An outline on Ballance 's (2012) article

Technology-assisted learning: Mobile language learning in Ballance (2012)

Purpose: To summarize Ballance’s (2012) key criticisms to Stockwell’s (2010) research on mobile language learning.

Audience: blog readers and English for Academic Purposes tutors at CAECE Distance Learning Programme.

Thesis Statement: The speed of technological innovation exerts a marked effect over researches into technology-assisted language learning.

1. Learning in the digitalized era.
1. Computer assisted language learning.
2. Mobile assisted language learning.
2. Technology pace of  development
1. Apps for language learning.
3. Vocabulary activity systems.
1. Similarity between Computer Assisted Language Learning and Mobile Assisted Language Learning platforms.
2. Suitability of pen and paper completion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Ballance, O.J. (2012). Mobile language learning: More than just “the platform”.

Language Learning & Technology, 16 (3). Retrieved from: http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/ballance.pdf

Godwin-Jones (2012) and the Learning Management System

Godwin-Jones (2012) depicts online learning hegemonies

In his article, Godwin-Jones (2012) highlights the importance that utilising a learning management system is gradually acquiring within language teaching in educational settings. These systems, in the author’s words, offer a variety of course management and teaching tools, as well as pedagogical and cultural standpoints regarding “learning design, instructional choice, and computer literacy” (p.4). Furthermore, Learning Management System pedagogical model resembles the traditional classroom in several fashions.

Particularly important is the remark made by Godwin-Jones (2012) about the main use of learning management system for language instruction. The author acknowledges that: “One of the principal uses of an LMS has been for instructors to upload learning materials for easy online access by students” (p. 7). On the other hand, he observes that the majority of these systems do not allow different courses to export materials, i.e. sources ought to be copied or created again if another course wants to have access to them. This drawback may well be overcome by the recent development of programmes which permit file sharing among courses or users.

According to Godwin-Jones (2012), the learning management system features a traditional classroom “with a top-down, instructor-delivered learning environment with emphasis on linear learning through instructor-provided or linked materials and assessments” (p.1). Nevertheless, it fails to account for oral interaction between teachers and learners or among learners themselves. The author suggests that the oral competence can be practiced in class whereas the language competence can be practiced by using the system through different kinds of activities. Moreover, the system allows for many applications to be added so further activities are provided to students. In his way, collaborative work outside the classroom is encouraged. Godwin-Jones replies that instructors should seek to provide language learners with both knowledge about technology and knowledge about their learning style so that they become aware of the multicultural, multilingual world.

As it can be noticed, Godwin-Jones (2012) asserts the topic of the influence that emerging technologies pose over language instruction. It should also be highlighted that this trend is likely to accelerate in the immediate future as a consequence of the pace of technological developments. Moreover, language teachers should be aware of the benefits of including different technological systems in their 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Godwin-Jones, R. (2012). Emerging technologies. Challenging hegemonies in online learning. Language Learning & Technology, 16 (2). Retrieved from: http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2012/emerging.pdf

Summarizing Tardy (2010)

Introducing academic literacy skills into English as a Second Language classrooms.

A summary on Tardy’s (2010) work.

Tardy (2010) considers that second language learners are confronted by new challenges as they move towards writing academic texts. In her article the author gives a detailed account of an approach which aims at fostering such literacy skills on learners and whose final outcome is the composition of a Wikipedia article. This project faces learners with the requirements of coping with the expectations, style and register of academic discourses, therefore placing great demands on them. By following a set of specific tasks, students are guided into fulfilling academic demands.

The approach heralds start by analysing existing Wikipedia articles into small groups and also the differences between writing academic texts and articles of this kind. Then, students work on identifying topics which are not available in the English version and select one for their own assignments. Once this is done, students gather relevant information on the chosen topic to compile and organize. At this stage, the creation of an outline is a useful tool as it facilitates the upcoming drafting process. Next, learners should focus on the collaborative editing of their work and the adequate quotation according to set standards. After polishing their articles, pupils are ready to publish the final version on Wikipedia. 

To conclude, Tardy (2010) examines at how second language learners develop their writing academic skills through the composing of a Wikipedia article. The process expects them to undertake research, summarize information, cite sources, adopt specific genre features, meet discourse expectations and use proper language style at the same time they should avoid plagiarising. All in all, Wikipedia offers a meaningful first opportunity for learners to enter into the writing of academic texts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Tardy, C. M., (2010). Writing for the world: Wikipedia as an introduction to academic writing. English teaching forum, 1. Retrieved from: http://exchanges.state.gov/englishteaching/forum/archives/docs/10-48-1-c.pdf

Swales' (1990) criteria to discourse communities

 Recognizing a discourse community

In the light of Swales’ (1990) criteria to recognise discourse communities, six main concepts may well serve to evaluate if a particular group of people belongs to a discourse community or not. These requirements are the ones described in the present work.

Swales (1990) supports that a discourse community shares some common goals. The members of a group prevail together in pursuit of agreed objectives. As Hoffman-Kip (2003) points out, the nature of human activities in cultural contexts are goal-oriented. Besides, the author supports the idea that “Over time, the group practices develop (…) normative ways of acting and belonging to the inquiry community. These practices reveal the values and expectations of the group.” (p. 4)

It can be said that a discourse community is mobilized by particular purposes shaped over time by its members. As Kelly-Kleese (2004) states, these groups consistently support the maintenance and promotion of the community purposes and mission.

Not only the pursuit of common goals but also the participation between members of a group and the exchange of information are fundamental factors to keep discourse communities alive. These two characteristics are directly interconnected. The former plays a positive role contributing towards satisfying needs. According to Wenzlaff and Waiseman (2004), participatory mechanisms foster collaboration, provide a powerful force for change, enhances opportunities for influencing decision-making processes and for connecting with colleagues. Participating in the discourse is a requirement usually expected in any culture as it is widely considered part of the conceptual scheme of the discourse community. However, quoting Kelly-Kleese (2001) communities "tend to minimize or exclude the participation of some people as they establish the dominance of others" (p. 3).

On the other hand, the exchange of information requires language as the primary medium of communication. Such characteristic is accurately described by the mentioned author who considers that a discourse community "is a group of people who share certain language-using practices... [that] can be seen as conventionalized" (p. 1) by social interactions within the group and in its dealings with outsiders. Members create policy and redefine language by sharing their knowledge and interpretations. Moreover, the author remarks that communities can be properly defined as a speech community rather than as a discourse community since much of the language is oral. Discourse communities are not isolated, as the author describes, they are flexible and allow for boundary crossing. Work on paragraph length.

Another important requirement of a discourse community is that it is characterized by community-specific genres. Members of a particular community do not just use but also contribute to create specific stylistic criteria for both oral and written texts. It is fundamental that these groups understand the conventions and standards by which their work will be evaluated. 

Swales describes that any discourse community should be characterized by a high specialised terminology and a high general level of expertise – two sound requirements which are tightly linked together. This first feature exhibits that members of certain community use words already known with community-specific meanings or that they coin new words.  Kelly-Kleese (2001) abides this idea that “The community college can be seen as adopting language that has been given particular meaning within the larger higher education community, meaning that is less applicable to its own community but is nonetheless consistently used”.

Rather than passively accepting predefined social realities, discourse communities members hold the ability to negotiate meanings and purposes. Such ability demands a high level of expertise of the language. The previously mentioned author describes this ability as what an individual must know in order to appropriately use language in specific discourse communities. “To put it another way, communicative competence implies that "individuals and groups with greater skill in using (and manipulating) the language system will exercise power in naming and thus controlling how others will view social reality".

To sum up, part of Kelly-Kleese work (2001) is cited, which clearly describes the six basic criteria necessary in order to recognise a discourse community as such. As highlighted before, these were identified by John Swales and analysed in this paper.

“The community college can be seen as a discourse community: Its members have, over time, developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships, similar attitudes and values, shared understandings about how to communicate their knowledge and achieve their shared purposes, and a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style.” (p. 1)

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, I. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mONQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor’s choice: An open memo to Community College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463

McLaughlin? & Talbert, 1993. (Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K.C. (2004). Teachers need teachers to grow. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers need teachers to grow. Teacher education quarterly. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405