Week 3 readings

Chapelle and Liu’s (2007) chapter spurred me to think more deeply about the idea of authenticity. One idea that particularly struck me was the idea of learner perceptions being an important aspect in considering authenticity (111). CALL activities are not in and of themselves authentic, but rather the learner, participating in the activities, perceives the activities as being related to or similar to real life (112). This learner perception is one factor in determining authenticity. And authenticity, in turn, is one factor in evaluating CALL activities (124-25). Chapelle and Liu illustrate the role of learner perceptions in determining task authenticity by describing Liu’s (2005) and Jamieson and Chapelle’s (2006) study of Longman English Interactive activities, focusing on a role-play task. Both studies showed that students had some differing views of the relationship between the task and real life (121). This reading on learner’s perceptions of a task being a factor in determining authenticity was for me, as a teacher, new insight into the idea of authenticity.

This week’s readings made me think more deeply about some project work my students had completed this past academic year. I had used the computer mostly only for word processing, so they were not CALL activities beyond that. One of the projects was to write a “Profile Book.” Japanese profile books are popular among upper-elementary and junior high school girls. They involve asking their friends to fill out a page of questions about themselves. The questions are informative, personal, and sometimes silly and fun. I had used a real-life form to offer students a context for practicing the English language, but, while they seemed to enjoy it (including the boys), I don’t know what their perceptions of the task actually were in terms of authenticity.

Johnston’s (2007) reading was interesting for me as it introduced dimensions to audience analysis specific to CALL that I hadn’t yet thought too much about. Coming from a rhetoric and composition background, I had some familiarity with the ideas of audience analysis involved in process approaches to writing. Johnston discusses the broadened audience the computer may address. This is an audience the student doesn’t know, doesn’t hear, and doesn’t see as s/he would the audience of a written text and/or spoken discourse (67-68.) An audience analysis that a process writing approach might suggest seems limited in its usefulness for broader CALL communications. I felt one of the most interesting ideas Johnston explained was that as computer audiences are interested in the meaning of the message, more so than the form, they are authentic audiences, by his definition (68). I felt this was interesting because the audience of CALL activities are real people who really read the text; whereas, the intended audience for more traditional forms of class writing may or may not actually read the text.

Another of the writing tasks that my students did this past year was to write to Pencil Pals in Tokyo. (We’re in Niigata.) As with CALL audiences, the Pencil Pal audience was also unknown, and  they also really read the letters. Yet, the situation allowed them to make inferences about their pals, their ages, their possible interests, and as the letters continued they could know their pals more. While web productions may not allow students to know their audience really well, I think students may also be making inferences while doing CALL activities. At the end of two terms, my students met by Skype.

Healey’s (2007) reading offers an overview of Oxford’s classification of perspectives of autonomy in relation to CALL. I found the psychological perspective, which describes the significance of motivation and learning preferences, very interesting. Healey explains the feeling of success that students can achieve from web productions that others can see and the enthusiasm for learning more that can be further heightened (384). I also felt that Healey’s point that “technology, like all human artifacts, is not neutral” was very important (387). I feel that computer use has crept into my life in various ways, and as teachers especially, it’s important to understand the values, beliefs, and behaviors associated with computer use and its potential use.

Reading Sources:

Chapelle, Carol A., and Liu, Hsin-min. "Theory and Research: Investigating Authenticity." Egbert, J., and Hanson-Smith, E. (2007). CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues, 111-127. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Healey, Deborah. "Theory and Research: Autonomy and Language Learning." Egbert, J., and Hanson-Smith, E. (2007). CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues, 377-388. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. 

Johnston, Bill. "Theory and Research: Audience, Language Use, and Language Learning." Egbert, J., and Hanson-Smith, E. (2007). CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues, 61-69. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.