In preparing to evaluate the usefulness and effectiveness of this CALL module, it is necessary to reflect on the user characteristics, the objectives of the syllabus and the linguistic needs of the learners (Levy, 1997). The computer can only have the relationship as tutor with the learner if the module can be relied upon to manage the learner properly and if the students can rely on its judgements (Levy, 1997). This reflection incorporates my own thoughts with peer feedback. By carefully considering different aspects of the materials separately and in conjunction with the learning situation and the learners, I will reflect on the content validity and practicality of the module in terms of design, process, useability and accessibility.
Design: I had constant debate with myself over how much text on a page was too much, what colours worked best, how big the font should be and the layout of the page. Maggie and Zahran felt that it was a clear, simple design. I am not sure why, however, they were unclear about the level of the learners as I pointed out that this was a follow-on from the Web Quest where everything was explained in full. So, I felt it only necessary to briefly refer to this on the homepage. It was interesting, however, to note that Maggie thought it was aimed at young adults or senior high school students, which was exactly my target.
Process: As this module is for young adult learners working towards university, I have considered the need for them to become more self-directed and the scaffolding of the tasks and the recycling of the language was meant serve that objective.
While Maggie thought the instructions were “very clear” and “easy to follow” with “materials (that) were well-selected”, she said that the reading text for the crossword was too hard. I wrote it myself and based it on the language structures and the vocabulary students would have learnt from the Web Quest. This drew my attention to the different standards of learner “levels” in different countries perhaps. I did aim to exploit the multimedia capacity of the project by providing a variety of activities that involved listening, viewing and reading and critical thinking. Maggie said: “Your product is very successful and you give lots of interesting visual inputs (music, video, songs, pictures, dramas, and graphics) to motivate your learners to learn English.”
As for the Hot Potatoes activities themselves, I tried to scaffold them so that students would have more than one chance to test the same knowledge, using a variety of responses, such as numbers, dates, phrases and vocabulary. I believe the tasks represent a mix of activities that require the learner to use a variety of learning strategies like skimming, scanning, memorisation, elimination, deduction and guessing in context. While some tasks require responses in words, other used number or dates. Some of the tasks demanded knowledge of syntax, grammar and comprehension of discourse. I think this was effective. In the multiple choice task students were asked to choose numbers, but Zahran said that he would have preferred distractors, for example, a year or a month or otherwise to have students re-order the pictures through “drag and drop”. I like the idea of drag and drop but I wasn’t sure how to do it. My intention was that students did not always have to work in words. The first matching task used simple numbers while a later jumble required students to use chronological order for dates, thus the scaffolding of the exercises. I take the point, though, that drag and drop would give the students the feeling of playing with cards.
Zahran also commented that he liked the gap-fill exercise in which students had to listen to the song in order to complete the task. He also said that he preferred students to write comments about their scores. I think he misunderstood the purpose of the score sheet. The intention was that the students would record the score they got and then rate the activity. Then as the instructions said, they would feedback to their peers about their success. He also said that they did not understand the aim of the slide show and that more instructions were required. However, I simply thought that the word “enjoy” was enough to let the students know that it was for their pleasure, for fun.
Change: I think I will re-order the sequence of Matching 1 and 2, as 1 requires learners to search for information in a text, ie. Scanning, and chronologically order the dates, which requires a understanding of numeration and sequence. Task 1 is easier requiring knowledge of vocabulary to match concepts, like a word with a category, crow is a bird. This is a scientific task but more linguistically-based so that students. I think that the jumble tasks are quite difficult, testing students knowledge of syntax and grammar, quite analytical tasks requiring a more specific knowledge of language (Warschauer, Shetzer, Meloni, & Teachers of English to Speakers of other Languages (TESOL) Inc., 2000). I think I would put the quiz first, actually, so that the students would read and get a global, overall context of the language. In this way, the tasks would be better scaffolded, offering them more support through the strategies they need to complete the tasks (Wenden, 1991).
Useability: My peers said that they thought the site was a clear, simple design and quite easy to navigate. I had concerns about the need for students to use external sites requiring sound and video. If the students didn’t have these facilities or their operating systems were slow, it might take a while to load, leading to demotivation. It is important also to be sure that students receive adequate instruction on how to move betweens sites and back and forth through the tasks so I tried to put adequate instructions. I was mindful that not all students are confident using the computer. It was obvious that Maggie and Zahran looked at the site thoroughly and tried to give thoughtful comments, for which I am grateful. Overall, Maggie felt the level was not too high for my nominated learners: “From my point of view, you overestimate your learners’ abilities and their patience. I think some of your learners are finding your tasks very difficult, e.g. crossword and jumble exercise.”
Accessibility: Given the typical operating systems available in
Conclusion
I feel that in designing this module, I considered user characteristics, the objectives of the syllabus and the linguistic needs of the learners (Levy, 1997). By carefully considering different aspects of the materials separately and in conjunction with the learning situation and the learners, I took into account the need for content validity and practicality of the module. Despite numerous technological problems, I am reasonably happy with the product. The only thing stopping me from improving it, is not knowing how to fully use the software.
Reference
Bibliographical References
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: context and conceptualization. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.
Warschauer, M., Shetzer, H., Meloni, C. F., & Teachers of English to Speakers of other Languages (TESOL) Inc. (2000). Internet for English teaching. Alexandria, Va.: TESOL.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy : planning and implementing learner training for language learners. New York: Prentice Hall.
No comments:
Post a Comment