an Open Ended Language Exploration Playground Bas

2012 CALL Conference 277

Chung-Kai Huang1, Justin Olmanson2, Woonhee Sung3 & Yu-Hui Chen4 1

2

3

University of Texas at Austin - University of Illinois Urbana Champaign - Columbia 4 University - San Min Junior High School [email protected]

Funwritr: an Open Ended Language Exploration Playground Based on a Sextet of Design Parameters for CALL

Bio data Chung-Kai Huang, Justin Olmanson, Woonhee Sung, and Yu-Hui Chen are members of the Language Learning and Technology Research and Design Group (LLTR&D). Started in 2007 on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin, the LLTR&D is an experiment in sustainable, affinity-based, collaborative educational technology research, design, and development. Currently moving from alpha to beta, FunWritr is the first project undertaken by the group. For more information visit http://funwritr.com.

Abstract In this paper we describe the design of FunWritr (Olmanson, Farchy, & Day, 2010), an online literacy development and language acquisition application. For 7-10 year olds with advanced-beginner to intermediate knowledge of English interacting with the application during classroom center time and computer lab free time in an urban public school in North America. FunWritr is designed to be a multimodal environment (Jewitt, 2005) wherein language learners use their L2 writing capacity to initiate and anchor their exploration of the English language which in turn informs and enriches their writing (Cummins, 2008). Our efforts to create the application were guided by a sextet of design parameters. Garrett (2009) outlines four interrelated components in the design of CALL applications, namely: pedagogy, theory, technology, and context. To these four, we add curriculum, and development. This paper describes our position on each of these parameters and the gestalt effect produced when used in concert with each other in the creation of a CALL application. Keywords design, development, congruence, invisible mashup, ESL, NLP, CALL

Short paper Introduction Designing educational experiences is influenced by metanarratives about education, by learned beliefs, guiding intuitions, and pragmatic constraints, yet often these elements aren’t explicitly considered (Yanchar & Gabbitas, 2010). Our affinity-based research and design group has worked to integrate six interrelated factors in the design process. Garrett (2009) outlines four factors to consider when designing language acquisition applications: learning theory, educational context, pedagogy, and technology. Our www.cs.pu.edu.tw/~2012call www.antwerpcall.be


positions on these as well as curriculum and development, emerged over time. Interfactor congruence had direct and latent benefits for our design process (Der-Thanq, Hung, & Yu-Mei Wang, 2007). Curriculum While educational design usually springs out of a culture of goals, objectives, and assessments (Demski, 2011; Staples, Pugach, & Himes, 2005), we wanted to design a language acquisition application based on the curricular construct of study as a mode of inquiry (McClintock, 1971). This led us to support language growth and metalinguistic understanding through self-directed, unassuming (Roy, 2003), scaffolded wayfaring (Ingold, 2007), guided by a focus on intellectual qualities and reflection on what knowledge and experiences are most valuable (Pinar, 2012). Theory Constructivism embodies our perspective on learning as an unpredictable process of contemplative experiential knowledge construction (Papert, 1980). Via curiosity, people construct meaning through a process of connection-making between beliefs, remembered experiences, and environmental interactions (Jonassen, 1991). We see language acquisition as a uniquely experienced (Smith, 2004; Stahl & Hayes, 1997), affective, social process (Au, 1998; Smith, 1994). We draw on implicit literacy and language acquisition theories that forefront comprehensibility, interest, and engagement (Cassidy, Valadez, & Garrett, 2010; Krashen, 2003) while still respecting the role noticing plays in deepening metalinguistic knowledge (Truscott, 1998). Context An ethnographic approach resonated with our perspectives on knowledge (Noblit, Flores, & Murillo, 2004; Guba & Lincoln, 1998). Ethnography (Wolcott, 2008) allowed us to conduct holistic, open-ended design-guiding inquiry (Barab, Thomas, Dodge, Squire, & Newell, 2004). Our ethnographic analysis found teacher-led activities and a few low-key student-directed moments. The student-directed moments happened during computer center time, silent sustained reading (Krashen, 2006) and ESL writer’s workshop periods (Calkins, 1986). These instructionally relaxed, low-stakes moments were congruent with our other design parameters (Der-Thanq et al., 2007) and influenced our pedagogical decisions. Pedagogy We drew on pedagogies highlighting open-endedness and exploration (Dickey, 2010; Hannafin, Land, & Oliver, 1999), pedagogies of wonder with numerous avenues toward understanding (Duckworth, 2006), multimodal approaches employing non-textual communicative channels as a way of expanding and critiquing the meaning of written text (Derrida, 1997; Kress, 2010), and pedagogies that encouraged manipulation at different grain sizes (Jewitt, 2006), and used student L2 writing as a catalyst for interaction (Roy, 2003). We were guided toward interactions that juxtaposed local meanings and global representations (Schleppegrell & Colombi, 2002), toward approaches that supported metalinguistic noticing (Truscott, 1998) whilst engendering curiosity and authorial orientations toward expression and language (Smith, 1994). Lastly, we used scaffolds that leveraged and supported comprehension (Durkin, 2003) while inspiring appreciation for the inherent ambiguities in language (Coles & Hall, 2001). Technology It is our guiding belief that as a field, CALL does not need iRobot or HAL 9000 to support language acquisition. Instead, CALL and iCALL can serve learners well in terms of supporting or scaffolding student-driven inquiry within open-ended environments via the technologies at hand, namely API-accessible content repositories and knowledge bases, natural language processing tools (Bird, Klein, & Loper, 2009), and invisible mashups designed specifically for educational purposes(Liu, Horton, Olmanson, & Wang, 2008).

www.cs.pu.edu.tw/~2012call www.antwerpcall.be


Development Process While not commonly considered a design parameter in and of itself, the approach to and process of development influences the points at which and the extent to which design trajectories may be altered. An agile programming orientation (Stober & Hansmann, 2009) allowed us to continue to modify and calibrate the design based on refinement in our positions on the other design parameters. Instead of creating wireframes of all of the functionality we were able to influence the nature and direction of development every other week. Not only did this process allow us to take advantage of insights we gained throughout our period of participant observation in a local elementary school classroom, but it also ensured that people and ideas joining the process late in our iterative development cycles could influence the final CALL application. Application Description As shown in figure 1 below, the FunWritr user interface is Flash-based with a Python/CherryPy backend and MySQL database.

Figure 4 Overview of FunWritr Architecture As the user types, a collage of images are returned to reflect the meaning of the phrase closest to the cursor (see Figure 2). Each noun, verb, adjective, and adverb within the highlighted phrase is displayed in its own three-image collage around the periphery of the center phrase collage.



Figure 2 FunWritr Composition Space Each word-based collage in the composition space is clickable, activating a word meaning and disambiguation environment that displays images, definitions, and similar words for each distinct meaning (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 Clicking 'cat' in figure 2 yields a word meaning disambiguation carousel Ontological connections between a particular meaning of a word and other words within the same semantic family can be explored via the mapping level (see figure 4).



Figure 4 Clicking 'Map Word' in figure 3 yields an interactive ontological map Findings and Implications In designing our application based on a sextet of influential elements, we were able to sidestep the critique that advances in technology drive CALL development to the detriment of pedagogy (Heift & Schulze, 2007). Instead of pitting pedagogy and technology against each other, we have shown how there are multiple factors which implicitly or explicitly, influence the creation of CALL applications (Garrett, 2009). By taking an explicit, deliberate orientation to inter-element resonance (Der-Thanq et al., 2007), we have created an epistemologically, theoretically, and pedagogically congruent application that incorporates recent socio-technological developments. We have also taken pains to ensure the existence of spaces and moments within public school classrooms that align well enough for FunWritr to be integrated into the regular ESL school day.

References Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 297–319. Barab, S., Thomas, M. K., Dodge, T., Squire, K., & Newell, M. (2004). Critical design ethnography: Designing for change. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35(2) 254268. Retrieved February 6, 2008, from http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/a eq.2004.35.2.254 Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E. (2009). Natural language processing with Python. Beijing: O’Reilly. Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cassidy, J., Valadez, C. M., & Garrett, S. D. (2010). Literacy trends and issues: A look at the five pillars and the cement that supports them. Reading Teacher, 63(8), 644–655. Coles, M., & Hall, C. (2001). Breaking the line: New literacies, postmodernism and the teaching of printed texts. Reading, 35(3), 111-114.



Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. Encyclopedia of language and education: Literacy (Vol. 2, pp. 71–83). New York: Springer. Demski, J. (2011). Shoulder to shoulder innovation. THE Journal, 38(7), 20–26. Derrida, J. (1997). Of grammatology (Corrected ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Der-Thanq, C., Hung, D., & Yu-Mei Wang. (2007). Educational design as a quest for congruence: The need for alternative learning design tools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 876–884. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00675.x Dickey, M. D. (2010). The pragmatics of virtual worlds for K-12 educators: Investigating the affordances and constraints of active worlds and Second Life with K-12 in-service teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(1), 1–20. doi:10.1007 /s11423-010-9163-4 Duckworth, E. R. (2006). The having of wonderful ideas and other essays on teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College Press. Durkin, D. (2003). Teaching them to read. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. Modern Language Journal, 93, 719–740. doi:10.1111/j.1540-47 81.2009.00969.x Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hannafin, M., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open Learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Heift, T., & Schulze, M. (2007). Errors and intelligence in computer-assisted language learning : Parsers and pedagogues. New York: Routledge. Ingold, T. (2007). Lines: A brief history. London: Routledge. Jewitt, C. (2005). Multimodality, “Reading”, and “Writing” for the 21st century. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 26(3), 315–331. doi:10.1080/01 596300500200011 Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy and learning : A multimodal approach. London: Routledge. Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14. Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Krashen, S. D. (2006). Free reading. School Library Journal, (September), 42–45. Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Taylor & Francis.



Liu, M., Horton, L., Olmanson, J., & Wang, P. Y. (2008). An exploration of mashups and their potential educational uses. Computers in the Schools, 25(3/4), 243–258. McClintock, R. (1971). Toward a place of study in a world of instruction. Teachers College Record, 73(2), 161–205. Noblit, G. W., Flores, S. Y., & Murillo, E. G. (Eds.). (2004). Postcritical ethnography: Reinscribing critique. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Olmanson, J., Farchy, A., & Day, P. (2010). FunWritr. Austin, TX. Retrieved 2010 from http://funwritr.com/ Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books. Pinar, W. (2012). What is curriculum theory? (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Roy, K. (2003). Teachers in nomadic spaces: Deleuze and curriculum. New York: P. Lang. Schleppegrell, M., & Colombi, C. (2002). Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge. Smith, F. (1994). Writing and the writer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Smith, F. (2004). Understanding reading (6th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stahl, S. A., & Hayes, D. A. (1997). Instructional models in reading. Mahwah, NJ Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/ results/getResults.jhtml? _DARGS=/ hww/results/results_common.jhtml.35 Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration challenge: Cases from three urban elementary schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 285–311. Stober, T., & Hansmann, U. (2009). Agile software development: Best practices for large software development projects. Berlin: Springer. Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14(2), 103–135. Wolcott, H. F. (2008). Ethnography. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2010). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 383–398. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9180-3
