WEB 2.0 ENGLISH

Where does the Web 2.0 English fall on Kachru's circles? How does the concept of World Englishes relate to the use of Web 2.0 for English teaching purposes?

FEEDBACK ON WEB 2.0

In what ways does feedback received on Web 2.0 differ from feedback provided in class?

Computer-mediated communication (CMC). Blake, R. J. (2008)

Most teachers of English are well aware of the fact that teaching a foreign language needs to be firmly grounded in interactionist notions. Through the proximal zone of development, negotiation of meaning, FonF, task-based learning, project-based learning, or pair collaboration that emphasize the power of human interactions, SLA process can be stimulated. Collaborative interactions should be encouraged. The context of computer-mediated communication (CMC), whether in real time (synchronous, SCMC) or deferred time (asynchronous, ACMC) appear to be very suitable for this purpose. Kern and Warschauer (2000) have labeled this communication in service of language learning as network-based language teaching (NBLT), which includes e-mail, discussion forums or electronic bulletin boards, blogs, wikis, and chatting with or without sound/video. However, as it is with all other tools of technology, it is the pedagogical design of the tasks that will make it valuable.

In this chapter, two different kinds of CMC are mentioned; asynchronous CMC and synchronous CMC.

A distinction is made for asynchronous CMC between first and second generation tools. What makes them different is that unlike the first one that uses HTML, the second one relies on a new technology (XML). First-generation tools include e-mail, electronic mailing lists, and discussion forums, also known as threaded bulletin boards. As for second-generation CMC Tools, blogs and wikis are good examples.

The second kind of CMC is synchronous CMC. Chat rooms have been used by many teachers for this kind of CMC. The problem is that chat rooms may be more suitable to improve speaking skills rather than writing. Chat room discourse consists of language that is much closer to oral discourse than to written (Sotillo 2000). SCMC has recently been used in pairs and small groups. ICQ, MSN Messenger, Yahoo! Messenger, AOL’s Instant Messenger (AIM), PalTalk, and iVisit are good examples. Blackboard, WebCT, or Moodle are some learning management systems that offer their own internal chat programs within a more controlled learning environment that foster task-based interaction.

There are also tools such as Wimba and Breeze that are very efficient but costly. The Skype client, has many advantages as it is free when chatting from computer to computer with up to four people.

Intracultural CMC

Interaction hypothesis underlies the importance of face-to-face classroom negotiations in SLA. Such negotiations increase input comprehensibility through language modifications such as simplifications, elaborations, confirmation and comprehension checks, clarifications requests, or recasts. All these provide the learners with negative evidence. This type of negotiation has also been described in the literature as focus on form (FonF).

Intercultural CMC: Telecollaborations

For sociocultural, theorists, negotiation of meaning is often reduced in the classroom to nothing more than getting students to manage transactions that are devoid of real L2 cultural import. The implicit assumption they reject is that transactional routines are somehow culture free, the same the world over, which is false. Sociocultural researchers contrast intracultural CMC with intercultural CMC or intercultural communication for foreign language learning (ICFLL); (Thorne and Payne 2005a) to “draw attention to the complex nature of humans as sociocultural actors and technological setting as artifact and as mediators, rather than determiners of action and interaction” (O’Rourke 2005, 435). These ideas draw heavily on Byram (1997), who defines intercultural competence as “an ability to evaluate, critically and on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and products in one’s own and other cultures and countries”. For intercultural CMC, the Cultura Project is presented as an example.

CMC and ICC

How can an effective ICC experience be implemented through CMC?
Do you think that students should necessarily be at a high level of proficiency in L2 to take part in CMC projects that seek to develop ICC?

CMC

Chat room discourse consists of language that is much closer to oral discourse than to written (Sotillo 2000).
As we all know well, the discourse via chatting on the Internet is  very limited. Do you think chat room English may create results we do not desire? What may be the role of a teacher in CMC to avoid the kind of language we don't want our students to use?

Some webtools

• Edmodo
• Livemocha
• Busuu
• Glogster
• Visuwords
• Wordia
• Puzzlemaker
• Wordle
• Mindmeister
• Inspiration
• Worditout
• Complete Lexical Tutor
• Tagxedo
• Zimmertwins
• Storybird
• Blabberize
• 4nmedia
• Speakingpal
• Big City Small World
• Urban Planet

What attracts you to technology?

taken from: http://smartblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/digital-literacy1.jpg

On Monday, after our  brief introduction, I noticed that you all have experience in teaching English as a foreign language at different levels. Several of you have mentioned that due to limited resourses, you do not have much of a chance to use technology in your classes  but you would like to.

So, my question is, what attracts you to technology? Why do you think it is important to incorporate technology in your language teaching practice? Rather than theoretical responses, here I am looking for your candid opinions on this issue. Please respond by using the Comment feature.

Thanks :)