Software Evaluation:
1. General Information:
The title of the software package is “Arabic School: Interactive Multimedia Arabic Teacher for Beginners” and it is developed by ArabicSP Software (9 Parklands View - Swansea - UK (Tel: +44 (0)1792 519 119)). Information about getting the software is accessible at: http://www.arabicsp.com/ . A demo version of the software is available to download at http://www.shareup.com/Arabic_School-download-35539.html.
2. Goal:
The goal of the software is obviously to teach speakers of English the Arabic alphabet as well as a number of thematically-organized vocabularies and practice listening to such vocabularies. The software also aims at teaching learners some elementary writing skills.
3. Welcome Screen and User Interface:
The welcome screen is a reflection of the prototypical image about the Arab world: this is basically a photo of camels and desert. Some description is given on this screen, mainly to advetise the software.
The user interface of the software is composed of three areas: (1) the material tabs, (2) the control area, and what can be labeled (3) the work area. The material-tabs area is located on top of the software window and consists of 9 tabs for the nine lessons the software offers. It also includes three icons on the left-hand top area: a “help” icon, as well as an “about” and an “exit” two others. Once a lesson is accessed the control area is activated; it gathers all the functions via which the various lessons can be invoked. In this last area there configurations: (a) an icon indicating the current level within a certain lesson and “back” and “next” arrows, (b) a play and stop button, and (c) an animation speed controller. A fourth configuration related to customizing the software (e.g., switching on/off animation voice, human voice, character animation, etc.) is activated when working with certain lessons. The working area is the area in which the various (animated) explanations are provided.
4. Content of Lessons:
Apart from lesson one and lesson nine, all lessons focus on teaching thematically-organized vocabularies. Lesson one introduces the Arabic alphabet where a letters as well as a word beginning by such a letter is pronounced in human voice. This pronunciation is accompanied by a photo representing the word pronounced and an orthographical representation of the letter and the word. Accompanying also is an English rough transliteration of the word. All words used are almost concrete words that are likely to be already learnt by young learners. In lesson nine we are given two simple games and quizzes. However, only one game is accessible in the demo version, and this tests spelling of the words taught in the previous lessons. Regarding the quizzes, we are told that one of them is coming soon; the other is only accessible in the full version, which I do not happen to have currently. Lessons 2-8 provide vocabularies belonging to lexical networks such as “Animals”, “Fruits”, “Numbers and Colors”, “House”, etc.. Such vocabularies are introduced in an interesting and vivid way. Animations as well as the colorful design and presentation really lend the software a high likelihood to appeal to children or learners who are after similar learning fun.
5. Overall Evaluation:
The software seems perfect for the purpose it seeks to fulfill. Perhaps if it is accompanied by some suggestions about how teachers, parents, etc. can use with their children, it would be even much more perfect. Although the software seems to serve young learners, there is nothing about learners’ age mentioned on the website that propagates it. I think it can also be used by adult learners who seek to learn Arabic as a foreign language. Nevertheless, I guess that adults will soon loose interest in this specific program mainly because of both its form as well as content: the form focuses more on a child’s mentality and the content is more related to a child’s world, rather than to an adults’. Perhaps researchers working within the domain of cognitive psychology would agree upon this last remark of mine. In addition, within the field of lexical semanticists (see e.g., Cruise, 1986) would talk about lexical networks that can be more attractive to adults than to children and vice versa. It is perhaps a mistake to think that an adult learning a foreign language would have the same needs a child has.
Cruise, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Summary of Herring (2001): Computer-mediated Discourse
Herring begins by defining Computer-mediated discourse (CMD) as a subfield of CMC “distinguished by its focus on language and language use in computer networked environments, and by its use of methods of discourse analysis to address that focus” (p. 1). Then she gives a brief history of CMD research, mentioning work as early as that of Baron (1984) and pinpointing the ‘serious’ interest in CMD that linguists began to take of by the early 1990s . We are shown how CMD was first described as "anonymous", "impersonal", "egalitarian", "fragmented" and "spoken-like", and how the first ‘wave’ of CMD scholarship was a reaction of such misunderstandings.
Classification of CMD
CMD networks, we are told, are often considered a medium of communication that has its own ‘constraints’ and ‘potentialities’ and that is distinct from writing and speaking. The channels, or sources of communication, that comprise the CMD media is briefly contrasted to those of face-to-face communication channels, and we are shown how CMD can be richly expressive as users try to compensate textually for missing auditory and gestural cues (in e.g., cybersex). Some mode variables (e.g., synchronicity and transmission) of CMD are spelt out and exemplified. The emic (culturally recognized) approach to classifying CMD is visited and examples of the various modes (e.g., e-mail, listserv mailing lists, Usenet newsgroups, IRC and MUDs) are introduced.
Properties of CMD
Linguistic Structure
Some of the ‘popular’ perceptions of computer-mediated language (e.g., that it is less correct and less coherent than standard language, etc.) are mentioned and some counter research findings are provided, exemplified and discussed. Herring maintained that the number of strategies used by CMD users reflect their ability to adapt to the computer medium, not that their language production is impoverished or simplified. The language productions are related to medium variables such as synchronicity-asynchronicity.
Interaction management
Here Herring reviews a number of research finding related to interaction management. Two types of interaction management difficulties are identified: (1) disrupted turn adjacency and (2) lack of simultaneous feedback. However, and in spite of some claims that CMD is incoherent and fragmented, Herring seems to maintain that CMD is coherent but in a different way. For instance users can adapt to constraints on e.g., turn-taking in multiparticipant synchronous CMD by adopting what Werry (1996) labels addressivity. Two other strategies used for solving this problem of coherence are linking and quoting. Some further problems of CMD are discussed and attempts made by users to solve such problems are exemplified.
Social Practice
Herring touches on some of the early ‘idealized’ views about the social life on the Internet.
Socially conditioned Variations
Participant demographics and situational context are said to be two significant social factors that influence the linguistic choices of CMD users. The problems that face researches interested in capturing such an influence are said to be caused by e.g., anonymity of users. Age, gender, educational level, social class, race as are among the user demographics discussed. Herring also discusses situational factors such as participation structures, users’ previous experiences, groups’ norms, purpose of communication, etc. Herring maintains that “CMD, despite being mediated by "impersonal" machines, reflects the social realities of its users” (p. 10).
Social Interaction
This is one of the most interesting sub-sections where Herring shows how “CMD constitutes social practice in and of itself” (p. 11). She shows and illustrates how users have developed a number of compensatory strategies [e.g., emoticons] to replace social cues normally conveyed by other channels in face-to-face interaction” (p.11).
Social Criticisms
Here are the seeds of the what I referred to in one earlier post as critical computer-mediated critical discourse analysis (CMCDA), where Herring shows how “[p]re-existing social
arrangements carry over into cyberspace to create an uneven playing field, and computer-mediated communication can be a tool of either oppression or resistance” (p. 13).
Conclusion
Herring concludes by showing how further specialization in CMD is ‘desirable’ and ‘inevitable’. She also refers to a number of related topics and the necessity to develop research in some directions. Indeed, “CMD is not just a trend; it is here to stay” (p. 14).
Classification of CMD
CMD networks, we are told, are often considered a medium of communication that has its own ‘constraints’ and ‘potentialities’ and that is distinct from writing and speaking. The channels, or sources of communication, that comprise the CMD media is briefly contrasted to those of face-to-face communication channels, and we are shown how CMD can be richly expressive as users try to compensate textually for missing auditory and gestural cues (in e.g., cybersex). Some mode variables (e.g., synchronicity and transmission) of CMD are spelt out and exemplified. The emic (culturally recognized) approach to classifying CMD is visited and examples of the various modes (e.g., e-mail, listserv mailing lists, Usenet newsgroups, IRC and MUDs) are introduced.
Properties of CMD
Linguistic Structure
Some of the ‘popular’ perceptions of computer-mediated language (e.g., that it is less correct and less coherent than standard language, etc.) are mentioned and some counter research findings are provided, exemplified and discussed. Herring maintained that the number of strategies used by CMD users reflect their ability to adapt to the computer medium, not that their language production is impoverished or simplified. The language productions are related to medium variables such as synchronicity-asynchronicity.
Interaction management
Here Herring reviews a number of research finding related to interaction management. Two types of interaction management difficulties are identified: (1) disrupted turn adjacency and (2) lack of simultaneous feedback. However, and in spite of some claims that CMD is incoherent and fragmented, Herring seems to maintain that CMD is coherent but in a different way. For instance users can adapt to constraints on e.g., turn-taking in multiparticipant synchronous CMD by adopting what Werry (1996) labels addressivity. Two other strategies used for solving this problem of coherence are linking and quoting. Some further problems of CMD are discussed and attempts made by users to solve such problems are exemplified.
Social Practice
Herring touches on some of the early ‘idealized’ views about the social life on the Internet.
Socially conditioned Variations
Participant demographics and situational context are said to be two significant social factors that influence the linguistic choices of CMD users. The problems that face researches interested in capturing such an influence are said to be caused by e.g., anonymity of users. Age, gender, educational level, social class, race as are among the user demographics discussed. Herring also discusses situational factors such as participation structures, users’ previous experiences, groups’ norms, purpose of communication, etc. Herring maintains that “CMD, despite being mediated by "impersonal" machines, reflects the social realities of its users” (p. 10).
Social Interaction
This is one of the most interesting sub-sections where Herring shows how “CMD constitutes social practice in and of itself” (p. 11). She shows and illustrates how users have developed a number of compensatory strategies [e.g., emoticons] to replace social cues normally conveyed by other channels in face-to-face interaction” (p.11).
Social Criticisms
Here are the seeds of the what I referred to in one earlier post as critical computer-mediated critical discourse analysis (CMCDA), where Herring shows how “[p]re-existing social
arrangements carry over into cyberspace to create an uneven playing field, and computer-mediated communication can be a tool of either oppression or resistance” (p. 13).
Conclusion
Herring concludes by showing how further specialization in CMD is ‘desirable’ and ‘inevitable’. She also refers to a number of related topics and the necessity to develop research in some directions. Indeed, “CMD is not just a trend; it is here to stay” (p. 14).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)