Abstract
In this article we report on the first phase of a project designed to tackle the concepts of teaching and learning in a multimedia environment. The BLINGUA pilot project is exploring a pedagogical approach to delivering differentiated language learning and area studies skills. The first phase, which ran in Semester 1 (2004 – 2005), was delivered to a cohort of first year undergraduates of French at the University of Ulster. This paper presents the theoretical foundation to our approach and its application to a CALL environment as well as laying the foundations for an evaluation of the project using the principles of effectiveness research. Further papers will present the qualitative and quantitative findings in greater detail, drawing from data gleaned over two years. The authors designed and implemented this new approach with a view to developing student autonomy in the use of the multimedia environment and the practice of the 4 main language skills along with grammar based activities. We also explored the possibilities of delivering aspects of an area studies module by this means. The evaluation was based on a quasi-experimental study of the BLINGUA approach. The context was a treatment group whose blended learning experience was delivered according to differentiated learning styles, and a comparison group who were taught without knowledge of their learning style. Initial findings show that students respond well to the blended learning environment and especially one where this learning is delivered in the context of learning style differentiation.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 357-372 |
| Journal | Computer Assisted Language Learning |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue number | 4-5 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published (in print/issue) - 2006 |
Bibliographical note
Reference text: 1. Ahmad, K., Corbett, G., Rodgers, M. and Sussex, R. 1985. Computers, language learning and language teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.2. Barr, D., Leakey, J. and Ranchoux, A. 2005. TOLD like it is! An evaluation of an integrated oral development model. Language Learning and Technology [online journal], 9(3): 55–78. [Web of Science ®]
3. Barson, J. and Debski, R. “Calling back CALL: Technology in the service of foreign language learning based on creativity, contingency and goal-oriented activity”. In Telecollaboration in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the Hawai'i symposium, Edited by: Warschauer, M. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. in press
4. Bersin, & Associates. 2003. Blended learning: What works? Retrieved August 18, 2004, from http://www.e-learningguru.com/wpapers/blended_bersin.doc
5. Chapelle, C. and Jamieson, J. 1991. “Internal and external validity issues in research on CALL effectiveness”. In Computer-assisted language learning and testing: research issues and practice, Edited by: Dunkel, P. New York: Newbury House.
6. Chapelle, C. 2001. Computer applications in second language acquisition, Cambridge, , UK: Cambridge University Press.
7. Decoo, W. 2001. On the mortality of language learning methods. Retrieved July 26, 2004, from www.didascalia.be/mortality.htm
8. Dodson, C. J. 1978. Bilingual education in Wales. Schools Council, : 48
9. Felix, U. 2000. The potential of CD-ROM technology for integrating language and literature: student perceptions. German as a foreign language [online], 2: 48–63. Retrieved December 16, 2003, from http://www.gfl-journal.de/2-2000/felix.pdf
10. Felix, U. Paradoxes and Pitfalls of ICT effectiveness research: Some modest solutions. 11th International CALL Conference on CALL & Research Methodologies—Proceedings. pp.113–142. Antwerp: University of Antwerp.
11. Hirvela, A. 1989. The case against CAI: A reply to John Higgins. System, 17(1): 61–65. [CrossRef]
12. Hubbard, P. Some subject, treatment and data collection trends in current CALL research. 11th International CALL Conference on CALL and Research Methodologies—Proceedings. pp.165–166. Antwerp: University of Antwerp.
13. Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and culture in language teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Lafford, B. A. 2004. Review of Tell me more Spanish, Language Learning and Technology Retrieved May 6, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num3/review1
15. Last, R. W. 1989. “Artificial intelligence—the way forward for CALL?”. In The use of computers in the teaching of language and languages, Edited by: Chesters, G. Bath: Computers in Teaching Initiative Support Service.
16. Levy, M. 1997. Computer-assisted language learning, context and conceptualization, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
17. Levy, M. 2000. Scope, goals and methods in CALL research: questions of coherence and autonomy. ReCALL, 12(2): 170–195. [CrossRef], [CSA]
18. Murray, G. L. 1999. Exploring learners' CALL experiences: a reflection on method. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 12(3): 179–195. [Taylor & Francis Online], [CSA]
19. Race, P. 2001. The lecturer's toolkit, London: Kogan Page.
20. Reeves, T. 1993. Pseudoscience in computer based instruction: The case of learner control research. Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 20(2): 39–46. [Web of Science ®]
21. Salaberry, M. R. 1996. A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in computer mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 14(1): 5–36.
22. Schmitt, R. 1991. Methodological weaknesses with CAI research. Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 18(1): 75–76.
23. Smith, W. W., ed. 1988. Modern media in foreign language education: Applications and projects, Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
24. Stevens, V., Sussex, R. and Tuman, W. V. 1986. A bibliography of computer-aided language learning, New York: AMS Press.
25. Sutton, B. 2004. Mastering the mix: Tips for building successful blended learning programmes Retrieved June 9, 2005, from http://www.trainingreference.co.uk/blended_learning/bl0604.htm
26. Underwood, J. 1984. Linguistics, computers, and the language teacher: A communicative approach, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
27. Warschauer, M. 1996. “Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction”. In Multimedia language teaching, Edited by: Fotos, S. 3–20. Tokyo: Logos International.
28. Yildiz, R. and Atkins, M. 1993. Evaluating multimedia applications. Computers in Education, 21(1/2): 133–139. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]
Keywords
- computer-assisted language learning
- evaluation
- blended learning
- CALL
- quantitative and qualitative research
- action research