One interesting point that has really resonated with me from our readings is from the Ware/ Kramsch reading. We've talked about how important it is to explicitly state the instructions and what the teacher expects from the students (from these CALL applications), but I never really realized how critical this could actually be - resulting not only in the student deviating from the assignment BUT creating a complete meltdown in communication and motivation. Yikes!!! Once more this touches on the fact that - if a teacher does not fully study and understand the possibilities of how one of their CALL applications could be used, bad things could result.
So, after thinking of possible ways to avoid this type of breakdown in a CMC applcation, I would try the following: In an application such as a blog / wiki / or ACMC app like a forum, I would list out the instructions and exactly what points or framework the student(s) need(s) to follow. I would also state in the instructions that these blogs are part of the coursework and they will be monitored on a scheduled basis (this is determined by frequency/type of assignment) by the instructor and feedback will be provided. Next I would post a sample entry so they could see a model entry of what I consider to be acceptable. The model isn't there to be copied exactly or to inhibit their expression in any way - its there only for reference.
As far as the feedback goes - it will be submitted either by email OR if the application like Blogs support more advanced features like replys on replys than the feedback could be posted directly into the app. Another way is to have students submit their thoughts and the teacher moderate them - only sending feedback when there is an unacceptable post or when a post is missing from the student.
I feel by adding just a bit of structure around the applications it could eliminate any of these "wild west" activities.
I agree with you, Rosetta. As an instructor, I would definitely provide the necessary structure for my students in these communicative and intercultural activities. The amount of structure would also depend on the student population. I feel that structure should be provided, regardless of the students, but some students will need it more than others. Students must also know that they are being monitored, which helps them to take these computer-mediated activities more seriously. Ware & Kramsch see these potential miscommunications as "teachable moments". In other words, these "mishaps" force us, as educators, to be well informed about our practice, and pedagogical methods as they relate to not only linguistic, but pragmatic and intercultural competence. Both studies address the difficulties that we face as educators when we use technology as a means to communicate with other cultures. Belz & Vyatkina discussed what can happen when students do not follow the structure of computer-mediated communication. The differences in culture determine how we must communicate with one another, and this is one of the most salient points that educators must bring to the attention of students learning other languages.
I totally agree with both Ms. Buick and Ms. Bell in that its all about structure, structure, structure, but even before structure is taken into consideration, the initial focus should be on a well, thought out objectives, then followed by structure, finally, clear instructions. Another factor to consider is the motivation level of students. Ware and Kramsch's article illustrated a miscommunication and cultural oblivion on "Rob"'s part. According to the study, aside from Rob not following directions, he made assumptions that the German students were bothered by this assignment and also assumed Germans found Americans to be loud and obnoxious. They also profess that this misunderstanding offers opportunity for investigation as to why the misunderstanding ensued. As I sit there, thinking about how to utilize similar technology to foster meaningful interaction...the theme of cultural misinterpretation comes to mind...Why not set up some sort of asynchronous medium where students investigate why culture misunderstandings occur. This could be a platform to host discussions for students from either side of the pond and may be more beneficial and exciting; however, this idea of mine is useless unless it consists of a defined objective and structuring.
Ware & Kramsch bring up some interesting issues that may arise during intercultural exchanges being conducted in online classes or as a CALL element of a more traditional class. Difficulties may arise from personality conflicts, varying social adeptness, lack of cultural sensitivity, and skewed historical knowledge. We must also take into account that many English language learners probably have very different goals for learning a language than, say, an American student learning German. Also, the format of telecollaborative interactions themselves poses problems for communication. For instance, it is more difficult to interpret one’s intent…such as if a person is joking, being condescending, or being genuine but lack the language skills to adequately convey their stance. But what preventative measures can we take against situations like the one described in their study. Perhaps students should be explicitly informed about problems like this that may arise and be encouraged to try to be as sincere as possible during these encounters and exercise patience if they encounter difficulties. Rotating partners may also be a way to avoid personality conflicts and steer away from uncomfortable conversations that may develop over time. There is no denying the existence of many underlying linguistic and social power struggles that shouldn’t be ignored, and as Ware and Kramsch put it “In a world of globalized communication, the voices of local debate are in danger of being silenced by a communicative fetishism that both prizes and trivializes communication” (192). As online discourse continues to develop in character and purpose, we must keep these factors in mind and try to give those stifled by dominant and some very highly commercially influenced modes of communication a voice. But how?
Rob's performance in this article was really interesting. Like we discussed in class, how can this be prevented? It seems like the answer was that education on both sides will help to reduce issues such as the one with Rob. However, these cross-cultural pragmatic issues won't disappear. When there are problems, the instructor needs to evaluate and record what happened so that future groups can be better educated about how to avoid and/or deal with pragmatic issues that arise in CMC (and other arenas). As for the role of the instructor in general, I think this is a tough issue. As teachers, (I think) we have a natural inclination to be involved. But, for the benefit of the students, we need to keep our distance at certain times, this being one of them. People suggested in class that maybe the messages should be sent through the teacher. This would definitely help to solve the problem but it seems like it would also take away from the value of this communication. The student would no longer be independent. I think it's worth the risk to leave the student out there on his/her own (without the instructor hovering) with the possibility that mistakes could be made. When issues do arise, they can be dealt with then.
To help prevent issues such as the one with Rob’s performance, Ware & Kramsch propose that teachers discuss jointly with students “ways of imagining the logic of another person by interpreting his or her utterances, according to evidence from external facts and from the on-going discourse, not random speculation.” (p.203). More and more, students are exploring the nature of language and communication across cultures through technology, and it is one of the teacher's roles to help them take this “intercultural stance” of interpreting their interlocutors attitudes in order to communicate effectively. There will always be cross-cultural pragmatic issues, but teachers can minimize their effects by helping students go beyond understanding the surface meaning of words to discovering the logic of their interlocutors’ utterances, which will lead learners to understanding the logic underlying language, and consequently, the viewpoints of others.
This article had more conflict than the usual scientific article, so it made for more interesting reading. In the end, I think classroom management is classroom management whether it's on or off-line. I've had a few "Rob's" in class and it is difficult to keep them from taking over -- that's not going to change in a discussion board setting. Ultimately, it's up to you as a teacher to let "Rob" know what is or isn't appropriate. In other words, it wasn't the on-line nature of the assignment that made Rob the way he is (though it might have made him feel safer to spout his ideas).
I agree with the other posts that mention the importance of instructions, directions, parameters, and rubrics in on-line assignments. If your assignment is merely "post to the discussion board" then anything goes. Just like any other assignment, the teacher should set up clear expectations or they will end up with a free-for-all. Also, without a clear rubric (unless the activity is not graded) how do you judge one post versus another? Many of the assignments we have read about seem to cast students out into a "new" technology with even less instruction than they would have received in a "traditional" paper-based assignment.
I guess there are standards yet to be written: what do we expect, as teachers, from a discussion board post? A blog post? IM chat? Unless we let student's know our own guidelines we give free reign to the "Robs" of the world.
Before Belz and Vyatkina's article, I had never heard of a "learner's corpus" before (or maybe never really thought about it much). I think a learner's corpus is a great tool for assessment for both teachers and learners and a great way to provide students with input about their usage and progress of a student's pragmatic competence of a work or grammar pattern.
I was trying to think of an aspect of pragmatic competence of English where a learner's corpus could be utilized and thought maybe modals and politeness? I think technology would have to be advanced in order to do this, but it would be interesting for students to have to interact with some sort of customer service/support agent through email and online chat (many places offer this now). The students would have to make request and perhaps refusals if the agent is trying to sell them something. Normally, both the agent and customer (in this case, the student) are courteous and polite towards each other. This would create an authentic dialogue and the corpus could be used for students to see how the native speaking agent used modals to be polite and how the students used them (and if they used them correctly).
As discussed in class, Rob's behavior was completely unforeseen, and most likely unpreventable. Clear instructions for the assignment were provided, but Rob disregarded them. I agree with Nathan's statement that it's worth the risk to let students interact, and situations such as this should be dealt with when they arise. The activity discussed in this study was designed well enough to keep this situation from making the whole project fall apart. Marie was able to participate in the follow-up activity and assess her experience. She was also part of a larger group, so although she was not able to continue to participate directly, she was not isolated. As for the situation with Rob, I think that this was the perfect opportunity for the instructor to point out cultural differences. To acknowledge cultural differences in theory is not the same as putting it into practice. In this regard, cross-cultural activities such as this one are a great benefit to the students. Perhaps the instructors from both groups could also participate, setting a model of sorts, and also creating a feeling of community rather than maintaining the teacher-student divide. The task would then be perceived as an inter-cultural experience for all rather than a forced assignment. It might also make it easier for the instructor to monitor exchanges.
I completely agree with Jonathan's point that classroom management is classroom management even when offline. I found Rob's misunderstanding and the resulting language behaviors strange because all the students had been given direct instructions in what to accomplish in every task. They had been given surveys about eachother and still everything departed from the actual goal. I think that in such as case, as with any type of CALL program I would always keep a classroom component. I would establish a model in class for the students to follow. I would guide them through a sample pen pal, and just have consistent reminders of what is expected of them. I know this helps, even in our CALL class I feel that I cannot just master a procedure or an expectation on the first try, I have to be constantly reminded about what is the task and what I need to respond to. The same is it students because they all have different learning styles. In my opinion, Rob had a case that goes beyond cultural misunderstanding, it seems he did not feel the task was meaningful to begin with. Maybe actually having these pen pals talk about eachother's cultural differences or perceptions of each other would be a better task, but with structure, structure, structure to guide them. More feedback should have been given too by the instructors, since they are writing, not just the discussion.
I agree with Laura that Rob's behavior seems to be more than a cultural misunderstanding. His tendency to completely blow off the assignment may stem either from an overly casual view of CMC or from the emboldening that the relative anonymity of online communication provides. Clear expectations and specific parameters for the assignment from the instructor may have prevented the "Rob incident" but not necessarily. It is good that the breakdown in communication did not completely sidetrack Marie from completing the assignment. We come into contact with all manner of people, and I think that the "Rob incident," while not allowing Marie to fully engage in the assignment, provided her with a more valuable lesson.
The take-home point for us as teachers, as many have already stated, is to provide explicit instructions, structure, checkpoints, and examples. However, not every possible contingency can be anticipated, and there also needs to be a balance so that students feel that they have some freedom in the learning process. Being flexible, thinking on your feet, and possessing the ability to make suitable changes in instruction are also vital skills.
One interesting point that has really resonated with me from our readings is from the Ware/ Kramsch reading. We've talked about how important it is to explicitly state the instructions and what the teacher expects from the students (from these CALL applications), but I never really realized how critical this could actually be - resulting not only in the student deviating from the assignment BUT creating a complete meltdown in communication and motivation. Yikes!!! Once more this touches on the fact that - if a teacher does not fully study and understand the possibilities of how one of their CALL applications could be used, bad things could result.
ReplyDeleteSo, after thinking of possible ways to avoid this type of breakdown in a CMC applcation, I would try the following: In an application such as a blog / wiki / or ACMC app like a forum, I would list out the instructions and exactly what points or framework the student(s) need(s) to follow. I would also state in the instructions that these blogs are part of the coursework and they will be monitored on a scheduled basis (this is determined by frequency/type of assignment) by the instructor and feedback will be provided. Next I would post a sample entry so they could see a model entry of what I consider to be acceptable. The model isn't there to be copied exactly or to inhibit their expression in any way - its there only for reference.
As far as the feedback goes - it will be submitted either by email OR if the application like Blogs support more advanced features like replys on replys than the feedback could be posted directly into the app. Another way is to have students submit their thoughts and the teacher moderate them - only sending feedback when there is an unacceptable post or when a post is missing from the student.
I feel by adding just a bit of structure around the applications it could eliminate any of these "wild west" activities.
I agree with you, Rosetta. As an instructor, I would definitely provide the necessary structure for my students in these communicative and intercultural activities. The amount of structure would also depend on the student population. I feel that structure should be provided, regardless of the students, but some students will need it more than others. Students must also know that they are being monitored, which helps them to take these computer-mediated activities more seriously. Ware & Kramsch see these potential miscommunications as "teachable moments". In other words, these "mishaps" force us, as educators, to be well informed about our practice, and pedagogical methods as they relate to not only linguistic, but pragmatic and intercultural competence. Both studies address the difficulties that we face as educators when we use technology as a means to communicate with other cultures. Belz & Vyatkina discussed what can happen when students do not follow the structure of computer-mediated communication. The differences in culture determine how we must communicate with one another, and this is one of the most salient points that educators must bring to the attention of students learning other languages.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with both Ms. Buick and Ms. Bell in that its all about structure, structure, structure, but even before structure is taken into consideration, the initial focus should be on a well, thought out objectives, then followed by structure, finally, clear instructions. Another factor to consider is the motivation level of students. Ware and Kramsch's article illustrated a miscommunication and cultural oblivion on "Rob"'s part. According to the study, aside from Rob not following directions, he made assumptions that the German students were bothered by this assignment and also assumed Germans found Americans to be loud and obnoxious. They also profess that this misunderstanding offers opportunity for investigation as to why the misunderstanding ensued. As I sit there, thinking about how to utilize similar technology to foster meaningful interaction...the theme of cultural misinterpretation comes to mind...Why not set up some sort of asynchronous medium where students investigate why culture misunderstandings occur. This could be a platform to host discussions for students from either side of the pond and may be more beneficial and exciting; however, this idea of mine is useless unless it consists of a defined objective and structuring.
ReplyDeleteWare & Kramsch bring up some interesting issues that may arise during intercultural exchanges being conducted in online classes or as a CALL element of a more traditional class. Difficulties may arise from personality conflicts, varying social adeptness, lack of cultural sensitivity, and skewed historical knowledge. We must also take into account that many English language learners probably have very different goals for learning a language than, say, an American student learning German. Also, the format of telecollaborative interactions themselves poses problems for communication. For instance, it is more difficult to interpret one’s intent…such as if a person is joking, being condescending, or being genuine but lack the language skills to adequately convey their stance. But what preventative measures can we take against situations like the one described in their study. Perhaps students should be explicitly informed about problems like this that may arise and be encouraged to try to be as sincere as possible during these encounters and exercise patience if they encounter difficulties. Rotating partners may also be a way to avoid personality conflicts and steer away from uncomfortable conversations that may develop over time. There is no denying the existence of many underlying linguistic and social power struggles that shouldn’t be ignored, and as Ware and Kramsch put it “In a world of globalized communication, the voices of local debate are in danger of being silenced by a communicative fetishism that both prizes and trivializes communication” (192). As online discourse continues to develop in character and purpose, we must keep these factors in mind and try to give those stifled by dominant and some very highly commercially influenced modes of communication a voice. But how?
ReplyDeleteRob's performance in this article was really interesting. Like we discussed in class, how can this be prevented? It seems like the answer was that education on both sides will help to reduce issues such as the one with Rob. However, these cross-cultural pragmatic issues won't disappear. When there are problems, the instructor needs to evaluate and record what happened so that future groups can be better educated about how to avoid and/or deal with pragmatic issues that arise in CMC (and other arenas). As for the role of the instructor in general, I think this is a tough issue. As teachers, (I think) we have a natural inclination to be involved. But, for the benefit of the students, we need to keep our distance at certain times, this being one of them. People suggested in class that maybe the messages should be sent through the teacher. This would definitely help to solve the problem but it seems like it would also take away from the value of this communication. The student would no longer be independent. I think it's worth the risk to leave the student out there on his/her own (without the instructor hovering) with the possibility that mistakes could be made. When issues do arise, they can be dealt with then.
ReplyDeleteTo help prevent issues such as the one with Rob’s performance, Ware & Kramsch propose that teachers discuss jointly with students “ways of imagining the logic of another person by interpreting his or her utterances, according to evidence from external facts and from the on-going discourse, not random speculation.” (p.203). More and more, students are exploring the nature of language and communication across cultures through technology, and it is one of the teacher's roles to help them take this “intercultural stance” of interpreting their interlocutors attitudes in order to communicate effectively.
ReplyDeleteThere will always be cross-cultural pragmatic issues, but teachers can minimize their effects by helping students go beyond understanding the surface meaning of words to discovering the logic of their interlocutors’ utterances, which will lead learners to understanding the logic underlying language, and consequently, the viewpoints of others.
This article had more conflict than the usual scientific article, so it made for more interesting reading. In the end, I think classroom management is classroom management whether it's on or off-line. I've had a few "Rob's" in class and it is difficult to keep them from taking over -- that's not going to change in a discussion board setting. Ultimately, it's up to you as a teacher to let "Rob" know what is or isn't appropriate. In other words, it wasn't the on-line nature of the assignment that made Rob the way he is (though it might have made him feel safer to spout his ideas).
ReplyDeleteI agree with the other posts that mention the importance of instructions, directions, parameters, and rubrics in on-line assignments. If your assignment is merely "post to the discussion board" then anything goes. Just like any other assignment, the teacher should set up clear expectations or they will end up with a free-for-all. Also, without a clear rubric (unless the activity is not graded) how do you judge one post versus another? Many of the assignments we have read about seem to cast students out into a "new" technology with even less instruction than they would have received in a "traditional" paper-based assignment.
I guess there are standards yet to be written: what do we expect, as teachers, from a discussion board post? A blog post? IM chat? Unless we let student's know our own guidelines we give free reign to the "Robs" of the world.
-Jonathan Gourlay
Before Belz and Vyatkina's article, I had never heard of a "learner's corpus" before (or maybe never really thought about it much). I think a learner's corpus is a great tool for assessment for both teachers and learners and a great way to provide students with input about their usage and progress of a student's pragmatic competence of a work or grammar pattern.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to think of an aspect of pragmatic competence of English where a learner's corpus could be utilized and thought maybe modals and politeness? I think technology would have to be advanced in order to do this, but it would be interesting for students to have to interact with some sort of customer service/support agent through email and online chat (many places offer this now). The students would have to make request and perhaps refusals if the agent is trying to sell them something. Normally, both the agent and customer (in this case, the student) are courteous and polite towards each other. This would create an authentic dialogue and the corpus could be used for students to see how the native speaking agent used modals to be polite and how the students used them (and if they used them correctly).
Hmm I wonder if this would work...
As discussed in class, Rob's behavior was completely unforeseen, and most likely unpreventable. Clear instructions for the assignment were provided, but Rob disregarded them. I agree with Nathan's statement that it's worth the risk to let students interact, and situations such as this should be dealt with when they arise.
ReplyDeleteThe activity discussed in this study was designed well enough to keep this situation from making the whole project fall apart. Marie was able to participate in the follow-up activity and assess her experience. She was also part of a larger group, so although she was not able to continue to participate directly, she was not isolated.
As for the situation with Rob, I think that this was the perfect opportunity for the instructor to point out cultural differences. To acknowledge cultural differences in theory is not the same as putting it into practice. In this regard, cross-cultural activities such as this one are a great benefit to the students.
Perhaps the instructors from both groups could also participate, setting a model of sorts, and also creating a feeling of community rather than maintaining the teacher-student divide. The task would then be perceived as an inter-cultural experience for all rather than a forced assignment. It might also make it easier for the instructor to monitor exchanges.
I completely agree with Jonathan's point that classroom management is classroom management even when offline. I found Rob's misunderstanding and the resulting language behaviors strange because all the students had been given direct instructions in what to accomplish in every task. They had been given surveys about eachother and still everything departed from the actual goal.
ReplyDeleteI think that in such as case, as with any type of CALL program I would always keep a classroom component. I would establish a model in class for the students to follow. I would guide them through a sample pen pal, and just have consistent reminders of what is expected of them. I know this helps, even in our CALL class I feel that I cannot just master a procedure or an expectation on the first try, I have to be constantly reminded about what is the task and what I need to respond to. The same is it students because they all have different learning styles. In my opinion, Rob had a case that goes beyond cultural misunderstanding, it seems he did not feel the task was meaningful to begin with. Maybe actually having these pen pals talk about eachother's cultural differences or perceptions of each other would be a better task, but with structure, structure, structure to guide them. More feedback should have been given too by the instructors, since they are writing, not just the discussion.
I agree with Laura that Rob's behavior seems to be more than a cultural misunderstanding. His tendency to completely blow off the assignment may stem either from an overly casual view of CMC or from the emboldening that the relative anonymity of online communication provides. Clear expectations and specific parameters for the assignment from the instructor may have prevented the "Rob incident" but not necessarily. It is good that the breakdown in communication did not completely sidetrack Marie from completing the assignment. We come into contact with all manner of people, and I think that the "Rob incident," while not allowing Marie to fully engage in the assignment, provided her with a more valuable lesson.
ReplyDeleteThe take-home point for us as teachers, as many have already stated, is to provide explicit instructions, structure, checkpoints, and examples. However, not every possible contingency can be anticipated, and there also needs to be a balance so that students feel that they have some freedom in the learning process. Being flexible, thinking on your feet, and possessing the ability to make suitable changes in instruction are also vital skills.
Trischa