learner support services are available. In a distance learning institution such as the United Kingdom’s Open University, there may be no need for online teachers. Instead, the primary instructional role is the tutor who supports the students’ learning (see The Open University, n.d.). This section used Moore and Kearsley’s systems view to review the roles and responsibilities of eight stakeholders in an online learning system. Each stakeholder plays Yüklə 0,63 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|