LLTI Archives

February 2003, Week 3

LLTI@LISTSERV.DARTMOUTH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LLTI-Editor <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:44:09 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (69 lines)
--- Forwarded Message from Derek Roff <[log in to unmask]> ---

>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:30:27 -0700
>From: Derek Roff <[log in to unmask]>
>To: LLTI-Editor <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Recognition for CALL work (was: software or program)
>In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>References:  <[log in to unmask]>

--On Thursday, February 20, 2003 Joel Goldfield wrote:

> I think we are at a point where an organization rich in faculty
> representation like CALICO could
> step in with some very specific and helpful suggestions, where
> advisable and possible, relating CALL work to traditional
> conceptions of teaching, service and scholarship, building on
> current CALICO and IALL documents in addition to the MLA's report
> "Making Faculty Work Visible" (Profession 1996 & online).

I think so too.  At least in theory.  I am not very happy with the
CALICO document on the value of CALL research and development, and I
served on the committee that worked on polishing the final draft.  It
had to be short enough to be read quickly by deans and committees who
might be considering CALL in tenure and promotion.  This brevity
sacrificed the specificity and persuasiveness that I had hoped for.
The challenge and anxiety of the six-month polishing experience
taught me a few things.  Most surprising was the passion and power of
the diverging views which arose.  Members of the committee were in
general agreement on all the majors points.  Moving from that general
consensus to specific wording of the details was only partially
successful.

As a result of that experience, I don't know how a large group can
produce a concise, specific document on which the majority can agree.
We have different views on strategy, tactics, educational politics
and the relative importance of every salient point and subtopic.  It
might be more productive for various individuals, or small groups, to
produce their own position statements.  These multiple statements
might be endorsed in a general way by individuals and institutions.

The importance of CALL research and development might be convincingly
demonstrated by this pluralistic approach.  Suppose the CALICO,
IALLT, EuroCALL and other groups had, in addition to their own
concise position statements, a list of links to other more lengthy
and detailed papers, which each group's members endorse.  Something
like "the members of CALICO are in substantial agreement with the
viewpoints expressed in these position papers:  Nina Garrett's A
Rational Approach to CALL Evaluation, Joel Goldfield's Survey and
Analysis of CALL and Tenure, Ursula William's The Notre Dame Model
for CALL, Mike Ledgerwood's Essential Criteria for evaluation of CALL
Research, SoCALL's Recommendations for Promotion and Tenure in CALL,
InSTIL's Proper Recognition of Speech Recognition Research, BYU's
Foundations of CALL Evaluation, SFSU/LARC's Position Paper on CALL
Development."  And so on.

We need a way to demonstrate the widespread support for including
CALL work in promotion and tenure, and give the detail needed for
presenting model evaluation schema that cover all the different
aspects of a diverse field like CALL.  We need to progress more
rapidly than large-group writing usually does.  I think a pluralistic
approach might be effective.  What do you think?

Derek

Derek Roff
Language Learning Center, Ortega Hall Rm 129, University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131  505/277-7368, fax 505/277-3885
Internet: [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2