At the Gran Colombia University computer laboratory, students and teachers use the Discoveries multimedia teaching–learning software. During a typical multimedia session in the computer lab, each student sits (or two students) in front of a computer terminal to work with multimedia programs. I believe that to use interactivity effectively I must provide a variety of learning activities. First, I should augment group activities. Second, individual learning activities including readings, net explorations etc. which can be done as home assignments. Third, I must create a meaningful structure for interactive learning, which includes topic, timeline, and clear expectations. Finally, it is necessary to set clearly defined roles for each participant and an evaluation format resources for effective facilitation of the lab activities.
Working with Discoveries Multimedia Program
The discussion that follows is limited to the interactions of the participant’s with the Discoveries Multimedia Program. To start and familiarizing my students with the program, I gave them a demonstration of it. By doing so, students started becoming acquainted with the English computer terminology (mouse, click, microphone, etc) in English and at the same time I introduced the program itself. After the students had seen the demonstration, I allowed them to explore the program to enable them to become familiarize with many of the program’s icons and main content areas.
To work with English Discoveries I have developed the following guide that matches learners proficiency with the different modules found in the English Discoveries software. It was designed considering also the contents, aims and objectives of the University teaching program’s textbook guide "Enterprise" and the corresponding simulations and contents accessible from the English Discoveries multimedia program as shown in the following table:
University English Program | Discoveries Discs |
Levels 1 to 5. Módulo Básico | Basic1, Basic2 and Basic3 |
Levels 6 to 10. Módulo Intermedio | Intermediate1, Intermediate2 and Intermediate3 |
Levels 11 to 15. Módulo Avanzado | Advanced1, Advanced2 and Advanced3 |
For each lab class and according to the students’ level of proficiency there are four suggested activities (two for listening and two for speaking). Before students explore the computer activities, there are five minutes pre-listening and pre-speaking activities, which mainly are student predictions about the content of the activities. Just before the end of the class, there are fifteen minutes post-listening and post-speaking activities, where mainly students act out or role playing using the contents that they have just explored through the activities adapting the content to their personal contexts and to their inner perception of their social and cultural world.
Because, listening and speaking skills are one of the Language Center students weaknesses, I have developed a supplementary teacher’s guide to explore and practice the various listening and speaking simulations that can be accessed from the Discoveries multimedia program. (annex 2) For each lab class and according to the student level, there are four suggested activities (two for listening and two for speaking). The teacher can require students to explore and practice the activities and the last fifteen minutes of class ask them to contextualize the simulations and ask students to socialize their learnings from the multimedia program. Teachers can invite, at least two students, to work in front of a computer screen; by doing so, that way there is student to student collaborative interaction and probably learning happens.
For instance to a group of students of level 1, Unit 1; I request them to explore, practice, solve the game and take the test of each one of the following Discoveries simulated activities:
No | CD | Skill | Option | Simulated activity |
1 | Basic 1 | Listening | TV | Adventure: Two men waiting at a bust stop. |
2 | Basic 1 | Listening | TV | Mystery: Three people. Mike, Susan, and Mr. Montenegro, are at a restaurant in the U.S. |
3 | Basic 1 | Speaking | Office Scene | Couple One: A black woman speaking to a white woman. |
4 | Basic 1 | Speaking | Office Scene | Couple Two: A red-haired boy speaking to a woman. |
In addition to the previous listening and speaking directed guide, to work with the English language skills, I have also developed a grammar oriented guide about the Enterprise textbook versus Discoveries match content. (annex 3) Enterprise is the textbook adopted by the English Program. In the next pages, you can take a look to the guide.
During the multimedia sessions, I adviced students to work in groups; at least two or three students interact and collaborate with each other, in front of the computer screen, during the learning activities. This methodology was better than to let them work individually (human-machine) in a computer because between machine and user the interaction is limited to an action reaction process of the task at hand.
It is important to mention that this fact was noticed by looking at the very beginning of the computer laboratory classes. I observed that when just one student was working in a computer then there was less chance for him to interact with his or her classmates and the teacher. For instance, there are two main types of questions that the computer cannot answer; one group of questions in reference to technical handling of the computer and its peripherals and a second group of questions in reference to the computer’s screen language input. Advanced students became more skillful to solve technical and language questions. In fact, students need to collaborate with each other or with the teacher to solve their questions.
The analysis that follows shows the combination of my observations and consequent examination of the data collected. While reading and analyzing during data collection, I noticed that some categories emerged. Those emerging categories were further refined by means of the theory reviewed for this project. Based on Merrian (1988). I found recurring regularities in the data, and I noticed that some of the data were similar or homogeneous.
In order to develop the categories for this study I took into account Guba and Lincon’s guidelines. These authors suggest four guidelines for developing categories: first the number of people who mention something or the frequency with which something arises in the data indicates an important dimension, second, one’s audience may determine what is important, third, some categories stand out because of their uniqueness and should be retained, and finally, certain categories may reveal areas of inquiry not otherwise recognized or provide a unique influence on an otherwise common problem (as mentioned in Merriam,1988:135).
From the preceding guidelines I applied the first and third ones. I categorized the data by the number of people who raised a particular issue in the different data sources and some categories stand out because of their distinctiveness and should be maintained. In spite of this, there were specific features that helped me to differentiate among the categories I had already identified. A recurrent issue in the students’ interactions, students’ questionnaire, my observations, and the interviewed conducted served to construct a more solid holistic dimension for the analysis and categorization.
This qualitative study is a descriptive one, the focus on identifying categories that describe the roles and the social, oral interaction that takes place at the computer lab. The following analysis is based on the interpretation of the data collected. I present here the categories developed for this study. These categories act in response to the main question and sub questions of this study which deals with the analysis of the nature of interaction and the participant roles while working with multimedia EFL software. In the following pages I describe the categories.
This category describes two main aspects. The first one is formed for three multiple-level interactions and the second is an individual versus pair work inquiry. Warschauer (1998) declared that one of the main benefits of using CALL is the interaction at the computer: between student and student, student and teacher, and student and the computer. Due to the nature of the setting, at the lab there are some interaction opportunities; as a consequence, students can be allocated in groups or individually in front of the computer while the teacher is available to interact with them.
During the multimedia sessions, I exploit the instructional guides that I designed, I do make suggestions and I frequently encourage my students to employ new strategies to promote multiple-level interaction in the lab. We have moved toward interaction taking place between the learner and the Discoveries content, the learner and the instructor, and between learners. From the analysis of the data three main interaction patterns were found. First, student-computer; second, student-student-computer and third students-teacher-computer. On the next pages there are descriptions of each one of them.
5.1.1 Student- computer interaction
Student-computer interaction is characterized by individual work in front of a computer; it is the opposite of pair work in front of a computer. For a number of reasons, some students like to interact individually at the computer. For instance, students do not feel anxiety working with the computer because if they do mistakes then the computer does not make fun of them. According with their personality, some students also feel better doing things by themselves; they do not like to work with others. Some students also like to manipulate the mouse by themselves; they do not want somebody else to do it for them. The following journal entries indicate human-computer interactions:
"I Suggested s5 to work with s6 at computer three but she preferred to work unaccompanied at computer seven. She told me that she felt relaxed working with the computer because if she make a mistake then it does not make fun of her""
"She came to the lab and sat down at computer number nine but it did not work. Then she tried at computer number six. She is the only one from her class who came to do extra discoveries work at the lab."
"Teacher I want to work solo in this computer because I like to operate the mouse."
Some students also prefer to compete individually against others to solve a problem. They like to work at a separate computers. The following journal entry shows students individually competing one against the other to determine which one is going to be the first to find the answer of a problem solving game proposed to them by the multimedia software:
"S1 and s8 are sitting each one at a different computer; they are into intermediate 3 solving the game adventure. They want to know which one is going to be the first to find the answer asked by the game"
In the laboratory there are enough computers; in consequence, students can work individually at a separate computer. It is up to them to work individually or in pairs. Working individually in front of the computer results in computer dominant interaction; in contrast, pairs working in front of the computer, diminishes the dominant feature of the computer because the two students become interlocutors reducing some domination from the computer. The following interaction subcategory describes the pair work situation.
5.1.2 Student-student-computer interaction
Brown 2001 acknowledged that pair and group work provide opportunities for learners to use and improve language in an individual manner as well as to increase motivation. In this study, student-student-machine interaction is characterized by pair work in front of a computer; it is collaborative group or team work. The following journal entries, and video transcript indicate Student-student-computer Interactions:
"They started to work in basic 2, they sat down in pairs to work in the listening and others are working in the speaking modules."
"I observed that s3 and s4 are working in a listening activity they are having fun because the laugh a lot."
"S1 is manipulating the mouse while s3 is paying careful attention to the computer screen. Sometimes s3 indicates whit his finger touching the computer screen to request to his partner (s1) to make click on the cross road icon."
"both s3 and s4 are working as a team at computer eleven; they are solving the game adventure at intermediate 2 level."
The following video transcripts also indicate student-student-computer Interactions:
"S5: ay! está mal la de arriba.
S6: si, él nos dijo. Ponga doesn’t she
S5 no se puede
S6 ella tiene
S5 does she…si. who teach story…who teach…teach..no..teach…ja..ja..
S5 teach…"
"S1 food explore
S2: escuha.
S1 ya terminaste.. oh. No repeat porque no escuché nada… este es un buen restaurante de comida.
S1: internacional.. café internacional.
S2 comida china.. comida americana…comer de esos perros. Será? La direccion es tal. Ja! Ja!"
Students working in pairs at a separate computer seems to be a better learning option because they can tutor each other. Huang 2000 discovered that when the computer is used for instructional purposes; it becomes dominant and the interaction between student and computer is unbalanced because a feature of the teaching software is to tell the learner what to do or where to go. However in this study, it was observed a noticeable amount of student-student in front of the computer which diminishes the usually dominant computer control that multimedia software exerts over learners. The following table shows the results of one hour tallied of individual and pair interactions. There is evidence that during one hour of work two students in front of a computer interacted each other 23 times and one student, during the same period of time, in front of a computer interacted with his partners just 3 times.
Time (60 minutes)
Individual
Pair
Student-student interactions
3
23
This fact evidences that by nature pair work in front of the computer promotes student-student interaction while by nature individual work in front of the computer does not promote student-student interaction because the student does not have a partner next to him to comment about the computer activities; therefore, the student just follows the computer navigation map. In contrast, when he or she has a partner next to him there are times when he or she stops the navigation route to comment with his or her partner about any aspect of the computer activities. When they stop the interaction with the computer and begin to interact among them to comment there is a group negotiation of meaning and a group construction of knowledge based on collaborative interaction.
In the collaborative process of construction of knowledge there is another interlocutor. The teacher is also an important interlocutor at the laboratory; he is the laboratory teacher and by nature of his job he interacts with both pairs or individual students working at the computer. The description of the teacher exchange is shown in the following interaction subcategory.
5.1.3 Students-Teacher-Computer
At the language laboratory working in pairs or individually by their own at one computer, students call the teacher for a number of things; they range from technical problems to the explanations and understanding of the activities that the students are working with. According with Brown 2001 the teacher is on the move checking over shoulders, asking questions and teaching mini lessons However, as it is shown in table 4 the frequency is low; from 200 interactions, students just interacted with the teacher only 10 times. The following journal entries indicate students-teacher-computer Interactions about technical problems:
"S3 asked me the following: Jairo porque no puedo ingresar a (Jairo: why I can not have access to) intermediate 3· Which one is the password?"
"S8 called me: Teacher no puedo (I can not) my partner says that it is la the arriba, no se, no entiendo (the one on the top I do not know, I do not understand). I told her that try the restore button and she clicked on it and it solved their navigation difficulty"
"Teacher Jairo, the microphone does not work, I speak but it does not record by voice."
"Teacher I can not continue, I clicked on the dictionary and now it does not move."
From the previous interactions it can be concluded that at the laboratory students have to face diverse technical problems. The main technical difficulties are dealing with the password, link buttons, microphone and navigation obstacles. An important teacher job is to help them to solve the technical and the English learning activities. The following journal entry indicates students-teacher-computer Interaction about understanding of one of the English learning activities:
"Teacher, I do not understand why in the question: Today isn’t your birthday, is it? the answer is: No, it isn’t. I explained the student the following: Ok! Let me see! In this particular sentence the answer is No, it isn’t because it is a yes/no question when a certain answer is already expected. In this case a no is expected because it is a negative question followed by two words tag which is formed by verb to be + subject."
The following video transcript also indicates students-teacher-computer Interaction about understanding of one of the English learning activities:
"T: What word are you looking in the dictionary?
S1: huge
T: look for it in the context
S1: yes but that word is not in the conversation
T: do you thing that huge is big or small? Huge is something that is enormous. For example an elephant is huge while a mouse is not huge.
S1: Ok I now I know; it is something gigantic, like a mammoth."
The previous teacher interactions evidence that there are times when students need to interact with the teacher to help them solve technical barriers and explain those computer activities that they do not understand. In both situations the teacher does a collaborative work to help students construct understanding when they work around the computer. It is important to the interlocutors to gain knowledge from their interactions and probably there is a link between knowledge gain and the frequency of their interactions. Doing pair work they interact more between each other and perhaps they gain more knowledge and if they don’t interact enough then their chance to learn might be poor. The previous aspects are examined in the next section.
- Students, teacher and computer multiple-level Interactions emerged at the lab generating an individual versus pair work analysis.
- Individual versus pair work analysis
The previous scrutiny of the multiple-levels of interactivity demands an individual versus pair work analysis because student-computer matches up to individual work and student-student-computer exchange is compatible with pair work and it is important to check which one is more effective to promote language and knowledge gain. To reach this aim perhaps it is necessary to observe the frequency between student-student interactions and the frequency between student-computer interactions
To explore in more detail the link between frequency of interaction and knowledge gain; form the data I collected, I counted 200 interactions. 100 student-student-teacher-computer interactions plus 100 student-teacher-computer interactions. About every 5 seconds, I tallied the interactions; the results are shown in the following table:
Interactions | Student-student-computer | Student-computer | Students-Teacher-computer | total |
Pairs | 39 | 57 | 4 | |
Individual | 3 | 91 | 6 |
The table information shows that both students interacted 39 times among them, 57 times with the computer and 4 times with the professor. This fact evidences that pair work promotes a more balanced kind of interaction. In contrast, the student working individually interacted 91 times with the computer, 6 times with the professor and hardly 3 times with its classmates. This reality shows that individual work facilitates computer dominant interaction. He just in 3 occasions asked questions to the student next to him who was working in a different computer and only in 6 occasions he interacted with the laboratory teacher.
As it is conclude by Huang, Shih-Jen. (2000) interactivity between multimedia games and users is more balanced than the interactivity between instructional multimedia and students; in this study there is evidence that student-student-computer is more balanced than student-computer. Therefore, student-computer-interaction by nature is more impersonal, cold and distant. The following student reflections during the semi-interview supports this fact:
"t: how do you feel during pair work around the computer?… S2: well during pair work one is more in equilibrium than during individual work because you can talk, discuss, agree or disagree with your partner but working individually with the computer I feel like the computer is in control; it becomes the dominant part and the communication is cold and impersonal."
To explore a possible link between the multiple-level interaction and test performance; I collected data about students’ performance taking the test individually versus in pairs during different lab sessions. The test scores where taken from the multimedia Discoveries results of the testing section at the time students took it just after they worked with the explore, practice and tic tact game sections of the task at hand. Each Discoveries task has the following 4 sequential sections: explore, practice, tic tact game and test. The individual versus pair test performance was then analyzed. Analyzing the test scores there is tendency to relate performance with language gain and knowledge acquisition. Students who work in pairs are more successful. Pairs scores were higher than individual scores; the results are shown in the following graph.
In the next page there is also a "two better than one" graph which is my metaphor that group work enhances both interaction and the use of the language. There is also an example of a excel spreadsheet form that I designed to collect data. In the next page there is a statistical graph that evidences a tendency to superior pair test performance. I have found that in pairs students score higher when they take the test of the activities done in the Discoveries Multimedia Program. The individual versus pair performance graph evidences that when students work individually their scores aren’t as good as when they work in groups.
Pool (1999) established that a growing number of research indicates that group work is an efficient model. At the laboratory, pair work seems to be more effective in terms of language gain because test performance is higher at pair work than to test performance at individual basis. This result to be similar to the traditional classroom where theory informs that most of the time pair work performance is higher than individual one.
Warschauer (1998) invites teachers assigning students to work in pairs or groups, both in and out of the lab, so that they can provide assistance to each other. This project evidences the fact that computer pair work interaction enhances test performance. In this research, there is evidence that students learn better when they cooperate with others students that when they work alone by their own way. In the following excerpt from the semi-interview there is evidence that students construct knowledge in pairs:
"T: do you like to work in groups. S2: Yes, I like to work in pairs because I can compare my knowledge with the knowledge of my partner; if I am wrong he can correct my mistake and the opposite is true; if I know that he is wrong then I can correct his mistake."
Working with Discoveries multimedia software many, but not all, activities are suitable for group or pair work. When one student works individually with one computer there is a category of human-computer interaction; in this case, social interaction is almost absent. When a group of two or more students work at one computer there are both human-computer and social interaction. In one excerpt from the video S1 who was working with S2 at computer No. 12 said: "para mi la segunda: a dog" in fact, S1 was socially interacting with S2. Both S1 and S2 were collaborating with each other to answer a problem solving activity that was proposed by the frozen computer drills.
Discoveries is an interactive software to teach and to learn English but according with the results of this study it would seem, then, that a genuinely interactive exchange is only possible between two people, which must be of some comfort to those teachers who fear that technology could replace them. Ultimately, interaction – in the linguistic sense, at least – is an incontrovertibly human activity; yet this does not diminish the fact that multimedia can play an important role in facilitating interactive language teaching when used in conjunction with pair work.
The pair work in the computerized classroom also helps to foster interpersonal skills. For instance, students learn to work in teams; they learn how to teach to others. In sum, with conviction, they learn to negotiate and to work with other persons and it will be beneficial in a future time when they might need to interact with people from other cultures. The interpersonal contact and its oral interaction is explored in the next sub-category.
5.2. Input modification and interactions aim to reach comprehensible input to problem solving.
According with Ellis 1994 the interaction hypothesis is the name given to the claim that the interactional modifications resulting from the negotiation of meaning facilitate acquisition. Many authors like Pica 1987 also affirm that input modifications have the objective to obtain comprehensible input which in turn facilitates the acquisition of the target language. Krashen 1981 too postulates that language learning is directly related to the amount of comprehensible input a learner receives.
Oral interaction and negotiation seem to make input more comprehensible and facilitate language learning. Negotiation is defined by Pica (1994) as "modification and restructuring of interaction that occurs when learners and their interlocutors anticipate, perceive, or experience difficulties in message comprehensibility. Comprehension of message meaning is necessary if learners are to internalize target language. Interactional modifications due to negotiation for meaning facilitate language learning.
During the semi-structured interview participants confirmed that the main purpose to use the input modification devices was to reach understanding and it is indicated in the following excerpt from the interview:
"T: What is the purpose of your talking with your partner while working in front of the computer? I talk with my partner to arrive a point where I can understand. Sometimes he does not understand then I explain to him but sometimes I also don’t understand the computer conversations then he explains the meaning to me or he explains to me the actions that the computer is requesting us to do."
Some students also reach understanding working with multimedia about aspects that they have not understood in the traditional classroom. This fact is confirmed by the following video transcript:
"s3: you see I did not understand in class about passive voice but now I understand the computer explanations are clear and the examples helped me to comprehend the difference between active and passive voice.
S4: What happens is that in class the teacher does an explanation and he uses good examples which we can expand with the computer explanations"
At the lab students use a lot of input modification devices such as clarification requests, interactive negotiations, procedural negotiations, disputational talk and exploratory talk that permits to enhance the quality of the input and to reach understanding. Subsequent to the following video transcript there is a line by line analysis about input modifications.
1 S1: ay! está mal la de arriba.
2 S2: si, él nos dijo. Ponga doesn’t she
3 S1: no se puede
4 S2: ella tiene
5 S1: does she…si. who teach story…who teach…teach..no..teach…ja..ja..
6 S2: teach…
7 S1: ay! Pero porque?
8 S2: si ve lo que usted dijo está mal.
9 S1: entonces diga usted.
10 S2: haber él es un dancer
11 S1:[él es un dancer] what is my doing…she dances… what is my doing
13 S2: [what is my doing] dancing
14 S1: [dancing] dancing…. pero porque? She danc.. Uf!
15 S2: [uf] ja! ja!
16 S1: what are you sheila…going tonigth…going … going tonigth
17 S2: [going] what are .. you and sheila…
18 S1: no going tonight…we’re going tonight… entoces we’re going to a dance club… we’re… we go
19 S2: ellos fueron
20 S1: nosotros vamos…
21 S2: a un dance club..
22 S1: [un teatro] eh eh eh! Do sheila? Do sheila dance? Yes she/?/ ai! ya! do sheila going tonight…goes…no is going…eh…
23 S2: ank! ank!
24 S1: eh!…is going… going…pero ayude a una porque tambien
25 S2: yo le digo y usted no me pone cuidado y despues /????????/
26 S1: ay! Tan linda…ja! Ja! Ja!
In lines 1, 2, 3 S1 and S2 (student 1 and student 2) are spontaneously interacting to share meaning; according with Littlejohn (2000) it is an interactive form of negotiation of meaning. The input modification devices and the speaker interaction moves promote the use of language.
In lines 7, 8, 24 and 25 there is an evidence of what Scrimshaaw (1995) calls disputational talk, characterized by disagreement and individualized decision making and it challenges other views. I lines 5,6,17, 18 students interact each other in front of the screen seeking to reach agreement, this type of oral intercourse is called procedural negotiation by Littlejohn (2000).
Because S1 dominates the oral interaction she evidences a dominant oral behavior while S2 shows submissive oral behavior; however, dominant oral behavior doesn’t mean higher solving problem capacity. In this video transcript there is also an evidence that the teacher is a passive actor because the students did not interact with him during their computer based problem-solving task at hand.
Students engage In the `co-construction' of knowledge, and the discovery of learnings. Problem solving involves learners being in control of their learning and having freedom within clearly defined parameters. Oral discourse is enhanced when two or more interlocutors construct understanding in front of a computer screen. This study has indicated that these input modifications "are significantly more abundant during negotiation than during the rest of learners' interaction.
In this study, the interactions analyzed can be summarized considering Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998) taxonomy. They established two possible interpretations as to how these interactions assist language learning at the laboratory: (1) they make input more comprehensible and (2) they draw attention to target language form (e.g passive voice). After the examination of the multi-level interactions and input modifications devices, the next category to be analyzed in the next section is the one related with teachers and students’ roles in the multimedia laboratory.
5.3. Students and teachers emerging roles in the computer multimedia setting
Teacher and learner roles
This category is an analysis of the role of the laboratory teacher and the role of the students which are observable in the laboratory while they work with Discoveries. The distinct roles in the laboratory are compared and differentiated from the roles assumed in the traditional classroom. So far, in the previous categories I have pointed out the various factors which influence the way students, the teacher and the computers interact and interpret their roles in the laboratory. My aim in this section is to find out what the teacher and learners actually do in the laboratory; my focus is on the teacher and learner roles behavior.
Warschauer, 1998 says that when multimedia is used the role of the teacher as authority source and expert changes. Hence, the teacher does not dominate the floor and does not do most of the talking. Besides, he or she does not direct and redirect the development of the topic, pose display questions, nominate students as next speakers, or evaluate individual student's contributions, all of which is the norm in traditional teacher-fronted EFL classrooms.
There are several aspects that determine the role of the students in the multimedia laboratory. Between them, but the important ones that I can mention are the following: the setting, the tools (the computers), the personality of the students, and the way in which the teacher establishes the teaching learning activities as well as the way that he or she interacts with them. These aspects are interrelated each other and in the next section they are expanded.
In the traditional classroom students are more willing to pay attention to the teacher lecture. In contrast, at the laboratory, according with Huang 2000 the student-teacher communication seemed to be blocked to some extent by the layout of the multimedia lab. Physically, the multimedia lab is larger than the traditional classroom. The physical distance enlarged the psychological distance. It has the tendency that the two-way communication between the teacher and the students turned to be the one-way teacher to student communication.
During the development if this research and from time to time I encourage my students to interact with each other. I constantly ask myself the way to combine more interaction into my laboratory learning activities more often than I do. To enrich the interaction, I try and determine what strategies will work and how to do it. Therefore, using the instructional guides that I have designed, I do make suggestions and I frequently encourage my students to employ new strategies to promote multiple-level interaction in the lab. We have moved toward interaction taking place between the learner and the content, the learner and the instructor, and between learners.
Traditional classroom roles are considerably changed. There are two main types of roles that appear at the lab. On the one hand, by the nature of the setting there are a number of roles which emerge and come into sight. On the other hand there are also a number of roles that learners begin to have. In the computerized classroom there are some roles that emerge which are very different from the traditional classroom. For instance, high interactive computer programs have the power to catch student attentions; sometimes, this power that multimedia technology induces over learners is so high till the point that at times students got so concentrated in the multimedia proposed activities that they ignore the teacher’s instructions.
The role of the teacher changes from source of knowledge to instigator, promoter, coach, helper, model, and guide of knowledge construction. It is not easy to change the teacher traditional role of simply showing students how to do things and providing then with the answers they seek. It would be much better to require students to engage in activities that make them be critical thinkers using multimedia as a learner partner. There are evidences, presented in this document, both in the "Row Data Collected to identify participants aspects such as pair versus individual performance" and in the "example of video transcripts" that the teacher intervention is almost absent. The teacher absence of interaction in both examples is in line with theory that suggests that the role of the teacher in the computer lab is not the source of knowledge fact which is mentioned various times in this paper.
5.3.1 Learners Roles
The following journal entry shows a student as an active learner with multimedia software:
"S7 is very quit during activities in the traditional classroom. In contrast, in the language laboratory he is very loquacious; he is interacting with the computer activities, he is also speaking with his partner about the listening activity offered by the computer."
As active participants in the process of interacting with multimedia, students became responsible for their learnings. The following journal entry indicates that the student has an autonomous learning style:
"S2 told me that he finds the program very good and that he would like to get the Discoveries program to study at home. He also told me that he is disciplined y responsible to study by himself because he took a distance accounting course with Memphis School and that it was great because he is now working as an accountant assistant."
Students become problem solvers at the laboratory when they have to find the answer to questions posted to them by the discoveries computer software. In the following journal entry students are collaborating with each other to solve a problem:
"S3 and s4 are working in basic 3. They are playing the game adventure. S3 is reading the game hints. S4 tells s3 that they are going to read carefully the different options and then it will be easy for them to find the object. They discuss to agree which one is going to be the navigation route. Because all the instructions are given in English they first try to understand the meaning and second they decide where to go."
In the following journal sample there is an evidence of autonomous responsible for her own learning behavior attitude of one of the subjects of this study. "S1= (student number 1). She came by herself, individually, is the only one form her class. She did not ask me nothing; she just walked into the lab, to star working, she tried at computer number 9 but for technical problems she moved on to computer 6. I observed that she clicked in Advance disk and started working with speaking-restaurant-activity."
Discoveries multimedia learning software can increase students' motivation. The following journal entry indicates that the student is motivated by the multimedia activities:
"S5 is really stimulated to work with the multimedia activities. She is exploring the different activities. She likes to play the Discoveries computer adventure games. At times, she laughs and she told me teacher I really like to learn with computers because they are fast and you can work what you really like it; she affirms that she gets stimulated by the Discoveries animated pictures. After their classmates finished their activities they left; however, she continued working with other discoveries activities doing extra work"
Some students find the animated images very attractive; during the sem-interview most of the students answered that they like because images give life to activities transforming the pictures into realistic interlocutors. They also believe that using and learning computer skills is essential to their future success.
Students use Discoveries to help them become learners by doing. The following journal entry indicates that the learn by doing:
"I told the students to open word and power point before they start using Discoveries. They learned that they can open more than one program simultaneously at the same time; I told them how to switch from word to Discoveries. I word, they created memos, faxes and letters using the Discoveries models. They also created hyperstories using Discoveries as a vocabulary and dictionary tool."
In addition, during the semi-interview s4 manifested that she feels motivated to work with Discoveries because she has the chance to interact with authentic texts and materials. S3 also manifested that he feels motivated because he finds a match between the classroom materials and Discoveries realistic activities.
5.3.2 Teacher Roles
The following video transcripts shows the teacher as a helper and as a guider of knowledge construction.
"s8: jairo is it time to change to another activity? t: yes make clic on listening family icon and do the same go to explore, pre-listen to it at least twice by clicking on play. When you have finished listening to it I want you to speak about what you have just understood. Next, make click in the flag icon to see the scripts. Did you understand."
The following journal transcripts indicate that the teacher is an instigator, promoter, and coach:
"S2 teacher we are listening to it one more time.
T: it is good that you listen to it again from the beginning."
The following video transcript show the teacher as a troubleshooter solving technical problems:
"teacher the mouse does not work. I clicked on the icon but it does not move. T: let me see. Oh I see it is the mouse ball it is dirty let me clean it and it will be ready to work."
The teacher’ journal indicates that he is a circulator and participant at the lab:
"Today, I moved around the laboratory checking over my student shoulders their job at the computers. I participated in a problem solving activity by providing the student a suggestion to solve the activity at hand."
The teacher’ journal indicates that he is a monitor and an observer at the lab:
"During the students’ interactions I spent most of my time checking and observing their work; I noticed that they were really focus at the activity suggested."
The teacher’ journal indicates that he is an encourager and a motivator at the lab:
"I gave confidence to the students to do the listening and speaking sections, I told them about the potential benefits of the activities and the way other students had learned a lot by exploring, practicing and solving the problems. I also stimulated students about the richness of having sounds, videos, images and text integrated in a program and available to facilitate their learnings. All of them paid attention to me and started working with enthusiasm."
The teacher’ journal indicates that the teacher is a demonstrator at the lab:
"Students came the first time at the lab. At the instructional computer, I demonstrated to them the basic navigation map. I clicked on basic 1 and I showed to them how to move through the different sections of the program. Most of them knew how to operate computers so it was easy for them to start using the program"
Before students start using the program, If the teacher does not teach students to navigate the program then students lose interest and motivation and they get discouraged. It is crucial to demonstrate they how to start with it. However, during next sessions students become computer literate then the teacher is present but at times he is a virtual teacher because in the lab during his mediator role between the program and the students there are a few need of teacher’ explanations.
In the next page, I have compared and contrasted the student versus teacher roles. Of course, those roles emerge in a dynamic way and they change in accordance with the task at hand and in accordance with the student’s ethnographic, human and social distinct characteristics, The age, learning style and needs of the participant also influence the learning role adopted by him or her. During multimedia classes, the minimum intervention of the teacher at the Gran Colombia University language laboratory, presented in the samples of data collected, is an evidence that multimedia earner role is framed inside the principle of the student centered approach.
The students’ questionnaires evidences the following inconsistency in subjects' thinking and action; to the question: Do you think that as student you can interrupt the teacher to ask him questions? All four subjects answered: 'Yes'; however, from the video and the teacher journal there is no evidence that during the sessions they called for guidance from the teacher.
In section B and C of the students' questionnaire the subjects’ answers evidences intrinsic motivation, derived from their personal interests and their inner needs to learn, and extrinsic motivation derived from external sources such as the Discovery software. All subjects strongly agree in their answers to the statements 11 and 18: "The listening and speaking sessions make me want to use my knowledge of English to express my ideas and I want to continue using the computer multimedia program in my English Classes."
However, there is also another kind of evidence looking through my journal notes an after having a class conference with S4 said: "so far the activities are important and I do not get bored… why I don’t know is because I like to work with computers and can go to different activities like adventure, etc." Students affirm that they want to continue using the computer multimedia program. Students feel free navigating and they can do so by moving at will through the various sections of the program.
When students walk into the lab to take their multimedia classes, they perceive it as a place where they claim and defend their societal roles that has been given by the social institutions which they have been previously exposed to. McLuhan 1989 has indicated that "The medium is the message." The students of the new technological society are going to work for a different environment than the one of their preceding generations. The technological transformation is going to influence the culture that embraces it. The students who belong to that culture are the ones who will in a higher degree to experience the acculturation process. A teacher obligation is to have an open attitude towards the changing word of our students and if we are capable to incorporate those changes to our lives it is even more beneficial.
Trough participants interaction social aspects as social role negotiation in the forms of social exchanges, groupthink, role confusion, and vagueness are analysed to fulfil the aim of this study. Students’ answers to question 1 "In your opinion as student, what is your role in the computer laboratory" from the student’s questionnaire (annex 1) range from "to participate with interest and responsibility," "practice listening and speaking," "work with the computers," etc.
Students’ answers do not evidence critical thinking and commitment for hard work to learn the target language. Their role seems to be passive. The Colombian social difficulties that they face may have an influence in their passivity to face the language learning task. Aspects like young students social exclusion, difficulties to find a job and poverty also contribute to lessen their commitment.
Finally, there are group and classroom judgmental social norms, which seemed to have emerged as functional within the group of students taking the multimedia classes. I observed that students applied polite norms to computers because students behave nice with the computers. For instance, students praise the software when affirm that the program is very good. According with Jonassen (1995) it is better to work with multimedia software as an intellectual partners that enhances the learner ability to think. Students cooperate with the computer programs and it constitutes a social positive attitude to work with an electronic partner.
It is important to have an idea of the social concepts of conflict, affiliation, and ideology. Conflict is a state of disturbance or tension resulting from opposing motives, drives, needs, or goals. Indeed, conflicts are actions by groups or individuals that are perceived by others in the social interaction as having negative effects on their important interests. Affiliation is the desire to have close friendly relationships with others. We all would like to be members of social groups of our personal concern; there is process we have to go through to be accepted or to be rejected. In this research, there is evidence of negotiation of conflict, and affiliation among the participants in the laboratory and how they socialize.
———————————————————————————————————-
To question 8 of the students’ qustionnaire (When you have to do a group task, how do you solve a conflict with one of your partners?) S1, S3, and S4 answered: "with dialogue". However, S2 responded to the same question by saying: "No, we are very friendly". S2 answer might mean that he is trying to avoid conflict; indeed, he might not know the social skills to solve conflict; however, sometimes conflict is unavoidable and the outcome after solving it might be an opportunity for language development.
This educational Discoveries software program supports the communicative language teaching approach in an interactive environment, under the cognitive development theory of structuring and processing teaching and the active learner. Whatever one's linguistic theory, we all yearn for more learner opportunities to interact with the target language. Linguistic accuracy is maintained throughout the program. The principles of behavioral learning theory – contiguity, repetition, feedback and reinforcement – are also evident in the activities. So, too, is cognitive learning theory in recognizing that learning is built upon prior knowledge and recall, as each previous structure and/or area of communication is embedded in the successive one(s). Adolescent and adult learners can reasonably be expected to increase comprehension and second language acquisition through exploitation of the facilitative translation tools which are provided.
The program works best with individual users, but pair work would also be possible. Use in the classroom situation would be dependent upon the availability of computers. The video clips could be listened to by the class as a whole, with the instructor exploiting the authentic and contextual language situations and/or preparing the learners for further practice. Ideally, this software would be used in a language or computer lab.
Accurate socio-cultural representation is one of the main features of Real English Interactive. Each area of communication is presented in multiple video clips with variations for listening comprehension which is a high motivation factor in itself. The program provides for incidental learning with background notes about the dialect and/or style of speech. ( See Figure 2) The content is free of ethnic or gender bias: "The varieties of cultures, accents, walks of life, and their different combinations, seem to be endless."
As it is conclude by Huang, Shih-Jen. (2000) interactivity between multimedia games and users is more balanced than the interactivity between instructional multimedia and students; from this study an important conclusion would be that student-student-computer is more balanced than student-computer. Therefore, student-computer-interaction is impersonal, unfriendly, cool and distant. Some facts support the previous conclusion. First, higher pair test performance which is related to student-student-computer interaction. Second, during the student-student-computer interaction the multimedia program is less dominant than during student-computer interaction because the number of pair-computer interactions with the computer is less than the number of individual-computer interactions with the computer. Therefore it was demonstrated that interactions are more balanced during pair computer work than during individual computer work; for the duration of the later contact the computer is extremely dominant.
From the present study, I can conclude that in relation to the laboratory classroom interaction, teachers appeared no to be at the center of the teaching learning processes. Fact that is akin with recent theories such as Social Constructivist Model which addresses the learner as the center of this process. However, thanks to multimedia, teachers can explain old ideas by new manners. Furthermore, this interaction is not what Malamah (1988) called a mere action-reaction process where there is a teacher action upon the class and a student reaction towards this act with its subsequent teachers action. So far, all the results obtained in this study highlight the fact that theory and practice are still parallel lines.
In relation to the roles assumed by teachers and learners, I can affirm that the most common role -the teachers of this study demonstrated – is not the dominant one evident through a variety of instructional lab sessions. The study show evidences that interactivity promotes the learner’s active participation in navigation and opportunities provided for creative involvement. The importance of multimedia in the improvement of oral production deals with intonation and rhythm. The first recordings showed students producing slow broken sentences, a pause after each word with an even intonation. The last recordings showed the same students attempting to produce native-like sentences at a normal speed. In most cases the pauses are present according to meaningful chunks of language.
Multimedia allows us to use the best combination of media to present compelling information suited to specific situations and allow user-control over how and when that information is accessed. This technology empowers anyone with a message to communicate his or her ideas effectively to others. Students can construct meaning by interacting with the multimedia listening and speaking segments that includes speakers of the target language in authentic situations.
This is a preliminary analysis; however, a pedagogical implication could be that teachers should take action to challenge the social belief that some students might bring to the computer lab setting of perceiving the teacher as an authoritarian source of knowledge who can not be interrupted. Indeed, teachers should be ready to allow students ask questions at any time during the class sessions. This dynamics may foster students’ collaboration and cooperation learning styles.
In the case that teachers identify that students do not know how to collaborate and how to cooperate then they can teach these skills as purposefully and precisely as other academic and social skills. Besides, they can teach leadership and group dynamics skills if they realize that their students are not equipped with the social skills needed to be a leader, to solve conflict, or to work in group.
I have found that multimedia learning software can be a useful English language tool that raises students' motivation by increasing their confidence, encouraging them to work in group, and broadening their listening and oral skills. Since sometimes students get bored working at it, using a learning software once a week, rather than as the main all-purpose tool for language teaching may prove to be more pedagogically useful.
Many teachers who are new to multimedia software are anxious about how will cope with the technology and unsure of how it will affect their role in the classroom. However, it is my experience after, my first, ten months of working with multimedia at the Gran Colombia University language laboratory is an invaluable experience in terms of my professional development. I began to read the related literature, I make contacts, I developed technical and various other interpersonal skills; in short, I have learnt a great deal about multimedia teaching and learning software.
I did not need to be an expert on multimedia before I introduced it to my students. In fact, exploring the programs together with my students was a tremendously valuable experience. The natural interaction that it required helped the development of both my teacher-student relationship and my students’ English language learning. Multimedia is a great treasure for teachers and students because it has exactly what you need, whether it is for an activity in class, and activity out of class, to practice a specific skill, or to develop a specific language topic. The key element is our responsibility in finding, analyzing and adequating the task bearing in mind our students’ needs.
In implementing the programs, I, the teacher, became a facilitator and resource person. I have been able to work with my students one-on-one individualized tutoring, while the majority of the class is using the programs. Sometimes, I take a more active role, going around the room and giving suggestions to students and making sure they are on task. The choice of how to use multimedia rests with the teacher.
My job became harder for a while, but as I became more familiar and more competent with both the technology and the program’s content, I found that both my students and me were more motivated to learn. As I become a multimedia expert, I am a role model not only for my students, but also for other teacher at the Gran Colombia University.
Multimedia collaborative learning affords students enormous advantages not available from more traditional instruction because a group–whether it be the whole lab class or a learning group within the lab class–can accomplish meaningful learning and solve problems better than any individual can alone.
In the computer lab it is confirmed that human beings are products not only of biology, but also of their cultures. Intellectual functioning is the product of our social history, and language is the key mode by which we learn the social principles of our cultures and through which we organize our verbal thinking and regulate our actions. In the lab the students’ social relationships promotes their mental abilities development and language learning and it underlines the importance of peer support for any form of learning.
The teacher must to be present during first sessions to assist students in their technical and computer operation needs. However, for the period of subsequent sessions, there are times when the teacher becomes a virtual teacher because students do not call him for technical assistance and Discoveries is dominant with thousands of inputs that catch their and that they find good and they rarely need to call the teacher for assistance.
Multimedia software in the lab appears to provide a context in which opportunities for language development are enhanced, since students are motivated to extend their linguistic resources in order to meet the demands of real communication in a social context. It also entails meaningful use of the target language and demands teachers and students to treat language as a medium of communication.
Multimedia shows as an effective tool for language learning and teaching. Although mutimedia is more affordable and available today than ever before, unfortunately and despite the incredible advances and advantages, not very many English as a foreign language students and teachers benefit from its potential. Computers have a meaningful application in the area of foreign language teaching and learning. The incorporation of multimedia into the curriculum and language programs is important but there is a need to integrate it into the course goals, based on research practices. In addition, this may provide opportunities for authentic language practice.
Learners interact a their own pace and according to their learning styles; consequently, they tend to perceive the computer activities as less threatening and inhibiting than traditional classroom oral interactions. Furthermore, students share the floor more often and they are expose to a substantial amount of comprehensible input.
For teachers, it is critical to understand what makes an application interactive, instructional and effective. The creation of the learning environment is crucial to the success of any project and it is much harder without appropriate software. Teachers should also keep in mind that it is important to develop pedagogy and methodology related to multimedia learning software.
In conclusion, using multimedia in the language laboratory is advantageous for both learners and teachers. Nevertheless, its incorporation needs considering the changing of goals of language education programs as well as teacher attitudes. By using multimedia and related technologies we prepare the students for the requirements of this new millennium for a motivational and effective academic and personal life.
In the contemporary educational environments, it is a pity, that there are some schools that despite the fact of having a computer room which is privilege, there is not a full possible exploitation of that source of knowledge. Many people and some teachers feel uncomfortable with technology even there are times when they get scare of it; in that case, the best way to overcome this fear is facing it by solving as many multimedia exercises as possible.
Teacher’s computer literacy is important. A feeling of satisfaction is received and accomplished when teachers and students discover that multimedia provides another way to acquire knowledge. It enhances motivation and promotes interaction. An important implication of this study is to foster the use of computer multimedia environments neglecting the mystery that covers up the uses of new technologies.
In traditional classrooms, interaction has been limited because of minimal physical possibilities or because of teachers’ lack of training in using technology. Working with multimedia there is a joint of motivational elements that makes the students’ participation more free and spontaneous. It is frequent that students bring English music compact discs to the laboratory. Those elements also promote interaction and new roles for both students and teachers. Therefore, students have more responsibility, risk taking, interaction and self-evaluation criteria towards the autonomous learning.
The multimedia software should take individual differences in preferences, and ability into account. For example, interactivity is limited when there is only one way of navigating the software, and the materials are presented in a rigid manner. There are more ways of navigating the software, and many different possible topics to explore. Students can select different activities to read and study. Different aspects of every day life and people work are listed to account for individual differences in ability, and preferences. There are a number stories to cater to different preferences, and a number of different ways to navigate the software.
Questions for further research
I expect further research to be developed in the area, and that this study will become a possible starting point for those interested in multimedia classroom interaction issues, so as to contribute to the improvement and enrichment of not only the Applied Linguistics field but also to language teaching practices and teacher training purposes. Hypertext, hypermedia and artificial intelligent environments for language learning present an important area for research.
Situating the computer: how to do it in practice. It is important to research the distributions of the computers in the lab to check ways to promote interaction and language development. There is a situation very easy to deal with. The teacher and the student use one machine and the teacher is on hand to help and comment as and when necessary. There are more ideal circumstances, where the students all have their own terminals and then get back together in the middle of the room. Hhowever, the computers are situated to facilitate communication and are not placed in long rows as in traditional language labs. There is another ideal situation. All the students are able to see the one main screen and control it by remote control and a wireless keyboard. At the same time are free to do both pair work and group work.
Software for Language education, multimedia teaching-learning materials development, software evaluation, and testing and evaluation software could be areas of CALL which present questions for further research. The use of the Internet and a variety of forms of communication networks are prone to be research as tools to promote second language acquisition. In a language lab aspects like age, gender, social and cultural issues can also be the matter of research.
Anderson, T. 1999. At:
Barker, P. 1994. Designing Interactive Learning, in T. de Jong & L. Sarti (Eds), Design and Production of Multimedia and Simulation-based Learning Material. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Brett, PA. 1998. Integrating multimedia applications into the Business English. Curriculum ESP Journal; Brett, PA, & Nash, M. Multimedia Language Learning
Brown I. 2001. Muddled Methodology – CALL in the classroom is not always communicative but it can be. Available at: http://www.acl.edu.au
English Discoveries Teacher’s Pedagogical Guide. Version 2.0. Edusoft.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heath, Joanne. 2002. The Language Centre, University College London. Retrieved October 21, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ilt.ac.uk/public/cti/ActiveLearning/issue3/heath/index.html
Huang, Shih-Jen. 2000. Communicative Language Teaching in a Multimedia Language Lab. The Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Huang-CompLab.htm.
Jonassen. D. 1995. Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. New Jersey. Prentince Hall.
Hatch, E. 1978. 'Discourse analysis and second language acquisition' in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Hardisty, D. & Windeatt, S. (1989). CALL. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition. Vol. 2: Second language acquisition. (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Malamah-Thomas, A. 1987. Classroom interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maley, Alan. Cited in English Discoveries teacher’s pedagogical guide. Version 2.0. Edusoft.
McLuhan, M. & Bruce R. 1989. The Global Village: Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st Century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Merriam, S. (1988) Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Ortega, L. 2002. Processes and outcomes in multimedia classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for EFL computer-assisted classroom interaction. Language Learning & Technology.
Patton, M.Q. 1980. Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pica T. & Doughty C. 1987. The Inpact of Interaction on Comprehension Interactional Modifications.
Pool, B. 1999. Education for an Information Age. Teaching in the Computerixed Classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Scrimshaw. P. 1995. Oral Discourse and Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education Volume 3. Kluwer Academic Publications, Boston
Sims, R. 1994. Seven levels of interactivity: implications for the development of multimedia education and training, in (Ed) M. Ryan, Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Information Technology in Training and Education (APITITE) Conference, Volume 3. Brisbane, Qld: APITITE.
Sims, Roderick. 1997. Interactivity: A Forgotten Art?. [Online] Available http://intro.base.org/docs/interact/, January 27, 1997
Soo, K. & Ngeow y. 1998. Effective English as a Second Language (ESL). In: Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. Vol. 7 Number 1. 1998.
Tinzmann, J. 1990. What Is the Collaborative Classroom?. In: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/rpl_esys/collab.htm
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1986. Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.
Website: http://www.bbcworldwide.com/talk/whyextra.htm#The benefits of interaction in language learning.
Williams and Burden (1997). Psychology For Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, T. (1991). Roles of Teachers and Learners. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
CALL: Computer Assistance Language Learning
Click: to point to an item and then quickly press and release the main mouse button once.
Constructivism: An education philosophy based on the premise that students learn better when they are active participants and control their own education, in such a way that they construct in an individual way the foundations of knowledge acquisition.
Computer: An electronic machine that stores and processes data.
Collaborative learning: A learning environment where students work together to expand their knowledge and their education experience. At computer laboratories students can use multimedia to foster collaborative learning.
Hypermedia: A structure of interactive multimedia of linked elements through which the user can navigate.
Interactivity: A necessary and fundamental mechanism for knowledge acquisition and the development of both cognitive and physical skills.
Interface: The main menu from which learners can link to what they want to explore, practice and learn.
Medium: A participant organism, an instrument or mechanism, by which something is transmitted or by which something is accomplished. Intervening substance producing an effect.
Media: The plural form of Medium. Media is a plural noun. There is an increasing tendency to use it also as a singular noun because of the ambiguous senses of medium.
Multiple-level Interaction in the Lab: The interaction that takes place between the learner and the Multimedia Software content, the learner and the instructor, and between learners.
Nature of interaction: The interlocutors’ intentions and the makeup of their interaction as well.
Quality interaction: The significant interaction which promotes EFL learning.
Record: To register (sound or images) in permanent form by mechanical or electrical means for reproduction.
Role: The characteristic and expected social behavior of an individual.
Software: Written or printed data, such as programs, routines, and symbolic languages, essential to the operation of computers.
Troubleshooter: A worker whose job is to locate and eliminate sources of trouble, as in mechanical operations.
Jairo Agustin López Forero
| Página siguiente |