Using new pedagogical technologies in teaxhing grammar

1.2. Technology for Teaching Grammar Framing the Issue
Technology impacts language education in the skill areas of listening, speaking, reading, and writing as well as all competencies (grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic). Given its role in all these areas, grammar teaching with technology offers unique challenges as well as opportunities. Before exploring considerations and options for teaching grammar with technology, it will be useful to define key terms as used in this entry. Dontcheva-Navratilova (2013) empha- sizes the importance of meaningful communication within language structure when she describes the study of grammar as “the system of rules and principles underlying the form and meaning of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences”. Beyond sentences is discourse, which is crucial to meaningful communication. Exploring grammar in discourse allows researchers and educators to analyze how meaning is conveyed in context whilst also considering the motivation, intention, and purpose of the communicators (Dontcheva-Navratilova, 2013). Many of the technological affordances for grammar instruction are made possible through the ability to analyze grammar in the context of larger discourse as well as through expanded opportunities for learners to engage in the negotiation of meaning.
Structuring these learning environments, or grammar teaching, can be defined as “any instructional technique that draws learners’ attention to


18
some specific grammatical form in such a way that it helps them either to understand it metalin- guistically and/or process it in comprehension and/or production so that they can internalize it” (Ellis, 2006, p. 84). Grammar instruction has thus moved beyond the memorization of rules or dialogues and is more firmly situated in helping learners develop their communicative competence, necessitating tasks that allow for noticing and consciousness-raising of grammatical forms and their usage.
Communicative competence can be expanded to include technology and considered as “the ability to communicate using readily accessible L2 technology aids …, the ability to make appropriate linguistic choices in face-to-face, remote, written, and oral modes, and the ability to choose appropriate technologies for communication and language learning” (Chappelle, 2009, p. 750). Educators are now looking to technology to address many of the challenges related to teaching gram-mar from a meaning-based and communicative perspective, as well as to teach English more efficiently and effectively. These technologies can include a range of options from low-tech (for example, audio recorders) through the interactive often-termed Web 2.0 technologies (for example, wikis, blogs) to high-tech options now available (for example, speech recognition, virtual reality devices or spaces) and into the increasingly intelligent options of the future (for example, gesture- based devices, digital gaming). Regardless of the specific technology used for grammar teaching, the trend in language education is to create innovative gram- mar tasks that are fully integrated into the course and use intelligent and interac- tive
19
technologies. Trends within teaching grammar via computer-assisted language learning (CALL) can be tied to the underlying learning and methodological assumptions made by the teacher, learner, or both, as well as to the state of technology at that time. Initially, computers could offer little more than drill or structured-response activities (for example, fill-in-the-blank or multiple choice) as a review of gram- matical forms; these types of grammar exercise are still quite prevalent and appeal most to teachers and learners who take a behavioristic view of language learning as manifested in the audio-lingual method. While these resource-oriented exer-cises are useful for memorizing forms, they lack the ability to engage students in grammar related to meaning or use. The rise of communicative language teaching (CLT) combined with advances in technology has led to many options for learning grammar in context and focusing on meaning. Teachers can choose synchronous, or real-time, tools such as chat, video conferencing, Twitter, or virtual learning envi-ronments; or, they can choose an asynchronous tool, which is accessed in a different time from when it was written, such as discussion boards, e-mail, blogs, or list-servs. Tools such as social networking sites or learning management systems (LMSs), some created specifically for learning, are blurring these lines and offering even more opportunities for engagement with authentic communication. Calls for students to direct their own learning led to resource technologies such as English–English dictionaries, bilingual dictionaries, translators, grammar checkers, rulehandbooks, or concordancers. While these resources offer increased autonomy to
20
students, they can also pose pedagogical challenges as teachers strive to educate students on best practices for using technology for learning. An opportunity many of these tools provide is for teachers to individualize instruction for both in- and out-of-class activities. Teachers benefit from increased understanding of some of the frameworks or theories in using technology to teach grammar.
Second language acquisition (SLA) theories are increasingly inclusive of ways that technology can facilitate language learning and communicative competence. SLA theories now consider how having access to different types of language online may affect students’ acquisition of English as well as ways that language is affected by echnology (Chapelle, 2009). How texting affects grammar and vocabulary form and use is one example of technology influencing language change. The changing nature of language and technology underlines learners’ need to develop their digital literacy, or “the individual and social skills needed to effectively interpret, man- age, share and create meaning in the growing range of digital communication channels” (Dudeney, Hockly, & Pegrum, 2014, p. 2). Having a strong command and understanding of grammar in context is crucial to the development of both communicative competence and digital literacy. Teaching language only via print-based channels fails to provide students the practice and experience they need as they develop the language skills they will need into the future.
While technology continues to advance at a rapid pace, the question


21
increasingly arises of whether pedagogy can keep up with these advances and take advantage of all that both newer and more traditional technologies have to offer. Kessler, Bikowski, and Boggs (2012) created a framework for the co-evolution of collaborative autonomous pedagogy to illustrate the relationship between evolving tools, evolving use, and evolving pedagogies, all contributing to collaborative autonomous language learning that allows students greater flexibility, ownership, and thus motivation. This framework can provide guidance in supporting student writers as they simultaneously negotiate meaning and accuracy in form. Many CALL activities, such as wikis, allow learners to practice either grammatical accuracy or clarity in meaning, but clear and explicit expectations are recommended (Kessler, 2009). For grammar in speaking, concordancing corpus-based approaches (that is, searching a collection of authentic speech or writing) allow students to access and analyze authentic samples of grammar use and understand how grammar contributes to social functions of communication in various genres. Similarly, students can be trained to analyze language using a concordancer and look for specific grammatical features. Video transcripts can also be used as a type of authentic discourse which students can be trained to analyze for grammar and vocabulary use. The structures they find can be added to individualized grammar logs for future analysis. Analysis of texts can be further expanded into using translation provided by online translators, with students comparing their translations to computer-generated translations in order to reflect on their own grammar choices as
22
well as the practicality of using online translators for their future communication. These types of activities provide increased student control and flexibility.Grammar teaching with technology often occurs not within software programs specifically created for language learning but rather with communicative or learn-ing technologies accessible for a variety of purposes. Or, instruction takes place by combining a number of tools depending on course context. In this regard, training becomes increasingly important as teachers choose among a variety of quickly changing technologies to meet the specific needs of their students and the curriculum. Combining theory and research from second language acquisition with theory and research from CALL is thus critical for teacher training. In addition to increased teacher responsibility and knowledge in teaching grammar with technology, learner training is important as well. Students may need to be trained on learning with resources or tools that they’ve encountered previously for echnology (Chapelle, 2009). How texting affects grammar and vocabulary form and use is one example of technology influencing language change. The changing nature of language and technology underlines learners’ need to develop their digital literacy, or “the individual and social skills needed to effectively interpret, man- age, share and create meaning in the growing range of digital communication channels” (Dudeney, Hockly, & Pegrum, 2014, p. 2). Having a strong command and understanding of grammar in context is crucial to the development of both communicative competence and digital literacy. Teaching language only via print-based channels fails to provide students
23
the practice and experience they need as they develop the language skills they will need into the future.While technology continues to advance at a rapid pace, the question increasingly arises of whether pedagogy can keep up with these advances and take advantage of all that both newer and more traditional technologies have to offer. Kessler, Bikowski, and Boggs (2012) created a framework for the co-evolution of collaborative autonomous pedagogy to illustrate the relationship between evolving tools, evolving use, and evolving pedagogies, all contributing to collaborative autono-mous language learning that allows students greater flexibility, ownership, and thus motivation. This framework can provide guidance in supporting student writ-ers as they simultaneously negotiate meaning and accuracy in form. Many CALL activities, such as wikis, allow learners to practice either grammatical accuracy or clarity in meaning, but clear and explicit expectations are recommended (Kessler, 2009). For grammar in speaking, concordancing corpus-based approaches (that is, searching a collection of authentic speech or writing) allow students to access and analyze authentic samples of grammar use and understand how grammar contrib-utes to social functions of communication in various genres. Similarly, students can be trained to analyze language using a concordancer and look for specific gram-matical features. Video transcripts can also be used as a type of authentic discourse which students can be trained to analyze for grammar and vocabulary use. The structures they find can be added to individualized grammar logs for future analysis. Analysis of texts can be further expanded into using translations provided
24
by online translators, with students comparing their translations to computer-gener-ated translations in order to reflect on their own grammar choices as well as the practicality of using online translators for their future communication. These types of activities provide increased student control and flexibility.
Grammar teaching with technology often occurs not within software programs specifically created for language learning but rather with communicative or learning technologies accessible for a variety of purposes. Or, instruction takes place by combining a number of tools depending on course context. In this regard, training becomes increasingly important as teachers choose among a variety of quickly-changing technologies to meet the specific needs of their students and the curriculum. Combining theory and research from second language acquisition with theory and research from CALL is thus critical for teacher training. In addition to increased teacher responsibility and knowledge in teaching grammar with technology, learner training is important as well. Students may need to be trained on learning with resources or tools that they’ve encountered previouslys Pedagogical Implications Educators teaching grammar with technology face a growing number of choices. Regardless of which choices are made, however, using technology to teach grammar will be most effective when the technology is integrated into the curriculum, course, and lesson. Many teachers look to task-based instruction (TBI), which involves teachers and learners in student-centered “real-world task analysis, problem-generation, and assessment grounded in
25
real-world activities” as opposed to bottom-up grammar point approaches (Blake, 2013, p. 43). TBI-utilizing technology allows learners to engage in authentic texts in meaningful ways that include grammar structures to be studied or noticed. Doughty and Long (2003) outlined 10 methodo- logical principles of task-based language for use with technology, highlighting learning tasks, types of input, learning processes, and learners. CALL implementations include structuring technology-based simulations, tutorials, computer-mediated communication (CMC) discussions, problem-based learning tasks, and autonomous learning tasks. Focused grammar tasks can occur within any one of these areas. Teaching within this landscape can often be more nuanced than traditional rule-based grammar classrooms. The choices teachers face fall into three main categories: language-based, technology-based, and learning context-based.
Language-based pedagogical choices teachers must make include goals and context of instruction (EFL, ESL, English for specific purposes, test taking, communication, and so forth) as well as choices between focusing on grammatical accuracy versus fluency in spoken and written genres and formal or informal registers.
Teachers will also need to choose between (a) explicit versus implicit grammar instruction and (b) feedback that is general or individualized as they balance grammatical form, meaning, and use. Both explicit and implicit types of grammar instruction can be useful, as long as learners can make connections, such as form with meaning or connecting background


26
knowledge and experiences to current Blearning. Some technologies can be used for either form or meaning, depending on how the task is structured. For example, teachers might use computer-mediated communication or synchronous CMC (SCMC) tasks to practice grammatical form if they engage students in tasks for noticing, or they can focus students’ attention Nto meaning via tasks that require negotiation. Educators exploring grammar through writing can explore longer chunks of discourse and can focus on content or grammar, particularly in different stages of instruction (learning for the stage of input, practice, review, or assessment). A final decision regards if grammar will be taught prescriptively (teaching rules that grammarians advocate everyone follows or descriptively (teaching grammar through how native speakers actually use the language).
These pedagogical choices are now further complicated as more technological options become available. These options include which type of software or communication technology to utilize, if desktop or mobile applications should be used, the choice between digital resources provided by a publisher versus activities created by the teacher, and the amount of interaction desired. Specific features that are useful to consider when planning interaction include timing, feedback, student-help features, and channels of interaction that the technology allows. Using technology to build context in a learning environment is another option and is becoming increasingly feasible with advances in virtual reality, avatars, and gaming, such as gesture-free interfaces or virtual reality headsets. Online games
27
such as Minecraft can also be utilized, providing shared spaces for interaction as well as formal and informal grammar in context. Rote memorization of grammar forms is becoming more interactive, for example with online flashcard tools (for example, Quizlet) that allow learners or teachers to create and share their own flashcards and then customize activities or assessments. Web-based forms or surveys (for example, Google Forms) can be used for tasks moving from individual to collaborative analysis. For example, teachers can cre-ate a Web-based form with a number of student-generated sentences that contain grammar errors; after submitting corrections to the errors, groups of students
can analyze the spreadsheet of answers to determine if revisions are grammatically correct and which one(s) best convey meaning within the piece of discourse. Groups can present their findings to the class, discussing rationales for their choices. Teachers seeking learning-oriented assessments can vary this task by having students complete the Web-based form and submit answers individually for teacher feedback. Analyzing student responses in the spreadsheet format allows for increased streamlining in grading and therefore decreases teacher grading time. There are also options regarding where to house technology-based activities, such as in a learning management system. Commercial LMSs such as Blackboard can provide structure and stability, while newer LMSs such as Edmodo or 3D GameLab provide more room for creativity. The open-source LMS Moodle combines a traditional look to the LMS with greater flexibility than many commercialproducts and includes a seamless
28
integration with the activity authoring tool Hot Potatoes. Materials developers and teachers can also create custom-made materials uniquely created for devices, such as e-books and iBooks, or context-specific grammar apps. Whether instruction occurs in a traditional language lab environment with desktop computers or with a BYOT (bring your own technology) model also needs to be considered since many types of activities can be performed with any Internet-enabled device. For example, student polling tools (for example, Socrative) used for discrete grammar exercises or assessments require less time and less learner training if done on a student’s own mobile device. Student’s own technology can also be used for telecollaborative projects, which involve two groups of learners at a distance. Non-native speakers develop their English skills while working with a group of native-English speakers on specific projects often exploring topics such as culture through literature, videos, or other authentic materials; the form, meaning, and use of grammar are thus explored within the context of pragmatics and politeness.
The third major choice is structuring learning within technology-based environments for a specific group of learners (for example, age, proficiency, learning styles, background, learning goals). Teachers can choose individual or collaborative tasks; instruction that is in-class or distance-based; instruction that encourages language self-analysis; or instruction that does or does not involve human–human interaction. Effective human–computer interaction is possible through newer technologies that involve natural language processing and intelligent CALL including
29
grammar checkers or automated writing evaluation. Fee-based automated writing evaluation tools (for example, Grammarly, Criterion) allow learners to check their own grammar and often organization before submitting it for an assignment or public view. Alternatively, learners can use human-created content for meaningful self-directed learning such as by searching a collection of written texts, or corpora (for example, through COBUILD or COCA). Corpora can be of native texts or those created by learners. Improvements with speech recognition allow learners to practice their spoken grammar as well as provide increased accessibility for learners with disabilities.Technology can also assist in grammar instruction in large classrooms or low-resource environments; individualized instruction can be provided through group projects such as collaborative writing in synchronous or asynchronous Web-based environments (for example, Google Docs, PBWorks, or instant chat tools) or with customized feedback. Synchronous CMC projects pairing native and non-native speakers can aid learners in giving and applying feedback. Using technology in low-resource environments continues to be a struggle, though educators can access resources such as digital flashcards or grammar-based games for flipphones and other low-cost devices. A framework for structuring materials and tasks to use for language learning with technology is offered by Chapelle (2001) and includes considering the following six characteristics: language learning potential, meaning focus, learner fit, authenticity, positive impact, and practicality.Teachers can thus benefit from training not only for specific technologies but for the increasingly
30
complex and creative ways that technology can be used effectively for learning. Teachers can utilize more established types of training (such as face-toface or online courses) or participate in any of the informal communities of practice that offer practical advice in this area. Collaborating on research at the classroom level for context-specific insights or with larger populations allows teachers to make more educated decisions regarding how best to use technology to teach grammar