| Criteria & Conditions |
Main Points:
| - who with - when |
- what medium - what materials - which language |
- what activities - what assessment |
Esch (1996) and Egbert (1996) both put forward frameworks for criteria and conditions for a computer-supported language learning environment, but with different focuses.
Esch (1996:35) raises the issue of whether technology promotes autonomy, or whether it replaces teacher control with " the slavery or control exercised over learners by technological means." She puts forward the view that if technology of any type can help the development of autonomous learners, it should be used to the full. She then sets out five criteria for evaluating whether technology creates a supportive environment for learner autonomy. The CILL site fulfils all these criteria, as shown below.
Esch’s first criterion is "Choice, or the provision of genuine alternatives." (1996: 39)
Examples of choices she gives are, firstly that learners can choose to work alone, with help or in classes. CILL site users can work alone, with the help of other users or a tutor by e-mail or conferencing, or in ‘virtual classes’ with both other users and a tutor conferencing together. Secondly, that learners decide when and how often to come, which is true of the CILL site. Thirdly that learners can come on their own or with a friend, which is true in two ways with the CILL site, as they can work with a friend beside them at their computer, or with a friend using another computer in another place. Fourthly, that they can choose which language to study, which is true of the CILL site because it has links for the four languages taught by HKPU’s English Department: English, French, German and Japanese. Fifthly, Esch says that learners should be able to choose which medium to use. The CILL site is on one medium, computers, but tells its learners how to use other mediums such as film, books and newspapers. Choice Six is the choice whether to use authentic or exercise-written-for-language-learning materials. Links to both types, and explanations of why and how to use them are on the site. The seventh choice is what activities to carry out. CILL site users do not have to follow any path through the materials suggested on the site. Finally, Esch suggests that learners should be given a choice of formal or informal; summative or formative evaluation. CILL site users can opt for formal assessment, for example by e-mailing a piece of written work to a tutor for assessment, although it is CILL policy that marked assignments for any HKPU course will not be proof-read by CILL tutors. They can ask for informal assessment, for example by recording their pronunciation and e-mailing it as an attached file to a tutor for assessment. For formative assessment users can, for example, identify their prior learning in the introductory sections of materials, identify areas of weakness through diagnostic activities such as grammar tests; failures in communication with other Internet users on e-mail; or get constructive feedback from CILL tutors on their e-mail writing. For summative assessment that measures and records learner’s attainment users can take a test such as re-taking a grammar test in an area that they had been weak in, or by submitting a piece of written work to a tutor for assessment after they have studied a genre or skill.
Esch’s second criterion is flexibility, which she defines as the possibility of self-repair and changing of options. Users of the CILL site can, at any time, choose to stop doing an activity and change to another or quit.
Her third criterion is adaptability/modifiability. By adaptability she means the ability of the system; eg. in its categorisation of materials, to be accessible to learners with varying needs. The hyperlinking system of the Internet facilitates this by allowing links from multiple places to point to the same resource. By modifiability Esch means the possibility of learners modifying existing materials. CILL site users can indirectly modify materials and the site itself by e-mailing webmasters about changes or additions they would like to make.
The fourth criterion she suggests is reflectivity/negotiability. She gives three examples of this. They are: a learning advisory service, learner-training courses and a help desk. The second is on the CILL site (see Appendix 13), although it is not in the form of a course, but as advice. The first and third are available by e-mailing a tutor.
Esch’s final criterion is shareability, which she defines as the ability to share activities and problems with others. She gives the example of The Chinese University’s ‘electronic pen friends’ as a way of doing this. The CILL site also gives its users the opportunity to make such pen-pals.
Egbert (1996: 3-4) also has some conditions for an ideal computer-supported language learning environment. She suggests four conditions for an ideal language learning environment that the CILL Internet site attempts to provide.
Firstly, she says that condition one should be, "Opportunities for learners to interact and negotiate meaning with an authentic audience." The CILL site provides these through opportunities to interact with e-mail pen-pals and discussion lists such as The Digital Education Network's On-Line Forums on the Internet.
The second condition is that learners should be, "involved in authentic tasks which promote exposure to and production of varied and creative language." The CILL site addresses this need in two ways. The first is by providing learners with opportunities for communication as detailed in the previous paragraph, and the second is by providing learners with tools for carrying out other authentic tasks such as academic writing for their university courses. For example there are links to dictionaries, grammar and pronunciation resources to help the learners with the production of language.
The final condition is "An atmosphere with ideal stress/anxiety level in a learner centred classroom." Although the CILL Internet site need not be accessed from a classroom, it could be regarded as a ‘virtual classroom’ in that there are opportunities for interaction with classmates and a various teachers using text conferencing and e-mail, there are resources for studying such as dictionaries and grammar resources, and resources for studying such as on-line lessons. It could be argued that a ‘virtual classroom’ has a lower stress/anxiety level than a real classroom because, as Levy (1997:205) points out, the learner chooses when and how to interact, which may give the learner more control over the conditions that give rise to communicative stress.
Egbert, Joy L. (1996) Analytic and Systemic Analyses of Computer-supported Language Learning Environments. TESL-EJ Vol. 2, No. 2 September 1996
Esch, Edith (1996) Promoting learner autonomy: criteria for the selection of appropriate methods. In Pemberton, Richard; et al.(1996) Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press, 35 - 48