Learner Autonomy and Tandem Learning: Putting Principles Into Practice...(Schweinhorst, 2003)

In his paper, Schweinhorst (2003) focusses on three different yet interdependent perspectives to learner autonomy within the framework of CMC:

1. The individual-cognitive perspective emphasizes reflection and awareness and how they facilitate learners to constantly improve their own construct system. Validating tools such as questionnaires can help them to evaluate their learning.

2. The social-interactive perspective emphasizes meaningful interactions with native speakers and peers through, for example, project work. Interactions that involve both scaffolding and feedback (especially written feedback) helps learners to develop language and linguistic awareness.

3. The experimental-participatory perspective emphasizes the fact that learners should be given control over their learning, by experimenting with cognitive tools such as authoring tools that can help learners to raise their awareness of language.

Schweinhorst also talks about one example of learner autonomy principles in practice, known as tandem learning, which involves the pairing up of two learners of complementary L1-L2 combinations so that they can learn from each other. Based on his experience of running a tandem e-mail project, the author notes that problems do arise with this setup, especially when communication is conducted via the internet using commercially-produced e-mail clients. A far more effective setup is to have a dedicated web site exclusively for tandem-learning partners such as the one that was set up by Appel and Mullen (2000) called the Electronic Tandem Resources (ETR). Apart from having a superior organizational structure, the ETR contains a variety of useful tools for the learner, including one that measures the quantity of L1 and L2 content in each e-mail message that is written and sent.

The author also talks about his experiences in running tandem MOO projects, where tandem partners communicate synchronously. Despite taking a number of measures to maximize the project’s success, such as ensuring that learners were given choices, the project was initially beset by problems of a practical as well as technical nature. But after introducing a few changes to the project structure, such as the inclusion of manageable task-based work leading to well-defined short-term goals as well as web-based dictionaries, the outcomes were much improved.

Finally, the author draws from a framework of pressures, affordances and potentials – three areas in which a combination of technology and pedagogy will affect reflective processes – to effectively evaluate medium- and pedagogy-specific factors in CMC, as well learner and teacher roles.

This article reminds us once again that effective CALL development relies on both technology and pedagogy; neither one should be neglected at the expense of the other, since they are interconnected in highly complex ways. Oh, and don't forget about the theory too.

A reflective summary of ‘Technology in testing: the present and the future (J. Charles Alderson)

In this article, Alderson (2000)

i. reviews the pros and cons of computer-based language tests (CBTs);

ii. explores developments in Web-based testing, citing examples such as the Educational Testing Services’ computer-based TOEFL and the large-scale diagnostic testing project, DIALANG; and

iii. outlines a research agenda for future studies

According to the author, there are technical, administrative and pedagogical advantages of using CBTs over paper-and-pencil tests. Some of these include immediate student feedback, personalized testing, increased options for test administration, the possibility of storing enormous amounts of data for research purposes, and increased test security through test item randomization.

On the flip side, notable disadvantages include the possibility of bias against computer illiterate individuals, limitations in technology which do not allow for accurate assessment of productive language skills, and limited choice of test formats (e.g. multiple choice and gap-fill) which can lead to decontextualized forms of testing.

It seems that the advantages are great enough to warrant the development and use of computer-based tests in the field of EFL; however, at the time when Alderson’s (2000) article was written, very few attempts had been made by test writers to develop value-added web-based assessments. CBT TOEFL was one of those, which, according to the author, contained a number of innovative features but offered no evidence of value-addedness in the eyes of test candidates. On the other hand, DIALANG, which was, and still is, being used for only non-certification purposes, is rather innovative. It can assess proficiency in reading, writing, listening, vocabulary and grammar in 14 different European languages.

The author concludes his article by posing a list of intriguing questions for future researchers to mull over. The ones that evoke my curiosity the most are, “What does the provision of support imply for the validity of the tests, and for the constructs that can be measured?” and “What is the value of allowing learners to have a second attempt, with or without feedback on the success of their first attempt?” For a minute, let’s just forget about the implementation of computer-based testing. In the context of Hong Kong classrooms, I would imagine that ‘self-assessment’ is, relatively speaking, an unknown practice and it is going to remain this way for the long haul that’s for certain. But if it were ever made prevalent, could you imagine the scenario where a test taker is given a second chance to answer the items which he got wrong in his or her test paper the first time round – not only this, but with teacher support thrown in as well? How would the second set of test results be used - would they be used as part of the overall grades required for entry into a secondary school or a tertiary institution. If yes, how would the candidates feel about this? If no, I wonder what proportion of students would be bothered about the results after going through self-assessment? Surely, ‘normal’ or ‘high stakes’ assessments will only ever be conducted in the traditional manner (fixed time and location, paper-pencil format, one-paper-fits-all, etc.) whereas online assessment will always be reserved for ‘low stakes’ or diagnostic purposes, which may not be considered by some candidates as being as important or essential. Would anyone care to disagree?

A reflective summary of the article 'Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors?' (Gaskell and Cobb, 2004)

In Gaskell and Cobb’s (2004) study, 20 low-intermediate level students enrolled in a 15-week English writing course at a university in Canada learnt how to use and practiced using an online concordancer to make corrections to the errors they made in their own written assignments. These errors, which were of a grammatical and collocational nature, were made explicit by the instructor during the initial period of training and students simply had to click the HTML links for the concordance before revising the errors. Following the training, the instructor stopped providing online concordance links.

The researchers aimed to answer the following questions:
i. Will learners consider the concordancing activity useful?
ii. Can learners use concordances to correct their errors?
iii. Will correcting with concordances reduce errors in free production?
iv. Will learners use concordances independently following training?

Several sources of data were collected, including pre-test and post-test writing samples, weekly error analysis forms, results of a student survey regarding attitudes toward the concordancing activity and network records of issuing IP addresses for concordance searches.

The main findings were that
- all the students felt that their writing skills had improved, although only 8 students attributed the improvement in their ability to use the grammar points targeted in the course to the corpus consultation work itself;
- students could independently work from concordance to correction even though this process did not necessarily help reduce the number of errors they made in their post-test writing samples.

Gaskell and Cobb’s (2004) study shows that using concordancing in writing classes can help provide feedback to students on word-level and sentence-level errors. This is especially important for second language learners, who do not have opportunities nor time to learn, as the authors put it, "through enormous amounts of brute practice in mapping meanings and situations to words and structures". They argue that such learners need to explore language through data-driven learning, which essentially means learning from exposure to examples containing repeated patterns which are made salient, as it provides opportunities for substantial amounts of practice on target errors which otherwise would only be met once in a while.

Although the participants in Gaskell and Cobb's (2004) study were adult literacy learners, the article that they have written inspires me to consider trying out a similar concordancing activity with my primary six students sometime in the near future. Nine times out of ten I would prefer to have students correct their own errors rather than do the corrections for them myself and online concordancers offer a gateway for me to achieve this. Many of my students are already actively blogging in English on a regular basis so it would be simply be a matter of having them copy and paste their writing into a Word Document and send them to me (or can I add precast links next to erroneous sentences in their blog postings??? - I don't think this is possible myself). I would imagine, however, that they would require more support, especially in terms of the amount of training and practice that they would need to master retrieving and interpreting concordance information. I would imagine also that pre-cast links would have to be provided indefinitely because many of my students have not reached the stage where they can easily locate and point out mistakes in their written compositions.

Ugliest / Worst Web Pages of the Decade

Let's hope that all our soon-to-be-created web pages turn out to be better or at least better-looking than these, hey?

My thoughts on the 'Check My Words' toolbar

Earlier today I downloaded the 'Check My Words' toolbar to my computer with no problems. Once you have opened up Microsoft Word (2007 version) you can find it by clicking the Add-ins tab at the top of the screen.

To put 'Check My Words' to the test, I first typed up one of my students' pieces of writing which he had done recently, using Microsoft Word. In his writing task, the student (primary six level) was asked to respond to the question, "What would you do with HK$500 if it were given to you for your birthday?" with an essay of at least thirty words. This is what he came up with:

If I have HK$50 I think I will buy the mp3 give my friend Louis because he like listen music. I with buy the Harry Potter because I have Harry Potter one, two, three, four, five but I not have Harry Potter six so i buy it.

Imagining that I were in my student's shoes, I highlighted certain words which I felt I would need help on and clicked on the 'check' tool. For example, when I highlighted 'like' and clicked on 'check', a comprehensive list of common and potential errors pertaining to the use of this word appeared on the left hand side of the information screen. The only trouble is, if I did not know (and my student would definitely not know) the grammatical terms 'subject-verb agreement'. 'infinitives and gerunds' then I would have to wade through all this and other information, spending a huge amount of time to pick out what was necessary in order for me to be able to correct my written phrase 'he like listen music'.

The 'Say It!' tool is much more useful for primary level students. When I highlighted the whole essay and clicked 'Say It!', an American-sounding speaker accurately reproduced the words remarkably smoothly. I suppose it would be useful to use the tool during occasions where students have to read aloud essays, poems and so forth and need to know the exact pronunciation of certain words, phrases or even sentences in some cases. Just a minor point - I like the way the speaker pauses each time there is a comma in the text (contrast 'Mum said I am clever.' with 'Mum said, "I am clever.") Pity it doesn't work so well with exclamation marks.

The 'Definitions' tool provides a list of all the possible meanings of a highlighted word, drawn from various online dictionaries (you can choose which one). A link to an online bilingual dictionary would be more useful for primary six students in my opinion.

The 'Similar Meanings' tool is like a thesaurus - great for providing students with lists of alternatives to words that they have written (synonyms). It displays the opposites of those words (antonyms) as well.

The 'Word Family' tool tells you the parts of speech of a highlighted word and its related family of words (e.g. like has likes, liked, unlike, liking, etc.) as well as a rating that indicates its importance or how common it appears in writing or speech.

The 'Word combinations' tool can benefit students' writing immensely because it tells them whether a string of words can be used together. After highlighting 'like listen' in the essay above and clicking the tool, I was presented with eight example sentences containing 'like listening' on the Word Neighbors webpage. This is more than enough to convince me that my written combination of words needs correcting. A useful link on the webpage is an embedded English-Chinese translation tool.

I have nothing to say about the 'Example Sentences' tool as it is self-explanatory.

It appears, then, that the 'Check My Words' toolbar has been developed with university-level students in mind, though I can see that some of the inbuilt tools can be used even with upper primary level students. It goes without saying that if you are going to introduce your students to the various resources available in the 'Check My Words' toolbar, you'd better make sure that they can use Microsoft Word comfortably. In my case, I very much doubt that my primary six students have any typing experience whatsoever (in English, that is), let alone have experience of using Microsoft Word.

I can, however, imagine how the tools can be of enormous benefit to advance level students at college or university level, particularly those who are enthusiastic about grammar!

My response to the article 'Practical considerations for multimedia courseware development: An EFL IVD experience' by Hsien-Chin Liou

One thing that stood out for me after reading this article is where the author stresses the importance of knowing

• the media (particularly its merits)
• the institutional needs or constraints (which includes the learners), and
• the design principles (which include the knowledge of teaching pedagogy and language learning theories)

when making design considerations for her multimedia courseware development project.

Put it simply, the three main factors that need to be considered in CALL development projects are the learner, the technology and the language learning theory. Thus, in contrast to what we read in another article written by Levy (1997) a few weeks back, there are, in fact, not only two choices to consider for the point of departure for CALL development (namely, theory and technology) but three (learners' needs as well). It makes sense to begin by analyzing the needs of our learners and this analysis should be both informed by our knowledge of what the technology do for the learners and grounded in second language acquisition theories.

Another point I'd like to mention, or rather, question about is that if courseware development involving multimedia is so labour intensive and time consuming, where does that leave us in our web projects? Liou's article was published in 1994; I'd like to know whether, sixteen years down the line, there exists an authoring package which takes far less time for novice programmers to master than IconAuthor takes. And what about those pre-manufactured 'templates' that help language teachers to implement their courseware materials easily? Are they more readily available nowadays?

Evaluating CALL courseware: My thoughts on Hubbard's (1988) framework

Just as I was getting to grips with the some of the ideas presented in Levy's (1997) article regarding the CALL courseware development process that we read about in Week 5, I came across the word 'evaluation' in the title of this week's reading article and the first thing that came to mind was "Oh no, not now, please." (lol) You see, up until a little while ago, I still hadn't decided which piece of technology or courseware would form the focus of my EN6482 assignment let alone think about how I would develop and implement it. So, to think about 'evaluation' seemed like, at first, a step ahead too far for me. Later I realized, however, that I had misinterpreted 'evaluation' as meaning the evaluation of students' learning as result of CALL courseware implementation instead of the courseware itself. (Obviously I should have read the title of Hubbard's article more carefully!).

Let's be honest, when it comes to evaluating CALL courseware, no evaluation scheme can possibly be more comprehensive and more flexible than the evaluation framework that was put forward by a linguistics expert from Stanford University named Philip Hubbard (1988) more than two decades ago. It is comprehensive in that it contains sections that cover every possible angle as far as the evaluation of computer-assisted language learning and teaching is concerned, including 'operational description', 'learner fit' and 'teacher fit', all of which themselves have a number of distinct components which need to be looked at in any courseware evaluation procedure. The evaluation framework is also flexible because, as Hubbard explains, it provides the tool through which the courseware evaluator can create his or her own questions or build some other evaluation scheme according to the evaluator's needs.

Some courseware evaluators may be put off by the apparent complexity of Hubbard's evaluation framework (with all those arrows and boxes drawn in) and may also harbour worries about the the length of time it takes to evaluate a single courseware package. "Fear not," I would say to them, for the author provides the reassurance that it is only those that need to compose reviews of a package that doesn't appear to be suitable who need to go through the full evaluation procedure. Ordinary teachers like you and me just need to use the framework as a guiding tool to quickly weed out courseware packages that do not fit the bill. As Hubbard's mentions, even if we just address the question of whether the courseware fits our students' needs and interests, it will go a long way toward making an informed decision. Flexible it is indeed.

Second Life

I was one of the unfortunate few who could not get Second Life to run properly on the computer last Monday, so I am not in the best of positions to comment on its suitability for use in the language classroom. However, having witnessed it running smoothly on Rubi's PC, my first impression was that this kind of virtual world is nothing short of amazing in terms of its scale and the vast array of things that your avatar can explore and do in it. If I were to use Second Life with my upper primary students, whose English proficiencies are well below the territory average, I would introduce its different elements sloooowly over a period of time, perhaps in my literacy workshops during the post-examination period.

For starters, I would assist my in creating a single avatar representative of the whole class because it would be easier in terms of classroom management than allowing every student to have their own. Of course, my students would very much prefer to have their own avatar given the choice but I am little concerned about the steep learning curve they would have to go through individually and the fact that some (especially the boys) might choose to meander off task. Creating an avatar can be an English learning opportunity itself - you could get students to verbalize the reasons for wanting to choose a particular last name or starting look (using adjectives to describe appearance or quality), for example. Once the avatar is co-created, the students, with expert guidance from the teacher, could begin exploring one of islands. As we discovered last Monday you can easily lose track of what you're supposed to be doing in this virtual world so there needs to be a concrete task for the students to complete and it needs to be explicitly stated in both spoken and written form.

There has to be a million and one ways to exploit the Second Life virtual world for language learning but my brain is obviously nowhere near operating on all four cylinders on this Chinese New Year's day (by the way, Kung Hei Fat Choi to you all!) I guess the first thing that comes to mind is to have the students explore together an island that you have already taken the time to explore yourself and then get them to provide a running commentary of what they are seeing or write about what they have seen. Or set them the task of finding certain things in certain places e.g. find three things that you would like to see in real life in the Shakespeare's Globe Theatre and describe them. (I think somebody else might have already mentioned this.) It goes without saying that Second Life provides a natural and engaging stimulus for students to speak and write. I think I'm sold.

Theory-driven CALL and the development process by Levy (1997) - a reflective summary

In his article, Levy (1997) draws from a number of theoretical frameworks underlying CALL projects as well as the findings of an international CALL survey to explore the nature of theory-driven CALL.

According to the writer, there are two main and distinct groups of CALL practitioners. Those who believe that completed research is necessary for successful CALL development belong to the group known as formalists and they tend to make theory the starting point of any project. Those who believe that research need not be completed right before the start of the development process but can be integrated into that process belong to the group known as proceduralists and they tend to make discoveries as they go along.

One problem with the formalist view is that, since there exists a plethora of CALL theories influenced by a diverse range of disciplines, seldom do we find that research based on a particular theory is complete. In fact, theories can and do undergo constant revision during the course of CALL development, often because they haven't yet fully encompassed the CALL context at hand. Thus, one has to question the need for any CALL development project to be driven by theory.

On the other hand, proceduralists, whose CALL development projects are mainly technology-driven, need to be careful not to become totally fixated on the capabilities of a particular technology and neglect research altogether, because the latter can play a vital role in their projects by providing new theoretical insights into their own work.

In a nutshell, the best CALL development approach for CALL practitioners to adopt is one that proceeds in a circular, rather than linear fashion but places equal significance on theory (of instructional design, teaching or learning) and application (of a particular technology). CALL practitioners should strive towards the desirable goal of establishing a successful fit between the two.

Despite the fact that both the current capabilities of technology and language pedagogy have evolved considerably since the publication of Levy's article thirteen years ago, I believe his notion of 'fit' is relevant more so now than ever. Although I am not an avid CALL practitioner by any means, judging from my previous experiences of using IT in language teaching (e.g. creating word puzzles from online puzzle generators) I would consider myself to be a proceduralist with very little consideration for theories of language pedagogy. The essay written by Levy (1997) serves as a timely wake-up CALL (excuse the pun), because it has already increased my awareness of the need to consider both theory and application in equal measures when I am developing CALL materials for my students.

I end this post by posing a question for the writer. If the international CALL survey were to be conducted again today (almost two decades after it was conducted the first time) how do you think the results would turn out? I just thought this might be interesting.

Language Learner Behaviour in a Virtual Environment - A Reflective Summary

Roed (2003) investigated the behaviour of university students of Danish while they were engaged in a communicative language task within a synchronous virtual learning environment (i.e. chat room). She found that the task resulted in changes in behaviour; students who were normally very quiet in class, for example, behaved differently in the chat room, playing a considerably more active role. She observes that this kind of environment helps to reduce language anxiety and attributes this to the fact that computer-mediated communication (CMC) creates a rather anonymous environment where the computer serves as a shield from being onstage. The benefit of CMC, she notes, is its ability to function as scaffolding: 'gradually giving anxious students more confidence to embark on conversation in the target language'.

The author also stresses the fact that when operating in virtual environments, not only does learners' behaviour changes, but also the perception of learners' behaviour. Thus, it is possible for normally reserved students, for example, to appear to behave in a brash manner in the eyes of other chat room users. Online language learning certainly has its fair share of disadvantages as well as advantages.

Roed's findings do seem to support the view that online chatting facilitates language learners to communicate as a result of lowered self awareness while engaging in public discourse. However, in my own teaching context (Chinese ESL students, many of whom are shy, passive learners with low English proficiency - in a small primary school in the New Territories) a significant number of students would have to face the double handicap of having only limited vocabularies and limited keyboard skills. I would imagine that such students would go off task easily. Therefore, if I were to set up an online communicative task for my students to complete, in a similar manner to that described in Roed's (2003) article, it would have to be well-planned with clear and achievable goals laid out. Appropriate scaffolding according to my students' linguistic and technical needs would also be necessary. Yet, despite taking these measures, I would still need to address the issue of catering for learner diversity. How, as a teacher, would I be able to keep students of a wide range of abilities happy and ensure that they participate in equal amounts without constantly intervening and interfering? I suppose that for the latter I could always tell my students at the beginning of the task that every one of them has to at least post a certain number of posts (either questions, answers or comments) to their peers. But in terms of keeping everybody happy, no matter what the lag time is between hitting the enter key and the appearance of text on the screen, there will always be those students who become easily frustrated by a sluggish system or the failure of others to respond promptly to their posts. On the other hand, there will be other students who become overwhelmed by the pace of it all.

Nevertheless, I do think that, given their greater linguistic and technical experience, my older students (say at P6 level) would gain more from the experience of being immersed in virtual environments than the younger ones. I would certainly not rule out the possibility of trying out online chatting in English with my older students now that I am aware of some of the drawbacks of the approach. [Update: for a different slant on the issue of using online communication tasks with primary students, click here.]

Dotsub - alternative to Yappr

Aha, I've just found out from Nik Peachey's blog that Dotsub is similar to Yappr but you don't need to pay a subscription fee in order to input subtitles beneath video clips i.e. students can transcribe video clips for free! One idea of Nik's is really fab - you can ask students to create their own video clips (with digital cameras or webcams), upload them to Dotsub and then get other classmates to transcribe them.
I would add that you could then get students to embed these transcribed videos to their own blogs and then evaluate each other's contributions through the commenting feature.
Nik's idea could easily translate into a group project which has enormous potential for developing students' all-round English skills. Just think of the possibilities! The video clips could be based on a topic or based around a target language structure that is currently being covered in the syllabus, thus reinforcing what they learn (if indeed, they do learn!) from their (may I dare say, mundane) textbooks. I think my P6 class could handle this project as long as I put them into mixed-ability groups (interestingly enough, those that I consider to be tech-geeks also happen to be above-average in English - I know who they are because I did a survey with my class when they were in P5 last year). However, one problem that would most likely occur in this scenario would be the unequal contribution by individual members of a particular group. Or, even if the students did take equal turns to transcribe a video clip, how would you deal with the technologically or linguistically inept? One would have to figure this out in advance but for starters teachers running this project would no doubt need tonnes and tonnes of patience!

Yappr - Transcribed Videos for ESL

Just found this link via Nik Peachey's quickshout blog which may be of interest to some of you (if you haven't visited the link already, that is). Useful albeit small selection of free video clips of different genres to suit students of all ages and abilities. Every clip has an accompanying script which appears in a window alongside, to enable students to listen AND read while watching the clip. Have a look at http://en.yappr.com/welcome/Video.action?videoGuid=10CEB2F8-8FB4-4225-8F06-54713BB83B7C to see exactly how it works. A lot more clips are available upon paying a subscription fee. I can't wait to try Yappr out myself!

Internet for English Teaching (Warschauer, Shetzer & Meloni)

This article introduces a set of pedagogy-related principles which Warscauer et. al. believe can help educators to effectively incorporate the Internet into the language classroom. The authors classify these principles under 'Learning Goals', 'Teaching Guidelines' and 'Planning Tips'. In terms of Learning Goals, they say that teachers should help students

• master new technologies in active and creative ways
• develop autonomous learning strategies
• learn collaborative communication and teamwork skills
• learn in a variety of cultural contexts
• develop critical thinking skills

The Teaching Guidelines are intended to facilitate the achievement of the above Learning Goals and the authors classify them under five headings, namely

• Dual Immersion (where students are immersed in learning the skills of language AND technology simultaneously)
• Integration (where computers are fully integrated into the curriculum)
• Project-Based Learning
• Student-Centred Learning
• Learning With a Purpose

The list of planning tips is extensive but not exhaustive. Perhaps the most useful and relevant tip for me is the one about creating a friendly home page to provide low-ability ESL students a secure platform from which to begin their Web-browsing activities. Other useful tips include having students work in groups in a one-computer classroom and focussing on e-mail when students are conducting Internet projects in low-tech environments.

Warschauer et. al. end their article with an informative selection of sample web projects. The Primary School Webfolios seems to be a great idea and the tasks would appear to be perfectly achievable for my average P6 student. However, I would like to know how the teacher (Rachel Arenstein) actually handled her low-ability students who had a variety of learning needs such as those who had difficulties with spelling, little knowledge of reading/writing skills and strategies, etc. The E-mail Cultural Exchange Project is something that I have always wanted to set up and try out with my class, but I have been thwarted by my futile attempts at trying to find willing and suitable partners. In the past I have set up pen-based exchange projects in my school only to find that the correspondence dried up soon after set-up. The crux of the problem was that there had often been a mismatch between my students' levels of English and those of their pen-friends. Quite simply, you're not going to reply to somebody's letter if they appear to put less effort than you or if what they write intimidates you because of its scale and undecipherable meaning. Nonetheless, I can see from the example that the teacher has a crucial facilitative role to play which can make or break such a challenging project. Certainly provides some food for thought.

Somewhat unfortunately for me, the majority of the sample web projects provided by the authors are based on secondary or tertiary educational contexts which, in my opinion, seems to suggest that (at the time of writing at least) Internet-based teaching and learning in the English classroom could only be fully exploited if the students had at least several years of studying English. In other words, there is a threshold level of English beyond which students can truly benefit from Dual Immersion. Anybody would like to challenge me on this?

A recap of what I said in my mini-presentation on 18-01-10

My school: Local aided primary school in New Territories East

My students: from working-class families, virtually zero exposure to English outside of school

My classes: 4 altogether (2 in P1, 1 in P2 and 1 in P6)

My experiences in using technology:

I use PC a lot during lessons, but mainly to present lesson content in a visually appealing manner - target language structures/vocabulary, task instructions, worksheets for consolidation, etc.

With the P1s and P2s, I quite often...
• display lyrics to popular children's songs such as 'I can sing a rainbow.', which I copy and paste from internet (http://bussongs.com/ is good because it includes video clips, sometimes animated)
• present high frequency words using powerpoint (which appear one by one as you click the mouse button)
• display images (searched using google), as a stimulus for discussion

With the P6s, I use powerpoint even more to deliver lesson content.

Some software/websites I have found useful in my teaching include:
• YouTube Downloader (http://youtubedownload.altervista.org/) - download any YouTube video and convert to a format that allows the video to be burned to a DVD (Useful for when I have to broadcast the video to the whole school during Lunchtime English Show.) Some YouTube videos clips I have used in my lessons include those of Mr. Bean e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljo6gtufSng (to develop listening and speaking skills through quizzing students on what they just saw) as well as Michael Jackson's 'Heal the World' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpz5eD9L4dA (to stimulate discussion and critical thinking)

• audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/) - powerful software for recording and editing sound. Useful for when you want to blend children's voices with background music or simply edit any sound file you have (make it shorter, slower, louder, etc.). A few years back I recorded students singing songs from "The Sound of Music" (e.g. Do Re Mi, Edelweiss, So Long, Farewell...) and mixed their vocals with music from a karaoke CD of the same title. These were converted to mp3 and later used during their stage performance. (It fixes the problem of live singing where students can't sing loudly enough and dance at the same time.)

• Reading A-Z Kids (http://www.raz-kids.com/) - one of the best online reading resources you will find on the web, I think. There are tonnes of books to choose from and they are levelled from from beginner to fluent so they are suitable for ESL students. They can listen to and read the books at the same time, as well as record their own voices as they read before comparing them with the original recordings. A consolidation task is provided in the form of a comprehension quiz at the end of the each reading. When students have completed all the tasks for each one of the books offered at their level, they can move up to the next level and start reading all the books from that level.

One plus point of using the service is that teachers can set up and have full control over individual accounts for each student as well as keep track of his or her reading progress over time. However, one drawback is that the service comes at a cost (roughly US$80 annually)

I want to do MUCH more in terms of using technology in my classes, like for example, introduce podcasting or blogging to my students but somewhere in the back of my mind I have this feeling that my some of them might not be able to cope, especially those who can't even say or write the letters of the alphabet correctly let alone type up a blog. Nonetheless, I can consider myself fortunate that I have the time and space to freely experiment with technology in my lessons as I'm not restricted by curriculum constraints in the way my local teaching colleagues are. For them, there is simply no room for trial and error.

My experiences of technology

My experiences of technology in the language learning context is rather limited when compared to what my students can do with computers. I must admit I rely too much on powerpoint to deliver lesson content and I seldom assign students to work with the computer as much as I ought to. Some of my classes, however, have regular online reading sessions where they log in to raz-kids.com and select and read online readers based on their own reading levels.

Nonetheless, I do use google for images and clipart, YouTube for videos (I've used Michael Jackson's 'Heal the World' song/video to stimulate discussion about the need to protect the environment from man-made destruction), starfall.com for animated stories, hkedcity & Daves ESL Cafe for lesson activity ideas. Audacity is a great audio editing software which I have been using a lot (downloadable from www.audacity.com) in my teaching.

I'm teaching and there appears to be an elearning system at my school but it's all in Chinese and all i know is it allows students to post messages to teachers and to each other but besides this that's all i know so far.

I hope to learn how to make full use of blogs and set up my own class blog to use with my 6A students.

Kiat