| 
|
 Student weblogging
for fluency, skills, and integration
The following was written in preparation for TESOL 2007 in
Seattle: Student weblogging for fluency, skills, and integration.
Demonstration, Writing IS, CC 3B, Sat. Mar. 24, 10:30-11:15. It follows
my comments only roughly. -Thomas Leverett, CESL, Southern Illinois
Univ., Carbondale IL USA 62901-4518.
This presentation:
[ Weblogs for fluency
(home) ][ Ways to use
weblogs ][ Skills ][ Integration ][
Weblogs
happen ][ New blogger, old
mac ][ Portfolios ][ Resources ][ Weblogs in
esl/efl: bibliography ]
Fluency first: Fluency as a construct
The concept of oral fluency rode a wave of popularity into the
perceptual fields of English teachers with the arrival of the
communicative revolution in language teaching, and its corresponding "Fluency First" movement, which is still alive and well. That philosophy in its
essence told students who had studied grammar and vocabulary for years,
that all this stored knowledge would be of no use if they couldn't
master the environmental characteristics of face-to-face, oral
conversation. In essence it added weight to the teacher's load, since
the teacher now had to prepare the student to go out into the world, and
survive various face-to-face encounters, getting what they wanted,
getting more input, and in general succeeding in their new environment
with their new language and new skills. Oral fluency was thus defined in
terms of various abilities: the ability to respond appropriately in the
oral environment, the ability to get and keep the floor in a discussion;
the ability to speak smoothly (as opposed to quickly, or even
accurately), thus holding the attention of the listener; the ability to
use alternate ways to express an idea, thus communicating effectively in
spite of any number of other handicaps. It was pointed out, correctly,
that some learners were surprisingly fluent in many ways, while still
weak in traditional skills such as grammar, vocabulary, reading or
listening (or, at least weak in performance of the traditional tests
that measured such things); other learners found the face-to-face
sensitivity the hardest part of mastering a language.
Not surprisingly, when fluency was actually quantified and measured, it
posed some difficulties for raters; the first was that fluency scores
varied widely from tape-recorded tests to live interviews, and in fact
had to be almost entirely redefined when one couldn't see the face of
the testee. This discrepancy pointed out the variation in
interpretations of fluency, depending on environment, and proved to be a
precursor of what is to come. The central problem is this: the
introduction of technology has forced communicators to master a variety
of media, many of which are new, and require skills that have not been
developed, and for which people have no models.
Our students will have to master not only face-to-face interaction and
small scratchy cassette recorders (not to mention the phone*); but also
a redefined kind of fluency that will be interpreted in terms of new
environments that they will be expected to communicates smoothly in.
Their world will demand fluency in a number of environments, but the
oral one may not be prominent, first, or most important as can be
considered today.
Writing fluency
Before I argue for the range of fluencies that my presentation will
introduce, namely, mastery of the technological media that our students
will need in the future, I want to say that in my day job I'm a writing
teacher, and frequently a Reading/listening teacher, or a grammar
teacher, and my concerns are primarily those of any and every other
esl/efl teacher in that position. Basic writing fluency means the same
thing to me as it would to any other writing teacher; I want my students
to put together meaningful sentences readily and easily, and have them
easily understood by most of the people in their environment at any
moment.
I define writing fluency in these terms: A high-level writer, when asked
to produce a paragraph, essay, or anything else, should be able to sit
down, either with pen and paper or at a computer, and be comfortable
writing meaningful, understandable English in a reasonable period of
time. I'm not talking about refinement here, or organization, or styles
of argument. I'm referring more to comfort with the medium of
communication, comfort with one's own voice and ability to communicate,
and ability to use the medium effectively, in a given standard time
frame.
In spite of the joy you'll see in my defining of new kinds of fluencies
(below), I want to say that this basic kind of writing fluency is most
important to me; I have seen, more and more, higher-level students who
are virtually paralyzed by simple writing assignments, and I've reached
the point where I compare this to the new driver who is on the highway
before he/she really has a feel for brakes and gears of a car. By all
means, Fluency First. Don't raise the pressure, enumerate the
requirements, or refine the expectations until there is at least some
reassurance of this kind of fluency.
Other fluencies explored
It has always been assumed in linguistics that the oral language
preceded the written language (historically, it no doubt did); that
dialectical variation was primarily an oral phenomenon, often referred
to as accents- and, that though written versions of a language could
show dialectical variation, generally the written form of a language, in
our case English, could be considered more stable than the spoken forms,
more common throughout the nation, so that, for example, we here in
Illinois have no trouble reading the New York Times, whereas we
might have some trouble, if placed in the middle of New York City to ask
someone for directions.
These assumptions about the relationship between aspects of a language
will all be coming into question in the coming years. In the world our
students are coming into, the written language will be much more fluid,
transient, and affected by environment, whereas the spoken form, backed
up by worldwide media giants and the movie industry, will be more
standardized, more stable. Such innovations as text-messaging, chat,
and e-mail have created online environments that will ultimately develop
their own written dialects, changing due to their potential isolation
and the traffic they carry in terms of communication; spoken English, on
the other hand, will be used less, and with greater standardization
expected.
The concept of fluency, defined usually in terms of one's ability to
communicate smoothly, find alternate ways to express a point or
communicate in spite of inevitable barriers, thus maintaining and
carrying conversations to their ends and to desirable results, can now,
I believe, be safely be applied to other environments, particularly the
ones in which people are most likely to meet each other first. That is
to say, fluency is much more critical, much more of an issue, with the
people we first meet, since those we know and love have more tolerance
for our bumbling and mistakes, when they occur. But a person expecting
to be well received in different environments must be able to get in the
door, and to this end will need various kinds of fluency.
Siemens (2004) made the best first step in beginning to define the
changes in learning and adapting that young people will be facing in the
future. He stressed, among other things, that being able to find
information will be more important in the future than actually storing
it; being able to make connections and handle incoming information will
be more important than it used to be; that, in essence, technology is
rewiring our brains, and we are, in response, developing into the kinds
of people that can adjust to large amounts of information and the
ability to get at it fairly quickly.
In light of this, the following suggests a number of possible kinds of
fluencies or skills that will be useful to some degree to almost all of
us. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list.
FIrst, basic keyboard fluency (in English) will require the
ability to find any given letter, number, or symbol, without the
hunt-and-peck delays that plague low-level typists. Second, a kind of
interface fluency is necessary for most online functions;
students must know how to log-on, how to open up a browser, how, in the
case of weblogs, to distinguish "draft" from "publish"; sometimes these
skills involve knowing vocabulary, but other times they simply involve
having functioned successfully in similar environments previously. For
example, a student my forget his/her password because he/she is unaware
of the meaning of the word "password," or rather, just because the skill
of having, keeping, and being able to access a password from memory or
from wallet-hiding-place is undeveloped. Such students deserve our
sympathy, since most of us would be similarly non-fluent, in a computer
lab in their native country.
Interface fluency includes a kind of browser fluency, which, in
this situation refers to the ability to recognize when one browser, in
our case Safari, is having trouble with a certain function, and the
situation can only be rectified by access to and understanding of other
browsers. Browser fluency is good for web developers, and in general
for people who have reason to know the difference between, say, Firefox
and Mozilla, and who are able to exploit that knowledge to their
benefit. I am not saying that this is a good thing to teach our low
level students; it may, however, be a good thing for teachers to be
aware of, if not master.
Search fluency is a kind of language fluency in that it includes
having a good enough command of vocabulary to pick out the appropriate
words for an effective search; it also includes being able to scan the
possible choices (from pages and pages of Google listings, for example),
and choose ones that will be close to what one is looking for.
Similarly, one has to respond when a search is not fruitful: what
other words or combinations will work better? Provide more
refined choices? The original oral fluency was once defined for me as
being able to have several ways to meet a communicative goal: several
ways to tell the plumber you've dropped your contacts down the drain,
for example. To me, that concept, that of being able to reach one's
goal, given the limits of the medium, can be applied to all of these
fluencies.
Chat-line fluency or a term similar to it could be applied to the
ability to understand and use acronyms and emoticons, but also to the
ability to recognize and respond appropriately to different tolerances
of chat-speaking and abbreviation. Many of us may have experienced the
awareness that a chat environment has different rules from a weblog
environment; that one has to get used to each; that chat abbreviation
will be useful in some environments, stigmatized in others. The concept
of register thus may be understood differently in written and electronic
environments than in spoken environments.**
Link fluency or hypertext fluency can be seen as simply the
ability to use that third dimension effectively in one's writing. In a
place like Wikipedia, it may not hurt to link every single word that
could possibly be linked; in a class weblog, this wouldn't be necessary,
but a few well-placed links would show much more clearly what a student
is talking about, and thus learning how to link weblog entries is a
useful skill in this exercise and, I would maintain, for students'
future. It so happens that on macs in our era one must still learn some
basic html code to do this, but if this is a student's only exposure to
html in his/her lifetime, I'll still be proud to provide it.
I should mention, before closing, that these are by no means discrete
and separate; such skills and copy/pasting url's in chat environments,
for example, can easily fit into several of these fluencies. At the
same time, any given one could be seen as consisting of numerous smaller
abilities, some discrete, separate from the others, or never learned,
much to the detriment of the user. In our program, we have trouble with
electronic double-space (not readily apparent on Word for macs); our
students who do papers at home on PC's have trouble with the
right-justify function which seems to be a default on these computers,
but the disabling of which is similarly not readily apparent. Any time
computer users have trouble communicating, because of format,
appearance, or delivery-mechanism problems, this is a fluency
issue.
I think back to the "Fluency First" days of esl/efl, and the beginning
of the communicative movement, which basically added things for teachers
to teach. It told teachers that students can learn vocabulary and
grammatical rules, but it won't do them any good if they don't have any
face-to-face communicative skills. These, of course, included all
nature of environmental adjustments one had to make when actually using
English in a discussion or conversation. And it was slowly realized,
and accepted, that successful communication included successful
adaptation to, understandng and use of discourse conventions, non-verbal
cues, speaking adjustments, hmmms and ahhhs and please repeat thats. The
same, I believe, applies to the new environments students are finding
themselves in. The usual fluencies that we teachers are used to: being
well-spoken in both formal and informal environments, being masters of
the one-dimensional written word, may not be enough for our students
anymore. As a teacher I see the parallels between the days that I had
students with years of grammar instruction yet no ability to produce
small-talk in crucial informal environments, and class days now, in
which I see students and teachers both, with fairly good general
fluency, sometimes in both spoken and written English, but virtually no
ability to transfer these skills in an online environment. And, I tell
them mostly the same thing: you have a long way to go, before you can
consider yourself truly fluent. Our jobs are larger, for we, as
leaders, may have to learn some of these fluencies ourselves, before
understanding what it is we're teaching.
*A small subset of esl/efl teachers has in fact recognized how important
the phone has been in modern life, and has tried to systematically teach
students how to handle conversations in which one cannot see the
partner's face. This is difficult even for natives, but especially
crucial in the modern world, especially in business. There are many
parallels between what these phone pioneers did in their classes, and
what I do in mine, not the least of which is logistical problems, of
getting enough real, live phones to work with at a given time.
**It is in the chat environment that one can see that technology has
influenced our concept of fluency the most. Time was always an
important element of oral fluency; one had to speak smoothly, without
excessive hesitation, in order to maintain conversations, and get more
input; it was assumed that in the writing sphere this sense of urgency,
as applied to the need to respond appropriately just didn't exist; the
written language, even including e-mail, allowed for thought and
consideration, even translation or interpretation if necessary, before
publishing. Not anymore!
bibliography
Leverett, T. (2006a, Aug.). This is your class
on weblogs. Teaching English with Technology 6, 3. IATEFL
Poland Computer SIG Publication.
http://www.iatefl.org.pl/call/j_tech25.htm#cla
Leverett, T. (2006b, Aug.). Three ways to
integrate weblogging into your writing classes. Teaching English
with Technology 6, 3. IATEFL Poland Computer SIG Publication.
http://www.iatefl.org.pl/call/j_tech25.htm#way.
Leverett, T. (2006c). Daring to enter
the blogosphere. Prog. Admin. IS, Paper, TESOL Convention, Tampa,
FL, Mar.
Leverett, T. and Montgomerie, J. (2005). Teaching teachers to
use weblogs, Internet Fair, CALL-IS, TESOL 2005, San Antonio,
March.
Seimens, G. (2004, Dec.). Connectivism
: A learning theory for the digital age.
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm. Accessed
3-07.
[ cesl ][ cesl students' weblog ][ cesl teachers' weblog
][ tom leverett's weblog ][ This
is your brain: this is your brain on weblogs ]
 Page maintained
by
Thomas
Leverett, CESL, SIUC
Photo above (Leap of Faith) by Kurt Larsen.
|