"Where In CALL Is Carmen Sandiego?" An Evaluative
Software Review
Stephen A. Shucart
Miyagi University, Sendai |
"Which software should I choose?" is a question that more and
more teachers are asking themselves. Computer labs are becoming common in
many schools. Software companies, and even mainstream textbook publishers
now bombard teachers with a plethora of new language learning software,
making evaluation criteria essential. In order to help teachers and those
responsible for software purchases to make sense of this skillfully marketed
software, this paper proposes a set of evaluation criteria structured along
the lines of Richards and Rodgers (1986) Approach, Design, Procedure model
which was used by Hubbard (1992) as a basis for the design of effective
language teaching software.
Hubbard, a Senior Lecturer in Linguistics at Stanford University as well
as a software designer, uses the Richards and Rogers model for comparing
language teaching methodologies as a framework for courseware development.
This paper attempts to extend this model to include criteria for the evaluation
of CALL software. As an example I shall use the model to evaluate the commercial
computer game Where in Space is Carmen Sandiego? as a component
of an advanced reading program.
Approach
Richards and Rodgers consider Approach to "refer to theories about
the nature of language and language learning that serve as the source of
practice and principles in language teaching." (Richards and Rodgers,
1986; 16) While the focus of this paper is the practical application of
the framework to courseware evaluation, a quick summary of Schema Theory
and Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP) is useful for a deeper understanding
of the cognitive principles underlying reading comprehension.
Schema Theory
Traditional L2 comprehension focused on the meaning "in" the
language, but Schema Theory highlights the importance of background information
(Carrel and Gisterhold, 1987; 218-21). Reading has been described as a "psycholinguistic
guessing game" (Goodman, 1967), where the reader engages in a cyclic
process of picking and choosing relevant parts of the total information.
In Schema Theory reading skills depend on the interaction between world
knowledge and linguistic skill. The written text itself doesn't carry meaning,
it only provides direction for the retrieval and construction of meaning
from previous knowledge. This mental model is called a schemata.
Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP) : Johnson-Laird (1988) describes
PDP or "connectionism" as a cognitive theory whose rules do not
have an explicit structure. This is in contrast to the Production Theory
of mental architecture which has a linear sequence governed by an explicit
rule system. Johnson-Laird likens PDP to a hologram where long-term memory
is distributed over a number of processing units simultaneously. People
recognize printed words from cues that are matched to all the contents of
memory at once, and the pattern is recognized by finding the best fit. One
of the most important concepts in PDP is that symbols do not necessarily
represent separate entities, instead they can be described as the parallel
processing of distributed representations created by the merging of many
separate experiences. Thus, understanding text involves all of the cognitive
levels simultaneously, both the "Bottom-up" processing of vocabulary,
grammar, and syntax, and the "Top-down" processing of General
Knowledge of the world. The individual text triggers the mental model of
a scenario or "script" and produces expectations about what will
happen next.
Chun and Plass (1997) write that these schema interact with each other
in a non-linear and non-sequential manner, even though the mental model
is built sequentially, word by word, and sentence by sentence. They go on
to point out that the formation of mental schema, i.e. text comprehension,
occurs more rapidly and with a greater depth if it is aided by the simultaneous
use of sound and graphics, as is common with multimedia computer software.
Approach: Evaluation of CALL Software
How does Approach-based design relate to the evaluation of CALL software?
To effectively teach ESL/EFL reading, a program must conform to a theory
of learning and language. Hubbard proposes that good language learning software
should:
- give meaningful rather than mechanical practice with discourse larger
than a single sentence.
- provide various hints to lead students to the correct answers.
- accept alternative correct answers .
- give optional explanations for why correct answers are correct.
- anticipate incorrect answers and give explanations.
Where In Space Is Carmen Sandiego? conforms to the first three
criteria in that it is an example of the problem-solving genre of adventure
games. The language is meaningful and authentic, and must be understood
in order to extract the clues necessary to proceed to the next step, or
to backtrack if a mistake is made. To process the information containing
the clues, students must access a database. Early CALL software focused
on audiolingual pattern practice techniques, but that behaviorist approach
violates Hubbard's first criteria.
Another feature which causes the Carmen Sandiego software to be
more appropriate for EFL/ESL students than other game simulations is the
science fiction setting. Many games designed for native speakers have a
restricted cultural context. Since this game is set in outer space, the
background knowledge of astronomy remains equal for any student. In fact,
the original purpose of the game was to provide incentive for junior and
senior high school students to learn astronomy. Thus all the necessary background
information is provided by the computer database and searching for and retrieving
the proper facts is the key to solving the puzzle. This problem-solving
activity provides the opportunity to make mistakes, to correct the mistakes,
and to improve both world knowledge and reading skills simultaneously.
Hubbard's fourth and fifth criteria deal with the explanations of correct
and incorrect answers. In my opinion, this is where the teacher should be
actively involved. The language teacher should act as a resource and facilitator,
and in a reading program involving CALL software, especially an authentic
adventure game, the task of explaining mistakes and pointing out the correct
path is best left to the instructor. This prevents the student's frustration
with dead ends, and keeps the learner's motivation high.
Design
Not all of Hubbard's criteria for software production are relevant to
the evaluation of this specific example of CALL software. The design features
which aid evaluation are: learner variables, language difficulty, program
difficulty, content, learning style, program focus, and hardware considerations
Learner Variables: Hubbard lists the following six learner variables,
and I shall evaluate the Carmen Sandiego software's design for each
in turn.
- Age
- Native language
- Proficiency level
- Sex
- Learner needs
- Learner interests
The software was originally designed for native English speakers aged
twelve to adult. I feel that this software would probably be too difficult
for the general L2 student below high school age. The L2 student's Japanese
language should pose no interference to the task of teaching reading with
this program. The lexical, grammatical, and sociolinguistic levels of this
program preclude efficient use by beginners. I would recommend this program
for high-intermediate or advanced students only, thus precluding most high
school students in Japan, as well. The learner needs a software package
which can teach reading, and Where In Space Is Carmen Sandiego? provides
ample opportunities to improve this skill. This software will appeal to
those learners who are interested in science, technology, detective stories,
and computer games.
Language Difficulty: Hubbard proposes four areas of language difficulty--variety,
transparency, familiarity, and length. The variety of registers range from
the colloquial to the academic. The clues are embedded in four different
contexts--a witness to the crime; an informant; a wiretap; and an interstellar
message. These clues employ the first and third person, and reported speech.
The database is taken from an astronomy textbook. This allows the student
more than one chance to understand the clue if one or more modes are beyond
his comprehension level. This feature helps to overcome problems related
to all four areas of language difficulty, and is a point in favor of using
this particular software package.
Program Difficulty: A control panel on the screen is mouse-activated.
The database is composed of a system of hierarchical menus common to most
computer software, and is quickly learned. The game's instructions can be
explained by the teacher in five to ten minutes. Thus the program difficulty
of Carmen Sandiego is minimal.
Program Focus: The focus is on improving L1/L2 reading skills,
but the software also includes listening practice.
Hardware Considerations: Carmen Sandiego uses the exploratory
principles of hypermedia, especially"Hypertext." To accommodate
the sophistication of this program, a computer with a color monitor, mouse
control, and audio speakers is necessary.
Procedure
Richards and Rodgers state that procedure "encompasses the actual
moment-to-moment techniques, practices, and behaviors that operate. . .
It is the level at which we describe how a method realizes its approach
and design" (1986, p26).
Activity Type: Where In Space Is Carmen Sandiego? is an
example of a problem-solving adventure game. As educational software, it
incorporates the tutorial format into its problem-solving framework. Tutorial
format, of course, indicates that the software functions in the capacity
of a personal teacher. Such programs promote the reading skills of skimming,
scanning, and culling the desired information.
Presentational Scheme: The goal of Carmen Sandiego is to
identify the correct suspect from a group of fifteen aliens, each with different
appearance, sex, favorite food, favorite author, and favorite astronomer.
The player follows clues which lead to various planets and moons in the
solar system, and gathers information about the criminal. This information
is embedded in various styles of text. Thus, the main computer output consists
of text clues embellished with NASA photographs, plus entertaining multimedia
graphics and audio. The learner's task is to scan and cull information.
They must comprehend the output to proceed to the next clue. This makes
Where In Space Is Carmen Sandiego? an excellent source of comprehensible
textual input which will improve the student's reading skills.
Input Judging: Hubbard lists four basic considerations for input
judging, and I shall deal with them each in turn:
- Is there only one acceptable answer to an item, or more than one?
- If the input takes the form of a word or phrase, how are misspellings
and inflectional/derivational errors dealt with?
- If the input takes the form of a sentence, how are grammatical errors
dealt with?
- How are other anticipated errors (e.g. word choice) dealt with?
The Carmen Sandiego program only allows one correct answer for
each maze branching (see the Feedback section below). This encourages the
students to make an effort to understand the clues.To access the database
computer "VAL 9000," the name must be spelled correctly or it
will show the words: '"NONE FOUND" after a search for a key term.
This feature encourages accurate spelling. As the software is focused on
reading and understanding, all the student inputs are personal and place
names for the database. No sentences are input. The answer is similar to
that for question #3. Input is limited, thus word choice errors will receive
a "NONE FOUND" reply from the database.
Feedback: Feedback is given after each action or decision by the
learner. If the student takes an incorrect branch of the maze, i.e. goes
to a wrong planet or moon, there will be no additional clues waiting, and
the student must backtrack. After too many wrong turns he "runs out
of fuel," and the game is lost. If a wrong suspect is arrested, then
the student loses the game, and can start another one at the same skill
level.
Positive feedback is given for correctly identifying the criminal. Winning
allows the student to proceed to a game requiring a higher skill level.
Each complete game is short, between fifteen minutes and half an hour. In
this way, the student's attention span is not overly strained.
Control Options
The two main control options are automatic control imposed by the developer,
and programs that are completely under the student's control. The Carmen
Sandiego program seems to fall between these two extremes. On the one
hand, the language is fixed by the computer program, but, on the other hand,
control of how the clues are processed is left up to the learner, with the
teacher acting as the facilitator. I feel that this is a proper balance
for an advanced reading program of this type.
Help Options: There are two basic types of "Help" options;
"review" and "hints." The Carmen Sandiego game
does not provide an optional review of the instructions, for they are basic
and simple to learn, but it does provide additional hints in the guise of
"launching a probe." Each game has a maximum of two probes to
provide extra clues if the player is having trouble deciding on the next
step.
Screen Layout: Screen layout covers such variables as the print
size and spacing, the use of color, the quality and relative position of
the graphics, the presence of animation, etc. Rather than tediously detail
the exact specifics of the software, I shall merely evaluate the screen
layout as a whole. This game is part of a series of popular educational
games by Brodurbund, a very successful software company. Since the series
is designed for a large native speaker market, the professionalism and quality
of the layout and multimedia graphics are much superior to most found in
the smaller EFL/ESL CALL software market. This is a reason in favor of adapting
software originally designed for native speaking young adults as an adjunct
to a language learning program.
Conclusion
Although evaluating CALL software is more complex than just using checklist,
having an evaluation framework will focus attention on the key points necessary
to make an informed decision. Keep in mind that computers and software are
merely tools to help teachers and students towards their goal of more efficient
language learning, and a tool is no better than the hand that wields it.
References
Broderbund. Where in Space is Carmen Sandiego? <http://www.broder.com/education/programs/science/carmenspace/#bot>
Carrel, P. & Gisterhold, J. (1887). Schema theory and
ESL reading pedagogy. In Richards, J.C. & Long, M. (Eds.), Methodology
in TESOL: A book of readings, New York: Newbury House.
Chun, D.M. & Plass, J. L. (1997). Research on text
comprehension. Multimedia Environments, Language Learning &
Technology. 1(1), 60-81. <http://polyglot.cal.msu.edu/llt/>
Goodman, K.S. (1967). Reading - A Psycholinguistic Guessing
Game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 126-135.
Hubbard, P. (1992). A Methodological framework for call
courseware development. In Pennington, M.C. & Stevens, V. (Eds.), Computers
in Applied Linguistics. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Johnson-Laird, P. (1988). The computer and the mind.
London: Fontana.
Pennington, M.C. & Stevens, V. (Eds.) (1992). Computers
in applied linguistics. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Richards, J.C. & Long, M. (Eds.) (1987). Methodology
in TESOL - A Book of Readings. New York: Newbury House.
Richards, J.C. & Rogers, T.S. (1986). Approaches
and methods in language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Article copyright
© 1998 by the author.
Document URL: http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/98/feb/shucart.html
Last modified: April 24, 1998
Site maintained by TLT
Online Editor
|