You are on page 1of 12

Indice

~

Turismo y procesos de urbanizacion ante la globalizacion: el nuevo paradigma del desarrollo urbano sustentable Bonnie Lucfa Campos Camara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Antecedentes Justificacion Planteamiento del problema Objetivo general Hipotesis de trabajo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . La region y el periodo Bibliograffa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

11 11 14 19 22 22 23 25

La feminizacion del Caribe: hacia una critica posmoderna de la dicotomia naturalezalcultura Erika Mueller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Explotacion de la naturaleza y la mujer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cyborg Manifesto Poscolonialismo y la critica al pensar occidental: la ciencia des de un punto de vista poscolonial/ferninista . . . . . . . . . . ..

29 30 32 34

The use of technology in Teaching English as a Foreign Language Marfa Isabel Hernandez 141 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 141 Background 142 Advantages 142 Disadvantages 143 New approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 145 Conclusions 146 References 148 Exploring spelling errors: a preliminary classification Alfredo Marfn M. Introduction Spelling errors of native Spanish speakers as L2 users of English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spelling errors in a bilingual environment. . . . . . . . . . . . Spelling errors in Ll and L2 users of English The preliminary classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Class 1. Omissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Class 2. Additions Class 3. Substitutions '. , . . . . . . . . . . Class 4. Letter order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Class 5. Phonological approximations. . . . . . . . . . . . . Class 6. Confusing words Sources of spelling errors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References

149 149 . . . .. 149 . . . .. 151 152 . . . .. 154 . . . .. 155 155 . . . .. 156 . . . .. 156 . . . .. 156 157 . . . .. 157 . . . .. 158 157

Los errores de interferencia en la redacci6n en frances Marfa del Rosario Reyes Cruz Introducci6n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EI enfoque hist6rico-cultural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El aprendizaje ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . La ensefianza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EI enfoque hist6rico-cultural y su aplicaci6n a la ensefianza de lenguas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

.. .. .. ..

171 171 172 173 175

. .. 176

The use
of technology in Teaching English as a Foreign Language

T

he purpose of this article is to determine objectively observable effects of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) on Teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL). First, a general view of the role of computer technology in the last past years is given, Next, the advantages and disadvantages of using computers in EFL classrooms are explained. Finally, the components are described which may make English learning through the use of computers, a valuable, useful and meaningful experience. For the past several years teachers have been talking about the use of computers in the classrooms. The discussion first centered on the use of computers as word processors, raising questions such as, "Should students use the computer for learning English as a foreign language?" In the last few years the debate has been decided with teachers accepting the computer as a valuable tool for developing students' language skills.

Singhal (1997) indicated that computer technology and TEFL are not strangers to one another. In the 1960s and 70s, language laboratories were being installed in numerous edlJcational settings. The traditional language laboratory was comprised of a series of booths, each providing a cassette deck, and accompanying microphone and headphone. Teachers monitored their students' interactions by using a central control panel at a console. The basic premise behind this was that if behavior was modeled, and then reinforced, students would quickly learn the language in question. The language lab activities were therefore grounded in a stimulus-response behavior pattern. While the language laboratory was a positive step in linking technology and language education, it was soon recognized that such activities were both tedious and boring for learners. Furthermore, the amount of student-teacher interaction was minimal, and individualized instruction was irrelevant. These factors joined together led to a shift towards the communicative approach in second language education, namely toward computer assisted language learning.

Glennan & Meldmed (as cited in Hanson, 1999) found that a RAND report indicated that among the striking features of "a technology rich methodology" were: • A strong emphasis on individualized treatment of students, including the use of portfolios. • . A substantial restru..cturing of the school program, including lengthened class periods, interdisciplinary programs, and, in most cases, project-based learning. • A focussed and concentrated effort to develop and change the educational approach, often starting with one course or segment of the curriculum but, in most cases, expanding to the whole school.

Singhal (1997) indicated that computer technology and TEFL are not strangers to one another. In the 1960s and 70s, language laboratories were being installed in numerous edlJcational settings. The traditional language laboratory was comprised of a series of booths, each providing a cassette deck, and accompanying microphone and headphone. Teachers monitored their students' interactions by using a central control panel at a console. The basic premise behind this was that if behavior was modeled, and then reinforced, students would quickly learn the language in question. The language lab activities were therefore grounded in a stimulus-response behavior pattern. While the language laboratory was a positive step in linking technology and language education, it was soon recognized that such activities were both tedious and boring for learners. Furthermore, the amount of student-teacher interaction was minimal, and individualized instruction was irrelevant. These factors joined together led to a shift towards the communicative approach in second language education, namely toward computer assisted language learning.

Glennan & Meldmed (as cited in Hanson, 1999) found that a RAND report indicated that among the striking features of "a technology rich methodology" were: • A strong emphasis on individualized treatment of students, including the use of portfolios. • . A substantial restrliCturing of the school program, including lengthened class periods, interdisciplinary programs, and, in most cases, project-based learning. • A focussed and concentrated effort to develop and change the educational approach, often starting with one course or segment of the cumculum but, in most cases, expanding to the whole school.

• Changed relations among staff, including teacher peer mentoring and more collaboration among teachers. Enriched outcomes, not just in better performance measured through traditional ways, but increased perception by students that their learning is authentic and personally meaningful, and by teachers that their work is one of mentoring and collaborating. Moreover, a study by Burns (1996) indicated that content-lich material which uses technology as a key component to engage students in discussion, collaborative projects, and a range of similar interactive activities, reinfores language acquisition while providing much-needed context. Students continually speak, write, and hear English, and subsequently develop content area mastery at the same time. Teachers report that other fortuitous results are a positive environment and a higher level of student self-confidence in the classroom performance. Also, it is important to remember that knowing English well today must include knowing how to read, write and communicate in electronic environments. For most teachers and professionals, learning how to compose electronic mail or make eJfective use of the World Wide Web involves English language skills that should be considered as essential as speaking on the phone or making use of a library. Also, it is extremely important for teacher of EFL to emphasize the use of technology as a tool for enhancing communication to give a global view for both authenticity of task, and audience content during the learning process.

Despite the advantages and widespread use of CALL, it continues to suffer from criticism for several reasons. According to Armstrong & Yetter-Vassot (1994) many EFL teachers believe that learning and practicing grammar rules of a foreign language through fill-in-the-blank exercises, for example, does little to improve a speaker's ability to produce grammatically appropriate utterances. Others point out that CALL suffers from its rigidity because of the complexities of natural languages.

On the other hand, Hanson (1999) said that teachers are often disappointed in computer applications because when they open a software program they may be confronted on the screen with an extremely short instructional blurb or a dialog followed by a test on the grammar points contained in this brief material. This type of approach seems very similar to the old grammar-translation and audio-lingual methods. At the opposite end of the spectrum, teachers find content CDs and websites that contain plenty of raw material in a variety of media -text, pictures, video and audio- but they do not have any pedagogically appropriate exercises, organizing schema, vocabulary notes, composition and so forth. At one extreme, there seems to be little pedagogical justification for making students sit alone at the computer to fill in blanks and click on "True "or" False". At the other end of the spectrum, it seems unfair to throw students into a sea of content without any navigation tools. Chapelle (1997) reported that because the purpose of CALL activities is L2 learning, the most critical questions to be addressed about CALL are the following: What kind of language does the learner engage in during a CALL activity? How good is the language experience in CALL for L2 learning? Furthermore, Hanson (1999) found that CALL was tied to a tutorial and test approach (sometimes called "drill and grill") that assumed that: 1) Students would work alone at the computer, and that 2) The teacher could be replaced by the machine. In the area of the internet, despite its benefits, not everyone is ready to board the internet bandwagon. According to Meloni (1998), some teachers have conyinced themselves that the internet is a waste of precious time. Others harbor a certain curiosity and would like to learn more about the possibilities, but feel that they just cannot invest the time to learn about what is available and keep up with frequent changes. Surveys, 1-}owever,have shown that fear is the main reason why many teachers shy away from the internet. Their reticence to venture into a cybernatic domain is why they tend to ignore the computer revolution that is rapidly spreading into all areas of daily life. One of the fears is a timidity of technology itself. Teachers from non-technical backgrounds are worried that they will not be able to master the new technology.

Long (as cited in Chapelle, 1998) found that when the goals of CALL activities include learners' engagement in some form of negotiation of meaning, procedures for data interpretation are reinforced. As we study learners of L2 we can borrow from interactionist research on task-based language learning that allows us to theorize certain observable features of interaction. This negotiation of meaning is expected to be positive for language developplent. Thus, negotiation of meaning needs to be seen not only in face to face spoken conversations, but also in written interactions that occur over networked computers. A second, more extensive expansion of the definition of negotiation of meaning is seen when the modified interactions take place between the learner and the computer. Early research on computers in the language classroom reflected what has been called a determinist approach (Ebersole, 1995). From a determinist perspective, a computer is an all-powerful machine, that in and of itself, brings about determined results. Thus, research on Computer-Assisted Language Learning seeks to understand the overall effect of the computer, often at the insistence of administrators, who demand proof that the computer really works. However, as pointed out often before (Garret, 1991), the computer does not really constitute a method for learning a language, thus the computer's effect cannot be researched independently in the particular way the technology is put to use. According to Warschauer (1998), to be able to fully understand the interrelationship between technology and language learning, researchers have to investigate the broader context that affects language learning and its use in today's society, both inside and outside the classroom. This can be accomplished if teachers expand their research paradigms to engage in critical qualitative classroom research, which attempts to take into account broad sociocultural factors of their students as well as questions of human agency, identity, and semantic meaning.

As Meloni said (1998), teachers must be aware of CALL'S potential and how their colleagues are using it. Everyone must remember, however, that "technology should never be used just because it is there. Technology must be used only when it enhances the language learning experience". If the computer offers students something that they cannot obtain from an in-class communicative activity, then the use of technology is appropriate. When the computer is simply a poor substitute, its use is not acceptable. The best uses of technology have been influenced by theories of interaction in language, by teaching approaches that involve cognitive academic language learning. This gives the attention to multiple learning styles, and the use of constructivism, which asserts that learning involves the active construction of meaning, rather than simple memorization. The tenets of this new paradigm include making students responsible for their own learning with attention given to the role of active cognitive learning (as well as input), by focusing on multiple learning styles with respect for affective factors and emotional states. There is another important aspect related to CALL that is significant to highlight. Although computers can now do mal1Ythings that teachers can, language learning is, and always has been, a very human experience, consequently human teachers will always be needed in the classroom. The computer revolution, however, seems irreversible, and, as Ray Clifford of the Defense Language Institute put it, "Technology will not replace teachers ...Teachers who use technology will probably replace teachers who do not". Below there is a diagram of the main components to take into account in the use of technology in EFL classes (figure 1). After analyzing the pros and cons of CALL, it can be concluded that in the process of teaching-learning through the use of computer technology, there are basic components to take into consideration. These components are inseparable from each other and include: knowledge of the subject, teaching skills, multicultural factors, and instructional technology skills found when using CALL. All these can work together

FIGURE

1. Computer technology does not teach, teachers teach,

technology is the medium
Language

1C"'hing~,"",ing

Computer-Technology

in order to develop a better environment of learning, as shown in figure 2. The use of CALL is inevitable. For that reason, administrators and other academics professionals should give access to computers to as many students and teachers as possible. Teachers need to be trained not only in the use ofthe computer but also they need to be trained in curriculum instruction design and other techniques in order to design well-structured lesson plans, activities, exercises, and examinations which focus on the different elements that involve the art of teaching.

Boswood, Tim 1997 New Ways of Using Computers in Language Teaching, Alexandria,
VA, TESOL.

Burns, D. 1996 Technology in The ESL Classroom, vol. 18, no. 4, Technology & Learning, NovemberlDecember. Chapelle, Carole 1998 Analysis of Interaction Sequences in Computer-Assisted Language Learning, Tesol Quarterly 17(2), 165-187. Hanson, Elizabeth 1999 CALL Environments: The Quiet Revolution, Alexandria, VA, TESOL. Hirschbuhl, J. 1996 Computers in Education, 9th ed., Dushkin-McGraw Hill Annual Editions. Meloni, Christine. 1998 A Valuable Tool and Resource for ESL & EFL Teachers, ESL Magazine. Roblyer, M. D. 1996 Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching, Prentice Hall Canada, Higher Education. Singhal, Meena 1997 "The Internet and Foreign Language Education: Benefits and Challenges". The Internet TESL Journal, vol. III, no. 6, June. Warschauer, Mark 1996 "Researching Technology in TESOL: Determinist, Instrumental, and Critical Approaches", Tesol Quarterly 19(4),727-752.