The weekly column

Article 55, April 2001

Interactivity: The Relationship between EFL & The Human-Computer Interface

By Christine Canning-Wilson & Julie Wallace

Center for Excellence in Applied Research and Technology
CERT College-HCT, Abu Dhabi

"I hear, I forget; I see, I remember; I do, I understand. "

- Paul R. Halmos

Introduction

What better way to introduce computer user activity and interactivity in the area of language learning than with the famous Paul Halmos quote where he once stated: "I hear, I forget; I see, I remember; I do, I understand." This statement sums up interactive behavior and the assumptions I wish to present in my explanation of how I view interactivity and human-computer interface.

Overall, this paper seeks to examine computer user activity relevance over that of user-user activity. As Barker (1994) defines interactivity in learning as " a necessary and fundamental mechanism for knowledge acquisition and the development of both cognitive and physical skills"; I would like to more closely define interactivity in terms of foreign and second language (F/SL) use with computer aided applications currently available on the World Wide Web (WWW). With the increasing number of web sites devoting themselves to teaching, learning, and testing, it is without a doubt that research needs to take a more serious look at the quality versus the quantity of materials being offered to learners. As this paper explores the relationship between English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and the Human-Computer Interface (HFI) it will be important to note that to date interactivity, although highly developed and advanced for content specific sites, is not up to par on many sites and pages dedicated to learning English as a Foreign Language.

Since experts predict that over the next few decades 50% of student populations will be educated using on-line learning and/or technology (Khaleej Times, 2000), the need to train teachers and re-educate them with regards to developments in the field of approach to methodology, will become essential. I believe that this can only be done through the incorporation of new developments in the area of information technology and by staying current with the new aids available in teaching. In terms of EFL, I would therefore like to examine the potential for interactivity on the Web. We are on the way to becoming e-teachers.

Therefore, this paper aims to work towards a definition of interactivity for the purposes of EFL and to evaluate a select few EFL sites (in terms of interactivity) that are currently available on the WWW. Although human-to-human communication using computers is a separate discussion, some areas of it will be covered in this paper. Issues involving interactive multimedia are essentially between a person and a computer; thus the Human-Computer Interface (HCI) component needs further exploration in order to delve deeper into the challenges, which will face practitioners in the future and virtual classroom. Furthermore, this paper will examine how interactive and effective this Interface can be in relation to teaching languages in a computer aided language environment.

Working towards a definition of Interactivity/Defining Interactivity

As stated earlier, to be interactive is to have input and influence something to some extent. Yet, what is the term Interactive in relationship to the computer? I would argue that the user is in a state of a continuous process at a relative state in time. I would further debate that this continuous state of interaction directly leads to the input and output relationship, which leads to the learner interacting with a flow of information.

Despite numerous definitions found in the literature, none agree on an exact terminology. Even referential sources such as dictionaries can’t agree on matching definitions of what it means to be interactive. At best they describe the term as:

Although the above definitions are simple definitions of the communication and processes of interactivity, one could further argue that interactivity can occur between the computer and user on a number of levels. For example, although Ted Rodgers (2000) argues that there are 20 known methodologies in the field of F/SL research & teaching, we believe it to be essential that an interactive methodology be introduced to meet the growing need for educational technology and its incestuous relationship with interaction in both the traditional and virtual classroom. Only time and future research into virtual learning will tell if the technology, and the debate to define interactivity in relation to IMM (Interactive Multimedia) will show why the incorporation of such a methodology will improve language learning through cyberspace.

Brief history of Interactivity

"Computers and the Web can never provide as effective or efficient a means of learning a language as one-on-one human interaction. With all the hype about technological change, don’t fear for your job – computers can never replace human beings in a discipline devoted to human communication in all its cultural and linguistic diversity and idiosyncrasy." –anonymous

The notion of interaction sends positive signals to educators, who believe that computer aided language learning is beneficial to students. It is evident that some faculty in different language related programs would prefer to fossilize an era of ditto machines and textbook crutches rather than move on the information highway to improve the quality and standards of learning, which cyberspace and the Internet can offer.

As language instructors, we want our students to be interactive in the learning environment instead of being passive recipients of spoon-fed knowledge. Educated and dedicated practitioners know that activity and collaboration facilitate learning. Perhaps, more importantly than other disciplines, EFL students need to interact to learn the language. It is not a secret in the literature that students learn to communicate by communicating in either written or oral formats.

No one comes to learn a language by being talked to or at by a teacher. A book or an Internet site can teach you rules, but it is not until application through interaction that language can be learned and applied. It is my belief that this approach and attitude is essential if interactivity is to survive and to grow in the future. Language learners are there to learn a language with which they hope to communicate; thus the result is the more they interact in the classroom, the more they are learning to use the language. We believe this also to be true of the content areas, in that a student who actually dissects a frog will probably understand more and remember more than a student who studies the same anatomy in a textual way. A book can color the membrane above a frog’s brain yellow or show you where the stomach is, but it takes a physical dissection to realize that the yellow coloring are short strand like hairs layered upon one another to protect the membrane and the stomach when sliced open often contains partial to whole insects for later digestion.

We feel that the need for interactivity can be explained best by Amthor (1992), who highlights the research findings (based on earlier studies) which concluded that people retain about twenty percent of what they hear, forty percent of what they see and hear and seventy-five percent of what they see, hear and do. In theory it is exploiting the talents of a visual, auditory and kinesthetic learner by wrapping the best of all into one. If this is the case, then task-based learning and encouraging students to interact with material in the classroom will prove to enhance the learning experience. If everything is taken into account, it is easy to argue that interactivity in the classroom is between people. People who can use listening, speaking and talking, nonverbal communication with each other by interacting with the task or material.

Types of IMM Interactivity

What types of Interactivity are possible on the WWW? This question is posited daily by teachers trying to learn the technology in order to efficiently use it with the learners in the classroom. It could best be argued that there are different types of interactivity describing different topics is varying ways. The chart below deciphers different options currently available to practitioners:

As in the definition above when examining types of interactivity, the machine responds to the user’s input. If the user has the option of a large input then the interactivity will surely be greater between the user and computer. I am considering the user as learner and so the user should be being encouraged by the input to be vicariously interactive. In another example (from  http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/wwwdev/logs/1540.html ):

However, with the information now in hand, it is important to look at how the actual computer interacts with the learner both in real time and virtual time. We believe that:

• Computers can now be programmed to give an audio response to oral or textual stimuli
• The computer can provide continuous feedback
• The computer can offer many different navigational paths
• The user can navigate different ways through the information

We would further argue that the computer’s role should be to:

• Provide opportunity for user to manipulate and control input.
• Provide continuous feedback.
• Make the interaction flexible enough to cover the learner’s needs and learning style

However, we disagree with the assumption that the higher the level of interactivity, the more effective the learning material will be. Reasons for this are –

• Different learning styles
• Highly interactive material may not encourage cognitive process or vicarious interactivity

Kinds of interactivity

• Linked programs and plug-ins
• JavaScript (local browser based)
• CGI Remote server based (Common Gateway Interface)
• Java Local/remote programming

We would advocate sites such as http://www.fln.vcu.edu/cgi/1.html#kinds- "Language Interactive".

Perhaps this is because the computer and the WWW can never provide as effective or efficient a means of learning a language as one-on-one human interaction. However, with new software packages and technology growing, we do believe its strength will be as a supplemental partner.

Conclusion

We strongly believe that the limiting factor is no longer the technology - it's our ability to re-think our teaching to take maximum advantage of the tools that are there. This is an exciting and frightening prospect - it empowers us as teachers but it necessitates an understanding of the capabilities, drawbacks and benefits of different technology options. Above all, it calls for creative thinking about pedagogical aims and methods.

Technology has advanced far enough to offer features which better suit the language learner since the late 1980s and the advocacy of HyperCard programs. We feel that today’s programmers need to communicate with the educators in order to explore and develop content. However, it is not the sole responsibility of the programmer. As teachers and experts in the classroom, we must also provide quality interactive materials for them to use. As most of us know, the learning curve is steep for teachers, but we believe that we are only limited by our imagination and resources. Interactive virtual worlds can be created to teach vocabulary and grammar; thus allowing the user to focus on his area of weakness. In the future direction is needed to taken on suggested areas of improvement otherwise we will not have done service to the concept of interactive user-computer learning.

Although some say that there will always be a place for the classroom teacher, there may not. Recently it was reported that the job of the classroom teacher is expected to be one of the top 5 jobs eliminated by the end of next century (Time 2000). Therefore, it is clear that greater resources need to be poured into the field and that further advancement in educational technology needs to be available to classroom practitioners seeking to enhance language learning through computer activity. As a profession we can’t be subject and confined to point-click, navigate, and pass the re-takable quiz. Instead, we need to enter a virtual classroom where a learner is put in a virtual situation and must interact with the language if we are to create a meaningful atmosphere where a student can explore form, function and use in a practical environment for cyber learning. As Canning-Wilson (2000) states "As an on-line course designer, one must consider e-course objectives, the e-content, the e-policies and e-procedures, the e-evaluation of the course & instructor, the e-office hours and of course how to deal with e-problems, which will arise during the on-line course. Beyond the basics listed above the on-line teacher when designing a course must also consider how he/she will deal with the emotional, psychological, and learning style of the prospective on-line student. As an on-line course designer, other factors such as the cyber learner's linguistic knowledge, motivational barriers, language systems, e-course expectations, affective factors, language learning anxiety and his/her schema or background knowledge about topics taught or available in the on-line course must again be examined or discussed before a solid course can materialize." If such practices are implemented then human computer interfacing and interactivity will grow at an expansive rate.

Successful EFL sites in terms of interactivity

Jim Duber’s Cutting Edge CALL Demos using Macromedia Shockwave: Preposition quiz The user moves an orange to practice and test their understanding of prepositions of place. Excellent in its simplicity, and also not just testing. Students may persevere until they get the right option, similar to an interactive real environment.

The Store’s Door http://www.sirius.com/~dub/CALL/storedoor.html : Students click to listen and then test themselves with immediate feedback. Interactivity limited to pointing, clicking and listening and making a decision.

The Apartment Game http://www.duber.com/thegame/index.html : Virtual world where you can click and drag to move left and right and turn all the way around. You have a situation and have to enter the virtual world to complete a task.

The Randomiser http://www.anglofile.com/randomizer/index.html : The user interacts by listening and processing the information to make a decision. There are options to practice or test, and so the user can decide when he or she is ready to test.

Grammar and/or Listening Quiz

These vary from the norm because the user has the opportunity for more interactivity. The exercises are gap fill but the user types in a guess, before being shown four options to choose from. The user can also choose to listen with textual input or without. The user therefore has some control over the

Bibliography

Jim Duber’s Cutting Edge CALL Demos: http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/chorus/call/

Interactivity: Another tack on it: http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/wwwdev/logs/1540.html

The Oxford Dictionary

Dictionary.com: http://www.Dictionary.com

The Interactivity Component of Distance Learning Implemented in an Art Studio Course: http://www2.nau.edu/~jed/intcomp.htm

Language Interactive: http://www.fln.vcu.edu/cgi/1.html#kinds

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES - Dynamic Web Page Creation. Bob Godwin-Jones, Virginia Commonwealth University: http://polyglot.cal.msu.edu/llt/vol1num2/emerging/default.html

The Guidelines Net Project. Ron Corio, Virginia Commonwealth University. Christine Meloni, George Washington University. http://www.vcu.edu/cspweb/gnp_caell.html

Approaches to Web use for EFL. Douglas Mills: http://deil.lang.uiuc.edu/resources/tesol97/dances/

Developments in Internet-Based Instruction: http://pixeldust.com/rachel/IBI.html

Low level Interactivity: http://www.stlcc.cc.mo.us/fv/users/afoster/SIUE/IT486/it486AH.htm

Other Secondary Sources/ References:

Canning-Wilson, C (2000) Article 42: E-learning with the E-teacher: Considerations for Online Course Design. December 2000 http://www.eltnewsletter.com/

Canning-Wilson, C (2000) CERT: best Use of Video in the Classroom, Dave’s ESL Café, Video Section, August 23, 2000: http://www.eslcafe.com/ideas/sefer.cgi?display:966418417-3595.txt

Canning, C. (1999) ‘Evaluating Computer Software for EFL Programs’. In Salah Troudi Technology and Innovation, TESOL Arabia Conference Proceedings, v. 5, pp. 108-115, TESOL Arabia International Conference, March 20-23, 1998.

Questions or comments about this week's article? Why not post them on our Discussion Forum