Electronic Text and English as a
Second Language Environments
Carla Meskill, Jonathan Mossop, Richard Bates
Introduction
School-age children for whom English is not
the native language have immediate and critical needs regarding English
language and literacy. The majority of these children are not in any of the
nation’s bilingual programs.
Thus they are restricted in their participation in academic activity during the
period needed for their second language and literacy acquistion, a period which
is typically from five to seven years. During this time, English as a Second
Language (ESL) learners receive instruction in second language and literacy
through specialized English as a second language instruction as well as
"incidentally" in regular mainstream classroom classes.
Providing opportunities for ESL learners to
develop English language and literacy skills is a continual challenge and
concern for schools. Recent interest in technologies1 as a means of
supporting language development has brought ESL teaching professionals around
the country to include computers, multimedia, and telecommunications as tools
for instruction. In addition to ESL-specific instruction, non-ESL or mainstream
teachers are coming to view these technologies as a means by which ESL learners
who cannot otherwise participate in class activities can be actively involved
in language and literacy practice.
A recent survey of school use of technologies
with ESL children indicates that not only are ESL teachers utilizing
technologies with their students in a number of ways to support their language
and literacy development, but also that the vast majority of software packages
they use are designed for native speakers of English. In other words they are
academic, content-rich and, when their use is coordinated with mainstream
academic content, they help to simultaneously support the interplay of linguistic
and conceptual development. Reporting teachers also state that use of
content-area software promotes student involvement and consequent skills
development in content-based language and literacy. In short, electronic texts
are apparently being used, and used well and thoughtfully, by many ESL
professionals (Meskill & Mossop 1997).
This report discusses the unique features of
electronic texts2,
provides analysis of learner interactions with them, and discusses the
implications for second language and literacy development. Examples drawn from
extended observations in two exemplary ESL classrooms (one elementary and one
middle school) where computers are used as tools to support ESL instructional
activities are provided to illustrate the nature and dynamic of second language
learner literacy skills development as they occur in interactions with
electronic texts.
Goals and Processes of K-8 ESL
Instruction
The goal of ESL instruction in grades K-8 is
to provide linguistic, cognitive, and affective support to learners as they
catch up with, and proceed through their grade-level curricula. It is the ESL
experience and support a child receives, then, that serves as the primary locus
of a mentored initiation into the immediate discourse communities of school
(Freeman & Freeman 1994). Much of that experience and support is
consequently centered on the development of literacy and the language that
constitutes and mediates literacy in an academic environment. Because this
support must be tailored to widely differing needs, backgrounds, and levels of
ability, it takes on many forms but consistently focuses on the language,
literacy, and concepts of the academic subjects the ESL students are studying.
The ESL professional’s major concern is to design and implement
activities that guide learners to attend to the linguistic forms and meaning of
content. At the same time they encourage the development of appropriate
linguistic and cognitive strategies for understanding and production. A
balanced focus on form and meaning is particularly critical for this population
(Long 1991; Ellis 1995; Spada & Lightbown 1993) as methods of analysis and
the meanings derived from instructional materials depend a great deal on what
learners bring to the process in terms of background, experiences, beliefs, and
the ways of the native language they already speak. Ways of knowing and talking
in ESL instructional contexts simultaneously validate the wealth of linguistic
and cultural knowledge and experiences children bring to school, and work to
weave these into academically appropriate ways of knowing and expressing. In
this respect, the ‘textwork’ that ESL focuses on is far more complex than the ‘comprehension myth’ of learning: simply recognizing and comprehending
words does not constitute reading or transacting with text for academic
purposes.
As with reading in one’s native language, developing the transactional
expertise needed for effective and critical understanding entails much more
than superficial word recognition. A cognitive and experiential complex
activates and interacts with what one reads and interprets. Particularly
relevant to second language readers is the role of vocabulary, an aspect of
language that represents a crucial dimension for participation in the second
language environment. Recent conceptualization of the nature of word knowledge
recognizes the continuum on which the notion of ‘knowing’ a vocabulary word fluctuates. At one end of the continuum knowing a
word means simple recognition; at the other, a depth of understanding permits
one to use the item productively and well. The process of moving from one end
of this theoretical continuum to another entails a long process of encounter
with, and use of, words and their meanings in both aural and textual forms. It
is up to the ESL professional to discover, make connections, and cultivate ways
of knowing that capitalize on what learners bring in conjunction with new ways
of knowing and transacting with text. Effective ‘textwork’, then, is activity that 1) combines focus on form and meaning; 2)
scaffolds learner understanding dialogically; 3) encourages melding old and new
ways of knowing; and 4) ultimately brings learners to participate in the
literate community surrounding them.
In tandem with textwork comes meaningful
interaction in the target language at the levels of linguistic, literacy, and
cognitive development. In terms of linguistic development in a second language,
a number of hypotheses have been proposed that point to the importance of
conversational interaction in the language acquisition process. Long’s (1985) negotiated input hypothesis states that
the interactional modifications people make as they negotiate meaning and solve
communication problems provides the kind of input learners need to develop
their communicative competence. Swain (1985) proposes the comprehensible output
hypothesis, which also focuses on negotiation of meaning. In this view,
learners of another language should be encouraged to communicate because it is
when they experience difficulties communicating that they search for precision
or alternative linguistic means of expression. Thus, they are
"pushed" into rendering their output more coherent. Besides the
claims of benefits to speakers, negotiation is also believed to facilitate
comprehension. Pica, Young, and Doughty (1987) empirically demonstrated that
negotiated input results in higher comprehension than either unmodified or
simplified input. Finally, Peck (1978) suggests that in interactive discourse,
learners have the chance to practice syntactic constructions and provide
scaffolding for each other. Taken together, these studies strongly suggest that
negotiation of meaning has an important role to play in the development of a
second language (Savignon 1991).
We will discuss at length our observations of
‘textwork’ being supported in unique ways through the thoughtful integration of
electronic texts in ESL instruction and the powerful forms of literacy-oriented
discourse and activity that ensue.
Electronic Texts
Electronic texts (e-texts), by virtue of
their unique characteristics, play a potentially powerful role in school-based
ESL contexts and can be viewed as a good venue for literacy activities in K-8
classrooms. They can also serve as rich contexts for the active negotiation of
meaning by students in need of this kind of linguistic/cognitive engagement.
E-texts consist of on-screen information
(visual, textual, and aural) within computer, multimedia, and/or
telecommunications environments. They are what people from all walks of life,
especially school-age children, are becoming accustomed to encountering,
reading, manipulating, and producing as part of daily activity. They include
games, databases, talking books, hypermedia and telecommunications. E-texts are
becoming widely used by contemporary school-aged students as a matter of course
for both deliberate and incidental instruction and they offer several features
that can, when deliberately exploited for instructional purposes, enhance
learning across grades and subjects.
E-texts have features and accompanying
capabilities that are qualitatively different from what has traditionally
served as our primary tool for literacy activity – the print medium (Barker 1996; Papert 1993; Ulmer
1989; Winkelmann 1995). The attributes of e-texts differ from those of print in
many significant ways. For example, where print is permanently static,
electronic texts are dynamic, malleable and manipulable
(Winkelmann 1995). Where print is typically hierarchical,
electronic texts are anarchic, with forms that are instantaneously
changeable (Ulmer 1989). As a result both the experience of the reader and the
environment itself are subject to a form of lawlessness. This is in direct
contrast to experiences with traditional Western forms of expository print
which is most often written within a strict, closed, linear form. This anarchic
aspect of electronic texts shapes roles and discourse around e-text activity.
Where print is physically self-contained
and restrictive, e-texts are hypertextual, decentralized,
and democratizing (Winkelmann 1995). E-texts are typically linked to a
variety of information in a variety of forms. Meaning is not restricted to a
single, closed set of words on a self-contained page. E-texts, particularly in
the public settings of classrooms and laboratories, are also open to viewing
and, by extension, to critique and commentary. Democracy gets played out in the
context of interactions around the medium.
The unique features of e-texts lead to a type
of literacy activity that is qualitatively different from the reading of print.
The malleability of words and screens place the "reader" in a
position of power in which she can move in a variety of directions at any given
moment. The visual and functional nature of this activity is not reading but
"e-texting" – a term that will be used here to describe computer-based activity
whereby an "e-texter" interacts with written and visual information
on the screen. This activity, while not completely unlike print reading,
represents expanded and unique opportunities for working with language. It
includes the essential characteristic of the "psycholinguistic guessing
game" (Goodman 1967) in both text form as well as in visual (pictorial)
texts, to which Arnheim (1988) expands Goodman's definition. E-texting, then,
involves reasoning with both the aural/written word and visual information and
this engages cognitive processes that are viewed not only as parallel, but also
as interworking systems of understanding.
The widely differing literacy practices,
experiences, and text orientations of various cultures have often been cited as
a serious source of difficulty for those learning and adapting to a second
language, culture, and the accompanying literacy practices. In the U.S. in
particular, cracking the code of tightly structured hierarchical print forms
used in schools and the workplace are particularly problematic for individuals
whose life experiences do not necessarily include apprenticeship to these forms
(Cummins & Sayers 1994; Heath 1983; Parry 1996). The permeable,
quasi-structure of e-texts represents unique opportunities for their readers to
‘read’ by enabling them to align their existing experiences with the ordering
and independent management of what they see on screen. Freed from the
physically locked, culturally dense domain of print craft, those of differing
orientations can tailor their experiences with electronic texts as they wish,
thus exercising their flexible stance toward varied forms of representation.
This individual volition exerted on the form
and meaning of electronic texts may be both a liberating factor and one that
ultimately expands children’s skills and abilities as readers (Meskill, Mossop & Bates 1998).
The trend in language acquisition studies is to view learning language as a
process that involves the analytic and holistic, with the former called into the
service of the latter. This shift parallels a broader postmodern conception
that moves away from the analytic as preeminent and has evolved as a result of
reconceptualizations from diverse disciplines. In terms of language learning,
three of the most influential paradigmatic shifts have been 1) advances in
first language acquisition research that clearly demonstrates that from birth,
humans are endowed with a highly sophisticated biological apparatus for
learning language that gets triggered by direct experience in the world
(Chomsky 1968); 2) humanistic trends in education that recognize and value the
crucial role of affect in language and learning (Curran 1976); 3) postmodern
valuing of cognition that extends well beyond traditional Western ratio-analytic
modes of human thought (Ulmer 1989). The merger of the analytic with the
holistic, with the former subordinated to the latter, is nowhere better
exemplified than in e-text – an environment that invites free form creativity, experimentation,
bricolage, and discovery.
The differences between print and e-texts are
summarized below in Table 1.
|
Print |
E-texts |
|
static |
dynamic, malleable |
|
private activity |
public activity |
|
hierarchical |
anarchic |
|
self-contained |
hyper, decentralized |
|
linear |
non-linear |
|
whole |
fragmentary |
|
restrictive |
democratizing |
|
illustrative |
mixed media |
Table 1: The differences between print and
e-texts.
In the ESL context, e-texts are being used
widely and thoughtfully in schools (Meskill & Mossop 1997). This report
examines particular features of e-text that may be especially valuable for
second language and literacy development and documents how these play a role in
unique discourse and literacy activity in the classroom.
Methodology
The guiding question for the design and
implementation of this study was the following.
What specific features of the e-text environment appear to support
language and literacy development in a second language?
Of the more than one hundred ESL teachers who
identified themselves as having model applications of technologies with their
students (Meskill & Mossop 1997) two were selected to have their
instructional contexts be the focus of this phase of our investigation. Both
teach in the same district. Criteria for selection included exit rates of ESL
children in the district, length of time a technologies component had been in
place, and teachers’ training and expertise
in both instructional technology and as an ESL professional.
Observations, teacher interviews, student
interviews, and interviews with district administrators took place in selected
contexts over the course of a two-year period. The elementary context involves
an ESL pull-out approach that utilizes technologies during pull-out time. The
second context, a middle school ESL classroom, has children scheduled for daily
ESL classes. This technology-rich classroom is also a popular drop-in site for
children seeking additional help with their coursework during their free periods
and after school.
A total of 20 sessions were videotaped,
transcribed, and coded using the qualitative research utility NUD*IST. Two sets
of codes were iteratively developed: 1) unique features of electronic texts
(see Appendix A); and 2)
optimal conditions for language learning in instructional contexts (Appendix B). The starting
point we employed for unique features of e-texts were those described by Ulmer
(1989) and Winklemann (1995). Through the constructive, iterative processes of
independent coding, comparison and negotiation, we came to include additional
features we were seeing come into play in the two contexts we were studying.
Optimal conditions for learning in the second language classroom were adapted
from Johnson (1995) – a composite of conditions that have emerged from second language
theoretical and empirical work over the last ten years. The coded data were
subjected to an intersection search (e-text feature(s) + condition(s)).
Intersections are defined as instances of discourse and action where e-text
features play a key role in the instructional discourse and where coders saw at
the same time optimal conditions for second language learning reflected in the
same talk and action. From these intersections, it became clear that certain
features of e-texts do in fact co-occur with conditions that promote successful
language learning. (See Appendix
C for sample intersections.) Rather than present only isolated examples of
coding intersections, we then chose three representative sessions of three
different levels (early elementary, late elementary and middle school) for
intensive descriptive analysis in narrative form. The goal of the analysis is
to detail the complex interplay of e-texts with language and literacy activity
that is characteristic of these instructional environments.
Our two participating teachers were also
asked to engage in stimulated recall or what we call "video talkback"
using the videotaped sessions of their teaching with e-texts. As they viewed
videotapes of their classrooms, they were asked to comment on their practices,
the role the medium was playing in their decision-making processes, and how
they perceived activity as supporting the language and literacy development of
their students.
Teachers and students – both ESL and mainstream – and district staff and administrators were also
interviewed. Prompts and questions used in the interviews probed these
stakeholders’ perceptions of the ESL
and e-text interface. Interviews were also transcribed and coded by broad
topics (see Appendix D).
The Context
ESL practices are deeply conjoined with a
myriad of contextual, affective, societal, familial, and political influences.
First and foremost is the valuing of the ESL child, her language and cultural
heritage and the richness of the contributions her uniqueness brings to the
local community. This is an essential stance both within the direct
(district/building) and the wider community. Where these elements are not
philosophically aligned with the needs and goals of non-native speakers as a
whole, instruction risks being reductionist and impoverished, serving more to
disenfranchise than to embrace and nurture the ESL learner and her family. When
instruction is undertaken within supportive local contexts, the ethos of the
sociocultural context can be highly supportive of the language and literacy
development process (Reyes 1992).
The Indian River Central School District3 is located in
rural northern New York State and abuts the U.S. Army’s Fort Drum. The district is comprised of five
elementary schools (grades K-4), a middle school (grades 5-8), and a high
school (grades 9-12). Approximately 3,100 students attend Indian River schools.
With the expansion of Fort Drum to accommodate the 10th
Mountain Division in 1985, the district now provides public education to the
children of military families as well as children residing with the rural
families that the district has traditionally served. Since 1985, the portion of
the student body coming from the military has steadily grown and now makes up
well over half of the student body. However, due to the nature of military
service, the student population from military families is highly transient.
Families typically remain in the Indian River district for as long as the
military heads of household are stationed at Fort Drum – usually three years. Also, given that children in
military families tend to be young in age, the five elementary schools are
those most affected by the special challenges of educating a mobile student
population.
One such challenge is meeting the immediate
needs of children learning English as a second language. Prior to 1985, the
Indian River school district did not have an ESL program. Now there are five
New York State certified ESL teachers employed – three at the elementary level and one each at the
middle school and the high school. The heritage languages of students served in
this district’s ESL classrooms
represent a rich diversity of cultures. They include Spanish, German, Korean,
Tagalog, Hawaiian, Samoan, French, and Japanese. The ESL program serves
approximately 225 students each year.
The Indian River ESL program provides ample
support for its students. Its first and most important task is the immediate
identification and assessment of new ESL students. Typically children whose
first language is other than English are children of military fathers who have
wed overseas. Some parents who wish to have their children quickly assimilate
into the American mainstream may be reluctant to identify their children as ESL
learners. Another issue is that these children may have already begun their
education at schools without ESL programs. Some of these children have also
been identified as learning disabled, reading disabled, or speech impaired.
From our observations it is evident that the
Indian River ESL program has a unique commitment to its students. First, and
apparent from the focus of our study, learners in the ESL program are supported
by a range of technology resources (computers, printers, scanners, digital
cameras, camcorders). The ESL teachers themselves are knowledgeable technology
users who have received training supported by district procured grant sources.
The ESL teachers in turn regularly provide support for mainstream classroom
teachers who are beginning to use technology as tools for instruction. Their
mainstream classroom teacher colleagues professionally respect the ESL
teachers. In tandem with collaborating with others around technology, these
teachers strive to foster continuity between the efforts of the mainstream
classroom and the ESL program in terms of curriculum, instruction, and student
assessment.
At the district level, both the integration
of technology in the classroom and the local population of ESL children and
their families are highly valued. Both are seen as enriching the district at
all levels. At the level of funding, the district offices have been very
proactive in obtaining state grants to support technology integration in
general and technology integration for ESL in particular. These monies are used
not only for the purchase of equipment for labs, libraries, and classroom
clusters, but for in-service training workshops and a district instructional
technology curriculum specialist as well. Unlike many other school districts
that view technology as a route to uniformity and consistency across curricula
and grade levels, this district is casting technology in the role of catalyst
for teacher reflection, creativity, and change. It is seen as a tool to instill
pride and a sense of empowerment for teachers, an attitudinal stance that is
clearly trickling down to the children as we will see in the next section.
Kathy Moran has both Bachelor's and Master's
degrees in Elementary Education (with concentrations in French and Educational
Computing). Between 1971 and 1990 she taught elementary grades 1-3 in both New
York and Arizona. Since 1991 she has been teaching ESOL (K-4) in the Indian
River Central School District.
Martie Menzel has a Bachelor's degree in French
and a Master’s degree in Elementary
Education. Prior to relocating to the Indian River District, she taught ten
years at the 5th grade level. When she found there were no openings
at the elementary level, she obtained accreditation in ESL through Syracuse
University. She has taught for the district at the elementary and middle school
levels for eight years.
The ESOL program enjoys a unique position in
the Indian River School District. Both the non-native speaking students and the
technology are valued and both Kathy and Martie have strong backgrounds in both
ESL and technology. Above all, however, the pull-out classes that form the
basis for our analysis are small (2-4 students). This allows a type of
continuous personal interaction between teachers and students that would be
impossible under larger class size conditions. Thus, our aim is less to present
these classes as blueprints for emulation than to portray them as examples of
successful technology integration within one specific context.
Language-Teaching Epistemologies
Both Kathy and Martie have training in second
language acquisition studies and generally keep up with trends in the field.
Their District encourages and supports this ongoing professional growth and
reflection. The District Administration encourages teachers to "constantly
revisit the research out there and see how they can make it apply"
(District Superintendent). We found through numerous discussions with these
practitioners that their reflections on the foundations upon which their teaching
practices are shaped are closely aligned with popular theory in second language
teaching and learning. Not only does their practice reflect these solid
foundations, but they are also very clear in articulating key issues in the
field and their applicability to their own students and professional contexts.
BICS/CALP
In 1980 Jim Cummins introduced a critical
notion to the field of K-12 second language teaching pedagogy. His was a widely
applicable and well applauded distinction between the kinds of social
language that children appear to pick up quite quickly and easily, or Basic
Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS), and the more cognitively challenging
language skills associated with higher order thinking and abstraction known as
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). While children who are second
language learners appear to converse with ease, their ability to think, read,
and write in an academic realm may be quite limited; this is especially true if
the child is from a semi-lingual population that has no native language CALP on
which to build his English academic skills. This is a fundamental concept
behind the practices of Kathy and Martie. It is why their focus on textwork,
wordwork and higher order thinking and problem solving is focal and intensive.
That’s one of the problems
that the ESOL students have . . . it effects their reading comprehension
because they know a lot of the common words but words that you acquire from
reading a great deal, they just don’t have those more academic type words. So I think that [computer
technology] challenges them more . . . to throw those words out to them and
keep using them so that they do become part of their vocabulary. (Martie)
The surface oral fluency that ESL children
may demonstrate is deceiving. Their sociocollaborative chatter around the
computer would lead one to assume that they have mastered the intricacies of
the English language. However, their CALP – their ability to use and understand academic
English in conjunction with higher order thinking and abstraction – is what drives the initiation processes
orchestrated by Martie and Kathy.
Language through Content
An optimal condition for second language
development in instructional settings is content richness or, in the case of an
academic environment, content and cross-curricular relevance. Because ESL
children must simultaneously master both the language and the academic content
it conveys, ESL professionals design and orchestrate tasks that can be
characterized as a "language through content" or "sheltered
English" approach to instruction (Krashen 1985; Edelsky 1996; Mohan 1986).
Such tasks require children to interact with, and produce and respond to,
language that is situated locally in the work of their mainstream classes. Work
in the ESL classroom, then, is characterized as having dual parallel
objectives.
I have congruency forms where I ask the classroom teachers to tell me
what areas I could help the children in, or what themes, topics they are going
to be studying in the up-coming month, and what skills I could help the
children with. (Kathy)
In the case of Martie, the middle school
teacher, not only does she design for these two parallel objectives, but she
integrates a third: the teaching of higher order thinking skills:
Well after I pick my language objective I always try to put a content
objective for every lesson because I only have them for one period a day. If I
only focused on language, I would lose a lot because you can teach the language
with the content…Every lesson has both a
language objective and a content objective and then we also list a higher level
thinking strategy we want to work on too . . . And I try even serving on the
committees too so I know what’s going on and I’m there and I’m not a stand alone. Our program (ESOL) doesn’t stand alone, it’s all connected with all the grade levels.
Foci on particular academic content in these
ESL contexts is systematic. These professionals work closely with their
students’ mainstream teachers to
keep current with what their learners are doing and with what they need in the
way of vocabulary, concepts, and language skills. Work done in the ESL context,
then, is consistently tied to the larger content area curricula and serves as
the substance through which language and literacy skills are practiced and
developed.
Integrated Skills
A key tenet in the field of second language
teaching and learning is the notion of integrated skills. No longer are the
skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing treated as separate,
autonomous skills, but are viewed as highly integral to one another (Johnson
1995; Savignon 1991). As such, language instructional activity involves
children exercising all four skills simultaneously. At the district level,
administrators, too, are keenly aware of the value of the integrated skills
approach in general, and for language learners in particular. They view the
computer as an ideal venue to exercise language using all four skills in
immediate and meaningful ways. Likewise, the New York State Language Arts
Standards (1998) consistently emphasize the mastery of all four skills and
suggest these receive balanced attention in school curricula and classroom
processes. The ongoing stream of participatory literacy activity in these ESL
environments bespeaks teachers’ adherence to this fundamental principle and serves as an exemplary
model of language and literacy skills integration.
It (using the computer for letter recognition) goes hand in hand with reading.
Reading, writing, spelling, listening, and speaking, they just all go together
and I try to work on all of those areas. (Kathy)
This is echoed by the district's assistant
superintendent, who emphasizes the richly motivational contexts computer-supported
work can contribute to the simultaneous honing of reading, writing, listening,
and speaking: "To hear these kids talk, see them listen, read, and write – the computer creates a superior context for that
and it means something."
Negotiation of Meaning as Venue for
Acquisition
Current views (e.g. Long 1985; Swain 1985;
Pica 1987; Johnson 1995) of optimal second language acquisition contexts see
the active negotiation of meaning through motivated interaction with others as
the main enterprise of the learning process. It is the active use of the
target language that serves as a primary locus for linguistic and conceptual
development. The teachers in our study are very clear about their adherence to
the notion of motivated conversation.
In ESL, one of the basic philosophies is the more the students are
talking, the more they’re learning. So, there should be a lot more student talk than teacher
talk. . . . I try to get them talking as much as I can, and not only just to
me, but then to involve the other ones. . . . I’ll often ask "Can anyone else help him
first?" . . . [I]t’s very easy for the teacher to give the answer. But they aren’t learning the language as much that way, and they
become dependent on that. (Martie)
Both teachers see the computer as a rich
venue and stimulus for meaning-based acquisition. The tight alignment of
textual, aural, and pictorial representations in conjunction with teacher
scaffolded meaning making comprise an ideal context in which learners can come
to exercise and own content words and concepts. As Kathy relates when asked
about the ways children make meaning around the computer:
I think especially because they’re so excited about playing the game Oregon Trail. I think they
will now know what ‘occupation’ means. I don’t think they’ll ever forget. Whenever they see the word ‘occupation’ I think it will take them right back to where they first really
understood the meaning and got to choose an occupation.
Awareness of Form
Current views of second language learning
(e.g. Ellis 1995; Lightbown & Spada 1993; Johnson 1995) also advocate a
balanced emphasis on form and meaning. It is not sufficient for learners to be
engaged in meaningful interaction; their attention must be drawn to and
awareness cued in to the forms the language takes in the process (Schmidt
1990). The Indian River ESL teachers were quite clear on the role that
attention to form plays in their teaching in general, and with the computer
screen representing and mediating forms in particular.
I’m also trying to
reinforce some grammar in this lesson with comparing slower, slowest, . . . so
I keep repeating just as a model so that they can hear whether it’s slowest or slower. (Martie in a video talkback)
With careful teacher orchestration, the ‘immersion in meaning’ quality to these computer-based activities are
effectively punctuated by attention drawn to the forms of words, sentences, and
texts representing the focus and substance of talk and action. Our observations
reveal a great deal of talk and activity punctuated by something we’ve come to call ‘point talk’ where what is being spoken about is pointed to on the screen with
either the mouse or the index finger. As such, learner attention is continually
drawn to various forms of language and the visual objects and actions these
represent.
Challenge
One of the optimal conditions for language
learning in an instructional context is that learners be challenged by
materials and activities that are just beyond their current level of ability
(Johnson 1995; Krashen 1982). Driving Kathy and Martie's moment-by-moment
decision-making processes is their continual judging of teachable opportunities
in light of an individual student’s current level of ability. As such, they are maintaining and
continually making adjustments to an internal syllabus of sorts for each of
their learners. This is attested to in several of the teachers’ comments regarding their instructional decision
making.
That’s one of the theories,
the ESL theories, it’s called i + 1. You always try to go beyond what they already can do so
that you are challenging them to grow faster. They don’t have a lot of time. You really have to push them
to learn the language. You don’t have time to spend a lot of time at one level, you just keep pushing
them as far as you can. (Martie)
Valuing the Native Language and Culture
In addition to valuing each learner’s individual qualities and experiences and working
to integrate these into the ongoing instructional stream, the ESL teachers
value children's native language and recognize the fact that cognitive growth
in and through that language is critical to their overall development as
literate thinkers. The first language is viewed as the linguistic and
conceptual link that teachers and learners make use of; learners bring
strengths and skills from their other language and cultural heritage. Teachers
value this bilingualism and biliteracy as an important asset.
I have another [software program], Sticky Bear Reading, which my
first graders use and that [has] the option to go into Spanish too, . . . often
times the Spanish speakers will choose that. They don’t want to forget their native languages. And that’s a perfect opportunity for them to become literate
in Spanish. With the first graders, they may never have seen these words
written in Spanish before and [I] think that’s great when they want to see what the printed word
looks like in Spanish. (Kathy)
In addition to conducting ESL
"pullout" sessions with their students, these teachers are also
actively involved in "push-in" activities whereby they accompany
their students in their mainstream classes to provide support and assistance as
needed. Pushing in also affords them opportunities to monitor their learners’ progress and needs and gives them a chance to keep
up with the mainstream curriculum. In both cases, the ESL teacher is seen as a
powerful asset in the mainstream classes. They are viewed as experts in much
more than English as a second language:
I push in to their programs (mainstream classes) to enrich anything that
has to do with multiculturalism. They’ll ask me could you come in and explain certain holidays or certain
activities that go on around the world, that type of thing. (Martie)
To further integrate and encourage the
heritage language, parents and other relatives are frequently invited to work
around the computer with the children using both English and the native
language.
We invite the parents in the Fall, and the parents come in and they are
partners with their children for that period; and then in the springtime I like
to arrange a special time for parents to come back. . . . that time the parents
work one on one with their children on the computer. They can construct stories
in their native language and they are excited about it. (Kathy)
E-Text in Action: Three Narratives
In the following section, we present three
narratives that serve as detailed illustrations of these teachers and their
students at work with e-texts. The first is a sample of grade 2 students using
the Once Upon a Time software package; the second a 4th grade class
using Oregon Trail; the final narrative is from the 8th grade
using a program called Widget Workshop.
Once Upon A Time
Once Upon A Time is authoring software with which students can write a story based on a
particular theme. There is a range of environments to choose from, items that
can be placed into the environment, and a space for writing. When a student
selects an item, she hears the word "spoken" and then decides whether
to include it and its accompanying picture in her story. In this way students
construct a story to accompany a sequence of pictures that they create.
Kathy's room is small and narrow with six
computers arranged along the two longer walls. Despite the restricted space,
the room is bright and attractively decorated with students' work. Juana, a
Spanish speaker, and Chang, a Korean speaker, are paired at a computer where
they are working to create a story about a farm. Chang is an experienced user
of the program and Kathy has purposely put him with Juana so that he will be
able to show her how to use it, and to do it in "kid talk." Kathy
also feels that Juana has something to offer Chang since she speaks more
English at home and has a better grasp of word order:
Chang speaks Korean when he goes home. He speaks Korean and English.
Juana doesn't speak much Spanish at home. So she hears more English than Chang
does and I think her word order in English, in her spoken English, would be a
better model than Chang's is. So, I think he could help her learn to use the
program. But she could help with the word order.
While Kathy is happy with Chang's ability,
she feels that Juana is behind the group in terms of reading ability. She
scored at the 11th percentile on the Stanford Reading Comprehension
Test. She hopes that by having Juana write and then read back her own work her
skills may improve:
She's a quiet little gal, but she doesn't have the ability to read as
well as her peers in her classroom, as well as the peers in the ESL group with Chang
and Alicia. Her writing seems to be stronger than her reading, and so if I can
give her an opportunity to see words printed correctly she can model those and
also to help her fix any errors she has in her written work it will help her
when she reads it back, to see it written correctly, without errors. So, I
don't consider her an advanced student yet for that reason, because, [she
doesn't have] . . . that total picture, that listening, speaking, reading,
writing.
Kathy has chosen a farm topic for this class
as a result of the congruency forms she regularly distributes to the mainstream
teachers, in which she asks them for up-coming themes and for skills with which
the non-native English speaking students need help. Having been a regular 2nd
grade teacher for five years she said she knows the curriculum well. Her
objective for this unit (which took place over several class periods) was to
work with the students to write a simple text with correct punctuation and with
a number of sentences going together to make up a paragraph.
Kathy believes that computers are very
helpful to her in achieving these goals. Programs like Once Upon A Time
provide an array of flexible vocabulary features that connect print, sound, and
graphic in ways that she believes can help improve reading ability:
Well, I think with the vocabulary word portion of this computer program,
she has a listing of maybe 40 or 50 vocabulary words. And she can click on a
word and it will be pronounced for her, and then if she chose . . . she would have
to type in those letters exactly, and then the picture would appear. So if it
were a horse, maybe she could read the word horse, but still she would have to
type in h-o-r-s-e in order to get the horse, to be able to manipulate that
animal. And if she did not know how to read that word, she could click on it
and it would be read for her, so she could hear the spoken word. She would have
a chance to spell, type the spoken word, and then manipulate that animal and
then construct a sentence where she could put that word in the sentence. So I
think that will help her improve her reading skills.
Kathy also believes that computer tasks can
provide something unique (or at least something that is difficult to provide
ordinarily) in that they create an environment where the students are motivated
towards the achievement of products they can take pride in. This motivation
inspires the whole pattern of interaction:
What we're seeing right now on video, had they been in their classroom,
they easily could have just been sitting and
listening and not interacting, not saying anything. They could easily be
overlooked in a classroom just by being quiet, well-behaved children. I think
in here, the dialog that we have, the learning, the pride of learning to do
something new, accomplishing something, I think that was a beneficial half-hour
for all of us. . . rather than giving the children a blank piece of paper and
saying "Okay, I want you to write a story, or draw some pictures and then
write a story about it," being the well-behaved, polite, children that
they are, you know, I'm sure they would have done what I asked, because that
was a task that I had assigned. But with a computer it just opened up a world.
Juana was able to choose the background, first of all, that she wanted. And
then choose vocabulary words, and the pictures, she had the option to erase,
delete some of the pictures she had chosen if she didn't want to use them.
The classroom sequence we videotaped and
analyzed is characterized by an alternating sequence of teacher-student and
student-student interactions as Kathy moves around the room helping different
dyads on computer. She organizes her dyads so that the students have clear
roles to play when she is absent and this provides a structure in which problem
solving becomes a cooperative venture despite the fact that one student has
control of the computer and the story being generated. What follows is a
detailed account of the first half-hour of the farm unit.
Kathy begins by introducing the activity to
Juana and Chang and enlists Chang's help as "teacher" while she
circulates to other groups in the room. Chang immediately begins to take on the
role of instructor as he issues a series of short directives:
Chang: Click on it.
Juana: What?
Chang: Background. Right there. Yeah, click on it. Hold it. See it goes
on the farm. Back up to there. If you want pictures just push this.
These directives are accompanied by much
pointing to the screen. The gestures provide visual support for Juana and
Chang's negotiation of meaning. What is also notable is that Juana retains her
control over what finally happens on screen by keeping her hand on the mouse.
This forces Chang to use language rather than demonstrate by taking control of
the computer. With Chang's guidance, Juana brings up a farm background on the
screen.
Kathy returns and helps the dyad find an
animal to place into the farm background. Her first concern is that Chang might
be rushing Juana through the screen options without giving her a chance to
understand them. She asks Chang how the computer might be able to help with
unfamiliar words and then suggests that Juana give it a try. Juana clicks on
the word "bull," which she does not understand and Kathy carefully
takes her through the steps of typing the letters and clicking on them for a
picture of a bull to appear.
Kathy: Just one second. Let's take a look at that bull first of all.
What would you say a bull is?
Chang: It's like a dog, but it just gots horns.
Juana: It's like a cow.
Kathy: It is like a cow. Do you think it's a boy or a girl?
Chang: Girl.
Juana: Boy.
Kathy: Well let's see. If it's a girl. What gives milk?
Both: Cow.
Kathy: A cow. And a cow would be a girl. This would be a boy. B for boy,
B for bull. Here we have a bull. Would you like a bull in your story Juana?
Juana: Dog.
Kathy: Would you like a bull in your story?
Juana: No.
In this exchange we see Kathy adopting a
scaffolding approach to questioning. While she knows the answers to her own
questions, she does not evaluate but instead uses Juana's answers to scaffold
further questions. Furthermore, while she has assumed control of the
interaction she has not taken control of the topic. She ends the sequence with
a genuinely dialogic question to which Juana answers "no." After a
considerable amount of time spent on the word "bull," Juana decides
that she wants a dog rather than a bull in her story.
Kathy walks away to another group and Chang
now tells Juana how to color her dog. He suggests brown but Juana insists she
wants a black dog. Again we see Juana emphasizing her ownership over the story.
Kathy comes back and discusses the
positioning and size of the dog. Chang takes the mouse to show how to position
the dog and Kathy questions him so that what he did can become clearer to
Juana.
Kathy: How do you think you'd move that dog over there?
Chang: Like this. [Chang moves the cursor with the mouse.]
Kathy: What did you do Chang?
Chang: I clicked on the dog.
Kathy: And then what did you do to make it move? What did you do with
your hand?
Chang: I touched the dog and I was moving the mouse.
Kathy: Could you move the dog Juana? Let's see you move that.
Juana positions her dog but is unhappy with
the size.
Chang: Click it shrink.
Kathy: What does shrink mean?
Chang: It's going to get smaller.
Juana: Oh, yeah.
Kathy: Is that a good size?
Juana: Yeah.
Kathy: Do you want any more dogs in your picture?
Juana: No.
Kathy immediately picks up the unfamiliar
word "shrink" and again uses Chang to explain the meaning to Juana
before handing back topic control to her.
The next time Kathy is away, Chang tells
Juana how to put flowers into the picture and then how to color them. When
Kathy returns she introduces the writing activity. First she instructs Juana
directly about how to get a vocabulary list from the program and it is quite
clear that Juana has difficulty reading the words.
Kathy: Can you read some of the words?
Juana: Nope.
Kathy: I'll bet you can.
Juana: Sleep, sleep.
Kathy: It looks like "sleep," but it's a sheep. That's an
animal on the farm isn't it?
Juana: Uh huh.
Kathy: First letter?
Juana: S S
Kathy: You can just continue with the first letter then honey.
Juana: Sun, T. Tree. Is that truck?
Kathy: Yes it is a truck. Click on it and see. [Juana clicks. Computer
says "truck"] You're right.
Juana: My dad has a white truck and a white car.
Kathy: You might want to put a truck in your picture.
Here we see a student on the verge of
literacy, sounding out letters and trying to get meaning. When a familiar word
(truck) appears, Kathy accepts the apparently off-task comment of Juana and
suggests that she incorporate it into her story. Then Kathy asks that they work
on a sentence while she spends time with another group.
Chang now tells Juana how to begin writing
her name and the two students interact around the task of getting Juana's name
on the screen.
Chang: Write your name. Hold shift. With the J [points to the keyboard].
Juana: I have to hold shift again?
Chang: No just spell your name. That's the name. U - A.
Juana: I know, I know, I know.
Kathy reappears and helps Juana with her
sentence. While the sentence itself is simple, "Juana has a farm,"
the fact that it is on computer leads to considerable interaction where the
context, the words on the screen, the keyboard, and the software provide the
reasons to talk.
Juana: I forgot have you erase this thing for F. [points to screen] I
forgot to put the space.
Kathy: Okay. You push your left arrow one time [points to keyboard]. Now
press the spacebar and you push your right arrow [points to keyboard]. Push it
one time. There. Now you can put these in the story. What have you written so
far?
Juana: Juana has a farm.
Kathy: Then you've got the F there. Finish writing farm. Do you know how
to spell farm?
Juana: No.
Kathy: Look up here [points to screen]. Do you see "farm"
written anywhere? Up here? We called your story "Farm" and you are on
page one. Can you find the word "farm"?
Juana: [points to screen] Farm page one.
Again although the discourse is
"teacherly" in the sense that Kathy already knows the answers to all
the questions she asks, it is has a rich dialogic quality as both the
participants are working together to complete the on-screen task. Having the
computer as a mediator of the linguistic interaction results in part of the
focus being on the mediating tool and less on the correctness of Juana's
response.
Several comments can be made about this short
sequence of classroom interaction. First of all it is undeniably real. The
students have been set a task that involves the manipulation of complex
technology and as a result the talk is mostly about how to use it. While the
story itself is the locus of relatively abstract language (there is little of
the "here and now" quality of language to the topic of writing about
a farm in a classroom), the computer screen anchors and brings to life what
would otherwise be wholly abstract. It is with the computer as a tool that both
the production and comprehension of language become real and meaningful. One
feature of any computer software is that there is little room for ambiguity or
tolerance of error. To progress to the next step of any program, the preceding
one must be completed in a precise way. Kathy uses this feature as an accuracy
tool for writing when she has Juana type out unfamiliar words in order to see
the graphic equivalent.
In this interaction Juana has been given
control of the computer. She is writing her story about a farm and despite her
lack of language and computer skills her story idea remains the dominant force
in her decision making. She is directed by Chang and instructed and questioned
by Kathy but ultimately retains control of her topic. She decides not to take a
bull, where to position her dog, what size and what color to make it. Kathy and
Chang are both more skilled participants but they respect Juana's ownership
over her story. With a computer, what appears on the screen has a publicness
that is seldom evident with handwritten text and yet it is also privately
controlled. Thus there can be public discussion without conflict of ownership.
By organizing the activity so that Juana had control of both the mouse and the
keyboard, Kathy ensured that she would not be relegated to the role of passive
observer.
As well as being challenged linguistically,
Juana is also challenged communicatively as she is the person controlling what
appears on screen. She is obliged to comprehend Chang's and Kathy's messages
perfectly as the machine has no tolerance for ambiguity. With a computer task
it is not possible for learners to use any of the avoidance strategies that are
normally used to mask comprehension failure and lubricate the wheels of
conversation. Chang is also challenged, though admittedly to a lesser extent.
His role is that of a teacher – to "teach" Juana how to use the program. This is not an easy
task as it requires a use of language (directives) that students rarely have an
opportunity to employ. Again, with the computer as a mediating tool, he is
required to be precise and clear in his expression of meaning. He does, of
course, have the use of gesture to anchored referents to aid him and we see
this in the constant "points to screen" notes on the transcript.
As is evident in the excerpts above, the
discourse between Kathy and her students in this sequence is never completely
monologic or dialogic. Kathy never asks "test questions" which are
then overtly evaluated and yet she does ask many questions to which she already
knows the answers. While there is a surface level of monologism, beneath this
there is a rich dialogic structure as all three participants share in the
construction of the story. Juana, although she has the least knowledge, is the
ultimate arbiter of what is accepted; Chang adopts the role of a proxy teacher;
and Kathy uses her power (the power that all teachers have) to prompt the
students to express themselves and to scaffold the acquisition of new literacy
and computer skills. In this process, the computer screen both brings the topic
to life and demands comprehension. It also facilitates both student control and
the appropriation of different roles.
Oregon Trail
A 4th grade group of four ESL
students are working on the simulation Oregon Trail. The students must
choose professions and with varying amounts of food and money embark on the
journey from the Midwest to Oregon. Along the way they encounter disease,
hunger and the other hardships that were common during the years the trail was
used.
Kathy chose this program because it linked
with a 4th grade theme about life on the prairie:
We now are reading one of the Little House on the Prairie books, On
the Banks of Plum Creek, . . . a trade book from the 4th grade
classroom. I chose this one purposely just so they could see what it was like
to travel back in this time and to actually meet a family. And I taped an
episode from the television, A Little House on the Prairie episode two
weeks ago. They viewed that in class and they had a chance to meet that
particular family and see what the surroundings looked like at that time and
the problems they had. Now we're back reading our novel and we're continuing back also with the Oregon Trail
game. So it all ties right in.
Kathy is very aware that children tend to
rush through the program to achieve the end goal, without thinking about
options and the implications of their choices. She therefore continuously
interacts with the students to slow things down and to encourage them to
explore the on-screen information before making decisions.
Rather than just have them play the game where it's just easy to move
and take time out, continue, go hunting, I wanted them to really think about
their choices ahead of time and not just click on an occupation and just
quickly get into it. I wanted them to take the time to use the help button and
read it and understand that there are different advantages that the different
occupations have and just to get them more into the reading and the
understanding of the entire game.
I just want them to see what is available to them on the screen. Where the
computer will keep track of how much food is remaining, what their pace is, the
health of everyone just so they get an awareness for the entire part of the
screen and not just follow the little red line of the wagon train.
With her 4th grade students, Kathy
intervenes not only because she wants them to extend their vocabulary. She also
wants them to be more aware of their surroundings:
To make sure they understand the meaning instead of just moving on
because they could have just sat down and started this game right from the
beginning and not talked about anything and they still would have traveled the
trail. And they might have had the very same outcome, but I think it's just
important to see all of the things that are going on in the course of an adventure,
a journey, just day to day life instead of just walking around staring at the
ground. Just look around and see what's going on around you and how's that
going to affect your own situation.
Kathy feels that the computer offers several
advantages over text-based lessons. First there is the way in which information
can be accessed quickly with explanations of unfamiliar words only a keystroke
away "because it's quick, the information's available to them within a
second." Any problem with text would be much more disruptive.
If we're working at a table with books and a child had a question we
might have to stop everybody and we'd all have to focus on the one child's
problem, but this way they can still hear what's going on with a classmate but
continue on with their own journey.
As with the younger students, Kathy finds
that when normally quiet children work on computer, they open up and become
animated. "Often times these are the children who are real quiet back in
the classroom. You wouldn't think that to hear them and see them
interact."
Kathy begins by grouping all four students
around one computer and asking questions that recall information from a
previous lesson on the Oregon Trail. She has a map for the students to
see where the trail is and she emphasizes that it was a real trail. On the
previous occasion, the students had chosen occupations, and she comes back to
check that they have all understood what an occupation is.
Kathy: What's that thing called? Occupation, what does that mean?
Her questions, though, go beyond checking for
meaning as she asks them why they chose what they did.
Kathy: Was there a special reason why you chose what you chose?
Tyrone: I chose a doctor because he can . . . it helps peoples.
She then moves to helping the students
navigate (talk about the software).
Kathy: For your job. It's your job. Okay. And do we push that help
button?
Anna: Yeah [points to screen].
Kathy: And what did that do for us?
From here she moves into the simulation (talk
inside the software).
Kathy: Something breaks and you'll be a good carpenter.
Anna: Me too.
Kathy: You too? How much money did you start with?
Then she switches out of the simulation to
congratulate Bridget on her use of the computer hardware.
Kathy: Gee Bridget I like the way you're using the mouse to show us
right where we are. It helps to point so we can track our reading. How about
the carpenter?
These excerpts show how Kathy moves fluidly
across different types of discourse as she interacts with the students.
Next the students divide into pairs on two
computers and begin traveling the trail. One pair soon comes to a river. To
make the river crossing more meaningful Kathy has a ruler ready so Anna and
Tyrone can measure the depth.
Tyrone: You must cross the river to get (?). The river is 610 feet wide
and 2½ feet deep. How high
and deep is it?
Kathy: Well let's get a ruler and measure that. [Anna gets the ruler and
measures] 2½ feet deep. I would
measure it right from the ground. Right from where your feet are. One . . . two
. . . and then take that bottom one and go up ½ foot.
Tyrone: ½ foot right there?
Kathy: Okay. So it's about [points to screen] . . . how deep it is.
Tyrone: So we could just walk through it [points to screen].
Anna: Yeah.
Kathy: Let's see how you make out.
Tyrone: Oh my gosh.
Anna: Oh no.
Kathy: Did you make it?
Tyrone: Yeah.
Anna: Yeah. We almost went all the way down.
By now the students have totally entered into
the spirit of the simulation and they separate again so that each one can
experience the simulation individually. Their language expresses their
excitement and involvement with the program. Tyrone even spontaneously asks a
math question in his effort to gauge the extent of the obstacle facing him.
As the students continue on the trail they
encounter challenges ranging from snake bites to broken wagons. The students
have total control over their discourse as they "live" in the
adventure. At times Kathy enters into the spirit and interacts with the
students at this level.
Bridget: Oh Tyrone, you got snake bitten.
Tyrone: Ouch.
Bridget: Tyrone got snake bitten.
Kathy: Hey, I'm curious these are the doctors over here and their health
is poor? Somebody drowned? What happened to these doctors?
Anna: Tyrone and the ox is sick. Tyrone is bitten by a snake.
Tyrone: Our wagon's delayed. Come on. Come on.
Bridget: Everybody's good.
Kathy: Oh boy. Good going carpenter.