--- 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]