Information Gap: A New Application in the CALL Environment
Albert Dudley
Nanzan Junior College |
QUICK GUIDE
Key Words: Speaking, CALL
Learner English Level: High Intermediate
Learner Maturity Level: High School to Adult
Preparation Time: None to an hour or two
Activity Time: Ninety minutes
Materials: Two computers, a paint program
The use of various types of information-gap activities can
provide students of all levels the opportunity and motivation to talk in
the classroom (Doughty & Pica, 1986; Long & Porter, 1985). Although
there has been much research conducted on the means and ways of eliciting
conversation from students at the computer (Abraham & Liou, 1991; Dudley,
1995; Levy & Hinckfuss, 1990; Murillo, 1991; Piper, 1986), these projects
did not utilize the power of information gap activities to elicit inter-learner
conversation. This classroom idea is based on information-gap methodology
and uses the computer as its information holder.
There are many types of gap activities: open, opinion, reasoning (Prabu
1984), one-sided and two-sided (Long, 1983). This classroom idea can utilize
any and all of these to create exciting and innovative communicative activities
in the CALL classroom.
Procedure
At each computer students can be placed individually, in pairs, or even
in small groups depending on the availability of computers and level of
difficulty of the information gap activity. In its barest form, the computer
monitors are separated so that only the student or students on computer
A see monitor A, while the student or students on computer B only see monitor
B.
The Task: Ask the students to draw the same pictures simultaneously
on both monitors without looking at their partner's monitor. At the beginning
of the activity the students are instructed to be in constant communication
with their partners. For example, students cannot say "let's draw a
house" and quietly draw their houses. Instead, the students must together
choose where to draw the house, its size, and also the colours to be used.
Students enjoy this activity and are very talkative while doing it.
Variation 1: After the students have drawn their similar pictures
and compared them, change all the groups and erase (delete) one of the pictures
from one of the monitors. Then ask the new partner to draw the picture while
it is being described by the other partner.
Variation 2: Hand out dissimilar pictures of geometric shapes
to a pair of students or to two small groups of students. The pictures differ
only in the position of the shapes on the page. Ask the students to describe
their pictures to each other and then use the same pictures to negotiate
a new picture. To add a grammatical focus the teacher can place prepositions
"in" and "on" on a few circles or triangles and so on.
Thus, the students must first describe their pictures, then negotiate a
new design together, and then draw the new picture on the computer.
Conclusion
Students in my classes enjoy this activity more than the paper information
gap exercises, yet there are many questions about this type of activity
that must not be overlooked. How does this CALL task increase the quality
of the essential requirements of an information gap activity; namely, clarification
requests, confirmation checks and comprehension checks? Furthermore, what
aspects and combinations of the various modules of the multimedia delivery
(audio, video, written) produce what types of student interaction and/or
negotiation?
There are numerous possibilities of tasks that can be generated when
placing the computers as described at the beginning of this article. This
type of activity can also be used with various simulation software, e.g.,
SimTown or SimCity. I have also had good experiences using the software
Spelunx with this type of set up. Activities could easily be devised to
include sound as well as video. It is really a question of creativity on
the part of the teacher.
References
Abraham, R. G., & Liou, H.-C. (1991). Interaction generated by three
computer programs. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer Assisted Language Learning
and Testing (pp. 85-109). Newbury House.
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). "Information gap" tasks:
Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2),
305-325.
Dudley, A. (1995). Communicative CALL: Student interaction using non-EFL
software. CAELL Journal, 6(3), 25-33.
Levy, M., & Hinckfuss, J. (1990). Program design and student talk
at computers. CAELL Journal, 1(4), 21-26.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk,
and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-228.
Murillo, D. (l991). Maximizing Call effectiveness ill the classroom.
CAELI Journal, 2(2), 20-25.
Piper, A. (1986). Conversation and the computer: A study of the conversation
spin-off generated among learners of English as a foreign language working
in groups. System, 14(2),187-198.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Article copyright
© 1998 by the author.
Document URL: http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/98/feb/sh_dudley.html
Last modified: Date, 1998
Site maintained by TLT
Online Editor
|