The term Generic CALL describes authoring packages designed to cover all aspects of CALL program authoring. Clozewrite (Camsoft), Clozemaster (Wida) Text manipulation: Fun. See Module 3.2, CALL software design. Brave New Digital Classroom Brave New Digital Classroom Technology and Foreign Language Learning Robert J. Blake Foreword by Dorothy M. Chun Georgetown University Press Washington, D.C.
Computers and Reading in a Second Language. By Tom Cobb & Vance Stevens. Language Centre, Sultan Qaboos University. Sultanate of Oman. ABSTRACTIt has often been noted that CALL. Dunkel, 1. 99. 1; Wyatt, 1. Dunkel 1. 98. 7; Roblyer. The problem is. mainly in two areas: lack of sustained reference to. Hubbard, 1. 99. 2), or to sustained description. CALL programs (Chapelle. In developing an argument promoting the use of text manipulation. On reproche souvent . INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS READING COURSEWARE? It is. not at all clear what language teachers expect reading skills development. Although making insightful predictions concerning the. CD- ROM and laser printers, two devices neither widely used nor. Wyatt (1. 98. 9) placed use of. Indeed, much reading. In such courseware, computers can. The main drawback with the. Wyatt, for example, points. Adding to the frustration is the work wasted if the. For these reasons, tools for producing. But more recently uses have been made of. One focus of. this chapter is thus to examine such connections in light. Hypertext is one means of making such connections. In. its simplest form. These links might give. In this program, users try to. USA). Solution of the. More recently, CD- ROM versions of the program. In the CD- ROM. screen becomes a mouse- driven console providing a video. The program produces a. Many. other CD- ROM- based multimedia. THE ANIMALS!, for. The San Diego Zoo. Complex and authentic instructional. Along these lines, we might envision. The. potential of these media in providing both a text- rich. PC's. When readers have widespread access to such tools, the concept of. Tuman (1. 99. 2) argues that an . Of. course, this would advantage. Reading for. some could soon be characterized. Before. we turn our students. Having moved tentatively into speculation about on- line reading in the. The remainder of this chapter will suggest. L2 learners. Moreover. ACCESS TO TEXT, THE COMPUTER- BASED READING ADVANTAGEOne of. Text comes in over e- mail, or is scanned from. CD- ROM databases in university. Thus experienced as well as. One of the most. interesting aspects of such text is that almost all of. In light of Higgins's (1. Indications are that they can. Bacon. and Finnemann (1. Spanish students. U. S. Results. suggest that students are willing. Bacon and Finnemann). These results all suggest that use of authentic. L2 reading can be motivating and not unduly daunting to second. The foregoing is of particular interest in. Kleinmann's (1. 98. CAI reading programs. The. solution, he suggests, is programs providing more challenging. In his words: If we accept. Krashen & Terrell). CAI compared. non- CAI in the present study are easily understood. Very little of the. Moreover, it will be. For. reading skills development. However, if. beginning or intermediate learners are to be exposed to large amounts of. Intermediate. learners may be able. This. chapter argues that text manipulation templates can engage students. Although. scanning is not a skill that cloze encourages (Nunan, 1. Alderson. Windeatt, 1. Feldmann and Stemmer, 1. TM). exercises such as on- line cloze may exercise context. Jonz. 1. 99. 0; Bachman, 1. And it. appears from the results of the studies noted. Wyatt. and others. TEMPLATES FOR TEXT. MANIPULATION: DEVELOPER'S CONVENIENCE OR SOUND INSTRUCTIONAL. DESIGN? It is not hard to see the attractions of linking text. Indeed, the distinctive feature of TM program. TM systems can be. Help. can be any kind of information the text can provide. The only limitation is that the help must. All that the developer (e. The already- chunked. Higgins's programs, SEQUITUR. Thus a wide variety. Times of. than in equivalent operations in their graded reading workbooks. From a developer's. CALL implementation are. However, the history of technology in education. The apparent ease often hides the fact that one partner. Dick (1. 99. 1) has. The. question to be addressed in. TM approach. yields corresponding benefits to. L2 learners, and particularly to their. In arguing that. it does, the authors will show how the. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: TM &. READING THEORYFor most people, reading is more agreeable and. Heppner et al, 1. However. onscreen reading has the potential. A. reader can send a message via the screen. A paper text, by. Of. skilled reader the process is interactive whether on paper. Some notion of interactivity between reader and text. In these models. the skilled reader is far from a. A text's. meaning for a particular reader is gradually constructed. And of course no two readers are likely to construct. However, interaction with a text, although. L1 reading, is often problematic for L2 readers. The L2 reader characteristically. Skinner's reader, passive. This characterization. L2 readers whose reading in their L1 is nonetheless. The potential reasons for such a reversal are many. Or at a higher processing level, readers. L2, so. that they have no preactivated scaffolding to help. So one. objective for L2 reading. Perfetti (1. 98. 3) has. L1 readers, and. Frederiksen (1. L2. Text manipulation courseware attacks the problem in a different. TM simulates the target activity itself. At any. of a number of levels, text manipulation externalizes. Readers faced with a. Readers. have no choice but to interact if. Admittedly, the simulations of interaction provided by a TM system may. Many of the typical TM operations that must be. Nonetheless, we. an L2 reader who, for example, drags the boxed sentences of a. L1. do unconsciously when they read - for instance, puzzling out the. Further, when. the box has been. TM system's mechanical. L1 reader by subsequent. How successfully TM operations. In any case, the competition is not stiff; many L2 readers. So far, then, we are. Text Manipulation is capable of tapping. However, the alert reader will have noticed. TM is phrased in a particular. In the. battle with behaviorism, cognitivism may have been. For example, even given the. L1 need. support for a similar target interaction. L2? Why isn't it enough to give. L2? With those mastered, then, what. L1 they. will naturally be able to do in. L2. Practice in high- level interaction may. This is. precisely what many argue in L1 reading research. Perfetti, 1. 98. 3 and. Stanovich and Cunningham, 1. L2 (Segalowitz, 1. Polson, 1. 99. 2). If true. this would be a. TM. against developing a whole new generation of it to exploit the. We believe the argument is. THE BACKGROUND TO INTERACTIVE READING: READING AS WRITINGThe interactive version of reading, with the reader contributing to. The constant theme in cognitive. Miller (1. 95. 6) onward. For example, on the level of word perception. Tulving & Gold (1. On. the level of discourse Bransford & Johnson's 'laundry story' (1. The studies are legion. Also. such structures are important in view of how much typically gets left out. Minsky, 1. 97. 5; Schank. Abelson, 1. 97. 7). The pedagogy of reading implied by this. The. application came mainly from Smith. Goodman (1. 96. 7) under the. Having. made predictions at. The role of text is. In both Smith and. Goodman, the reader constructs the text almost as much as writer, and the. The deformed. on- screen text simulates and of. Clearly, if native speakers must bring. If reading is a guessing game even when most. Perhaps. it is because the theory, as a processing model. Perfetti (1. 98. 5) believes. Perhaps. it seemed as if the. Least researched of all. CALL extension of the pedagogical application. And. involved in TM believe that to undertake such research now would be. It was probably inevitable that the. Smith- Goodman theory of reading would. L1 reading. all this century between expectation- driven. Adams, 1. 99. 0. provides a good backgrounder). Fashion aside, however. Lesgold, 1. 98. 4). Unexpectedly. several studies seeking to identify the actual characteristics that. Sampling from a very large pool. Mitchell and Greene (1. Goodman's eye- movement data could. Their consistent. Balota, Pollatsek, and Rayner (1. Perfetti. Goldman, and Hogaboam. Graesser, Hoffman, and. Clark (1. 98. 0) found that for good. A. coherent sequence of. Perfetti (1. 98. 5). The instructional implication here is that. The decoding issue was slow to. L2 reading theory, possibly. Grabe. 1. 99. 1). However, a sign that. Huckin, Haynes, and Coady (1. L2. reading. Coady, as. The emergence of. CALL reading software. In fact. some large- scale CALL projects now seem headed in this direction. Coady et al, 1. 99. If L2 theory and practice were to. L1 reading theory. This may be. inevitable; Selinker (1. EFL/ESL as a field fond of. In any case. it is no doubt. L2 reading for more. Huckin et al (1. 99. L1 AND L2 READING: SAME OR DIFFERENT? L1 reading research. L2 reading in any simple. If a skilled. reader fixates three or four words per second. Moreover, if he. is skilled at reading, why. Reading is much easier than. The case may be different. Actual studies looking into subtle L1- L2. L1 reading experiments. L2. readers and obtained rather different results. For. example, the key. Stanovich & West experiment mentioned above was replicated. Favreau and Segalowitz (1. What Stanovich and West characterized as less- skilled readers'. L2 readers. Skilled. L1 to L2, even when the foundations. Second- language readers' apparent. For example. it appears in a series of mainly unpublished studies. Mc. Laughlin (1. 98. The theme of these studies is summarized. Mc. Laughlin (1. 98. Their study compared the read- aloud errors. L2 readers against those produced by L1 readers. One sentence. the text the subjects read was, . But if L2 students did not know. Advanced students made far fewer errors. In other words. recognition was not automatic, there was no strategy for producing a. A few other experiments confirm the existence of this. Arden- Close's (1. Oman. It is even. L1 studies (e. g. Oakhill, 1. 99. 3). So. direct instruction or practice in reading- as- interaction or even. L2. whatever other realities may exist. L1. The recent decoding movement. Text Manipulation. Psycholinguistic reading theory has. To what. work on Text Manipulation software produce context sensitivity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |