casla through a social constructivist perspective: webquest in project-driven language learning
DESCRIPTION
CASLA through a social constructivist perspective: WebQuest in project-driven language learning. Vassiliki Simina and Marie-Josée Hamel CCL, UMIST, UK [email protected] [email protected]. Presentation plan. Background and aim Overview on constructivism General definition - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
CASLA through a social constructivist perspective:
WebQuest in project-driven language learning
Vassiliki Simina andMarie-Josée HamelCCL, UMIST, [email protected] [email protected]
Presentation plan
Background and aim Overview on constructivism
– General definition– Focus on social constructivism– Principles and implications CASLA
Conditions for successful:– Learning– SLA– Conditions juxtaposed
Characteristics of the ideal:– Socio-constructivist environment– CALL environment– Characteristics juxtaposed
WebQuest– As one example of good practice– Definition and characteristics– Examples
Conclusions
Background and aim
MSc in CALL dissertation Mandate: investigate the contribution of constructivism in CALL Aim of the research:
– Suggest a model (expansion) which will allow for the description of the characteristics of an ideal social constructivist CALL environment promoting conditions for successful SLA
– Find potential existing examples of good/best practice Results of initial investigation are presented today Further research remains to be done Constructive feedback is welcome!
Overview on constructivism
Historical account– Socrates:
Maieutic– Vico/Kant:
Knowledge precedes reasoning– Piaget:
Cognitive stages of development– Vygotsky
Socio-cultural cognitive development– Bruner
Discovery learning– Dewey
Experiential learning
Overview on constructivism
General definition:– A theory of learning– Central tenet:
learners construct their knowledge on their own: – by associating new with prior information– through experience and reflection upon experience
– A procedural/cognitive model– Theory concerned with how knowledge is constructed– Focus on the learner and his mental/cognitive operations while
learning– Learner’s participation in the process/control over the
process
Overview on constructivism
Focus on social constructivism (Vygotsky 1978) Key concepts:
– Social interaction Thinking subject and realm of the social are interconnected
– Socio-cultural cognition Context as essential for construction of knowledge Language as a common mean to mediate knowledge
– Zone of Proximal Development Scaffolding
– Collaboration to achieve self-reliance
Principles and implications for CASLA
Knowledge is constructed by the individual based on his own experience
Learning is an active process where the learner’s mental constructs are enlarged/modified to fit his experiential world
The focus is on the learner’s interpretation of the real world
Implication – Approaches like problem-solving and discovery allow the
learner to explore the real world and make sense of it on his own
Principles and implications for CASLA
Social interaction supports the construction of knowledge
Scaffolding process is core Language is fundamental in social
interaction Implication
– Approaches promoting collaboration and autonomy allow the learner to actively participate in socially situated contexts
Socio-constructivist conditions for successful learning
Vygotsky (1978)– Learners should be provided learning data within their zone
of proximal development hence directing them to become more self-reliant
Driscoll (1994)– Provide complex and relevant learning environments that
incorporate authentic activity– Provide for social negotiation– Allow access to multiple perspectives and multiple modes of
learning– Encourage student ownership in learning– Emphasize self-awareness of knowledge construction
Conditions for successful SLA
Chapelle (1998 and 2001):– Ideal (comprehensible) input/output
Interaction (Gass 1997)
– Cognitive (Skehan 1998) Provide a range of target structures, etc.
– Socio-affective (MacIntyre et al. 1998) WTC
Conditions juxtaposed
Common grounds– variety of materials/multiple representations– interaction in collaborative learning– self-monitoring
Expansion– allowance for learner’s constructions– consideration of individual differences in cognitive characteristics of
learners– promotion of social interaction for negotiation/multiple representations of
meaning – Provision of comprehensible input in authentic environment facilitating
associations with prior knowledge– emphasis on scaffolding process and autonomy rather than directed focus
on form and meaning
Characteristics of the ideal socio-constructivist environment
– A socio-constructivist environment that facilitates knowledge construction (Jonassen 1994) by:
Providing multiple representation of reality Representing the natural complexity of the real world Focusing on knowledge construction, not reproduction Presenting authentic tasks Providing real-world, case-based learning environments, rather
than pre-determined instructional sequences Fostering reflective practice Enabling context and content dependent knowledge
construction Supporting collaborative construction of knowledge through
social negotiation
Characteristics of the ideal socio-constructivist environment
An environment that fosters:– Cognitive apprenticeships
Modelling, scaffolding, coaching, exploration, articulation and reflection (Conway 1997)
– Situated learning or cognition Task-based, project-based and content-based learning
(Warschauer and Healey 1998)
– Collaborative learning Learners work together towards a common goal
Characteristics of the ideal CALL environment
A CALL environment that provides (Chapelle 1998):– Plenty of ideal input/output– Opportunity for focus on form and meaning– Opportunity for noticing errors– Modified interaction between learner and
computer
Characteristics of an ideal socio-constructivist CALL environment
– Learner-centred learner free to make his/her own interpretations teacher as a facilitator
– Authentic context-rich, experience-based activities
– Social interaction sharing of multiple representations, reflection and monitoring opportunity for negotiation (social/meaning)
– Scaffolding manipulation of attention (focus on meaning/form) collaboration to achieve aims
WebQuest
An example of good practice An information gap resolution model (Felix
2002)– A model where social interaction is fostered by
collaborating and co-operating in meaningful exchanges through authentic information gaps
– A model that seeks to achieve maximum connectivity and student engagement
– It involves contextualised language and research tasks– It stimulates creative simulations
WebQuest
Definition– “an inquiry-oriented activity in which some or all
the information that learners interact with comes from the Internet” (Dodge 1995)
Description– six essential components:
– introduction, task, process, resources, evaluation and conclusion
WebQuest
Characteristics– content in context– project-based– convergent (problem-solving) task – motivational elements– group/solo activities– single discipline or interdisciplinary– adaptable– multimodal – authentic assessment– integration of Internet in curriculum
WebQuest
Main sites:– http://www.webquest.org/– http://www.webquestuk.org.uk/
Some examples:– Discover London WebQuest– Guess Who’s Coming For Dinner– The Job Of Your Dreams WebQuest– This Mission Is Possible– A Visitor’s Guide To The Solar System– many more
Conclusions
Future work– need for a more solid and robust constructivist
theory of language learning – Model in progress…
– empirical research– Investigations/evaluations
References
CHAPELLE, C. (1998). “Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA”. Language Learning & Technology, 2 (1): 22-34.
CONWAY, J. (1997). “Educational technology's effect on models of instruction”, electronic version available at <http://copland.udel.edu/~jconway/EDST666.htm>.
DRISCOLL, M. P. (1994). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
DODGE, B. (1995). “Some thoughts about WebQuests”, electronic version available at <http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec596/about_webquests.html>.
GASS, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
References
FELIX, U. (2002) “The web for constructivism approaches in language learning”. ReCALL, 14 (1): 2-15.
JONASSEN, D. H. (1994). “Thinking technology”. Educational Technology, 34 (4): 34-37.
MACINTYRE, P. D. et al. (1998). “Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation”. The Modern Language Journal, 82: 545-62.
SKEHAN, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
VYGOTSKY, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
WARSCHAUER, M. AND HEALEY, D. (1998). “Computers and language learning: An overview”. Language Teaching, 31: 57-71.