The Internet and English Language Learning Opening up spaces for ...

1

Kourtis Kazoullis, V. & Skourtou, E. (2004): The Internet and English Language Learning - Opening up spaces for Constructivist and Transformative Pedagogy through Sister-Class Networks, στο: Cummins, J. & Davison, Ch. (eds). Handbook of English Language Teaching, Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2 Τόµοι

The Internet and English Language Learning Opening up spaces for Constructivist and Transformative Pedagogy through Sister-Class Networks Vasilia Kourtis-Kazoullis and Eleni Skourtou University of the Aegean

1 Introduction The use of the Internet in a learning environment means that it is usually “added” to something that preexists. There is the pre-existing community of the classroom with a teacher and the students. The way the lesson is carried out depends on a variety of variables and the pedagogy that is used can be classified into one of three general orientations: traditional, constructivist or transformative or can be a combination of all three. If this classroom is a foreign language classroom, teaching and learning can follow a particular language learning methodology or approach or most usually is a synthesis of methodologies or approaches. When the Internet is “added” to the environment of the classroom, changes inevitably take place. The intensity of these changes depends on how the Internet is to be used as it can be used in very traditional or in innovative new ways. This chapter seeks to discuss how the internet can open up spaces for Progressive / Constructivist and Transformative Pedagogy using as an example an internet based sister class project designed for the teaching of English as foreign language and Greek as a second language.

2 Literacy and Pedagogy Pedagogy is a teaching and learning relationship that creates the potential for building learning conditions leading to full and equitable social participation. (Cope and Kalantzis 2000:9). The New London Group (Cope and Kalantzis 2000) refers to literacy pedagogy as particularly important in education. According to the New London Group, literacy pedagogy traditionally meant learning to read and write in standard forms of the national language and was restricted to “formalized, monolingual, monocultural, and rule-governed forms of language” (Cope and Kalantzis 2000:9). It is difficult to separate pedagogical practices into groups or categories as different types of pedagogies overlap. In the classroom, likewise, it is difficult to describe the learning environment in view of only one type of pedagogy, as teaching/learning is

1

2

usually never an either/or process but a combination of different types of pedagogy. However, for description purposes, pedagogy will be discussed here in reference to three specific types: traditional, progressive and transformative, each with different implications for literacy pedagogy (Cummins 2000c). We define this grouping as different pedagogical orientations rather than as autonomous concepts.

3 Traditional, Progressive and Transformative Pedagogy and Language Learning Pedagogical orientations make statements dealing with the instructional assumptions, the social assumptions and the student outcomes. The instructional assumptions refer to language, knowledge and learning (Cummins 1996a, 1999).

3.1 Traditional Pedagogy In reference to language, traditional pedagogy deals with language in component parts. According to this type of pedagogy, language components are taught individually in a way that language is decomposed. First, simple elements are introduced and then students proceeds to complex forms of language. This complies with how foreign languages are traditionally taught. Students learn phonics before they learn to read. They learn grammar, vocabulary and spelling before they learn to write. The curriculum content is presented sequentially so that the students can internalize it. In traditional pedagogy learning is organized hierarchically from simple to complex, making knowledge static. The cultural knowledge or prior experience of the students is seldom utilized in learning (Cummins and Sayers 1995). The social assumptions of traditional pedagogy are that the curriculum should reflect the cultural literacy of the society. This cultural literacy is aligned with the power relationships that exist in the society. The outcome is that students are uncritical and compliant (Cummins 1996a, 1999a). Cope and Kalantzis (2000:5) refer to “mere literacy”, as opposed to Multiliteracies, as “centered on language only”, i.e. usually a singular national form of language. They base “mere literacy” on the assumption that correct usage of language can be discerned and described. This view of language is described as being an “authoritarian kind of pedagogy” (Cope and Kalantzis 2000:5). In contrast to this one-sided literacy, they propose a pedagogy of Multiliteracies which “focuses on modes of representation much broader than language alone [and which] . . . differ according to culture and context, and have specific cognitive, cultural and social effects” (Cope and Kalantzis 2000:5). The literacy that they propose, as opposed to the literacy linked to traditional pedagogy, implements various modes of meaningmaking, i.e. textual, visual, audio, spatial, and behavioral as well as multimodal where written-linguistic modes are combined with visual, audio and spatial (characteristic of meanings on the WWW) (Cope and Kalantzis 2000). Cope and Kalantzis (2000:6) claim that old pedagogies, i.e. traditional, that represent a “formal, standard, written national language” are no longer valid. As meaning is

2

3

increasingly multimodal (in part due to IT) and as local diversity and global connectedness is increasing, new types of literacy and pedagogy must be implemented in schools where educators and students are “active participants in social change” (Cope and Kalantzis 2000:7).

3.2 Progressive Pedagogy Progressive pedagogy in the form of language instruction can be identified in whole language (Ziminsky 1994) and processes writing which were inspired by the work of John Dewey. Dewey gave importance to student experience; i.e. in order for learning to take place, the student must “integrate new information with prior experience” in order for new information to be meaningful. Also, within the realm of progressive pedagogy are approaches based on the work of cognitive psychologists. In these approaches, the role of active student inquiry is emphasized (Cummins and Sayers 1995, Wells 1999). According to progressive pedagogy, language is learned as a whole and through use in communication. In whole language approaches, literacy development is tied to authentic literature and the extensive reading of this literature (Krashen 1993). Knowledge is used for further inquiry and learning is a collaboratively constructed process between peers and teachers (Vygotsky 1978). Progressive pedagogy stresses small group cooperative learning or small diverse groups (diverse cultural backgrounds, diverse educational talents, diverse attainments, etc.). Well documented examples of progressive pedagogy can be found in the “Program Information Guide Series” of “The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE). (e.g. Simich-Dudgeon et al 1988).Cope and Kalantzis differentiate between two forms of progressivism: (a) modernism and experience and (b) postmodernism and difference. They equally criticize both types, as they do not deal with how power relationships work in language, culture and curriculum (Cummins 2000c, Cope and Kalantzis 2000). In the same direction is the criticism of Cummins and Sayers (1995): Progressive pedagogy usually focused narrowly on the teaching-learning relationship and fails to articulate a coherent vision of the broader social implications of instruction. Tolerance and acceptance of cultural difference are implied, but critical reflection on students’ own experience and critique of social realities are not (Cummins and Sayers 1995:153). Within the realm of progressive pedagogy can be added a variety of inquiry or constructivist learning approaches that were based on the social learning theory of Vygotsky and especially on his notion of the “zone of proximal development”. In these approaches, the cognitive advancement of the student is the primary goal. Wells (1999) places Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory between two views of educational reform: progressive child-centered forms of education and structured teacher-directed education, emphasizing basic knowledge and skills. He claims that

3

4

Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory bridges these two views as it stresses dialogue and co-construction of knowledge, forming a collaborative community between teacher and student. Wells borrows on the theories of Vygotsky and Halliday in order to define a theory of language learning and learning mediated by language. Dialogic inquiry, according to Wells, is an “extended analysis” of Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). It emphasizes knowing and coming to know rather than the acquisition of knowledge. He proposes that a variety of modes of knowing are involved in human development with oral discourse playing a central role (in combination with other modes of semiosis) (Wells 1999). Wells emphasizes the creation of classroom communities of dialogic inquiry where “different kinds of meaning making . . . are enabled by different modes of discourse in such communities” (Wells 1999:xvi). The pedagogical principles of the progressive pedagogy were an important element of the design of the project to be discussed in this chapter. These principles dealt with active student inquiry, collaborative learning, importance of student experience (or prior knowledge), reading of authentic material, language learned as a whole through communication with others and the importance of social interaction for cognitive advancement (Cummins and Sayers 1995). In reference to language and social activity, Vygotsky and Halliday consider language as a human invention that is used “as a means of achieving the goals of social living” (Wells 1999:6). In summary, progressive pedagogy accepts cultural difference, but the curriculum may follow power relationships. The result is that the students may be liberal, but uncritical of their own experiences and social realities (Cummins 1996a, 1999a). Gee (2000) refers to cognitivist curricula in schools today as producing students who can think “critically” but not “critiquely”. This is a term he coined in order to describe students who can “understand and critique systems of power and injustice in the world that they will see as simply economically inevitable” (Gee 2000:62). In this sense students are unable to understand or empathize with the plight of other people. Progressive pedagogy in this sense is useful, but limited.

3.3 Transformative Pedagogy According to Cummins, transformative pedagogy follows the instructional orientation of progressive pedagogy to some extent (Cummins 2000c). Language is taught as a whole, knowledge is catalytic and learning is joint interactive construction through critical inquiry. However, the social assumptions underlying transformative pedagogy are what differentiate it from progressive pedagogy. Transformative pedagogy focuses on social realities relevant to students’ experiences and incorporates collaborative critical inquiry in order to relate the curriculum content to students’ individual and collective experiences. Broader social issues, relevant to students’ lives, are analyzed and students are encouraged to discuss ways in which social realities might be changed through social action and democratic participation (Cummins and Sayers 1995). The result is that students are empowered and critical (Cummins 1996a, 1999a). The literacy, then, that the students develop is not functional or cultural but goes beyond these two

4

5

types of literacy in the direction of critical literacy. Critical literacy can be defined as: Habits of thought, reading, writing, and speaking which go beneath surface meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronouncements, traditional clichés, received wisdom, and mere opinions, to understand the deep meaning, root causes, social context, ideology, and personal consequences of any action, event, object, process, organization, experience, text, subject matter, policy, mass media or discourse (Shor 1992:129). Cummins and Sayers (1995:153) view transformative pedagogy as central in “realizing the potential of global learning networks”. As the environment created in DiaLogos, the project to be discussed, was an environment of collaboration between sister classes joined via Internet connections, it was vital that the pedagogy used was one that allowed for the potential of these connections to be realized. Collaborative critical inquiry is an important element of transformative pedagogy. Brown, Cummins, Figueroa and Sayers also refer to processes in collaborative critical inquiry. This involves: distancing context, self-disclosure, cross-cultural comparisons, questioning and more self-disclosure, new opportunities to discover and display talents, and joint action resulting from shared empowerment (Brown et al. 1997:347). While traditional pedagogy is simply transmission, constructivist or progressive is essential for something to happen. However, constructivist pedagogy deals with the cognitive or psychological processes, not social. Transformative, unlike the other two, carries out a social function. It deals with issues of power and whose issues are served. The work of Wells (1999), grounded in sociocultural theory, incorporates the notion dialogic inquiry. Cummins, however, takes this notion further as he relates critical inquiry to existing social circumstances and power distribution, both of which undermine the content of knowledge (Skourtou 2002). Cope and Kalantzis (2000) also refer to critical inquiry in the four components of pedagogy that they propose in Multiliteracies. However, the pedagogy that Cope and Kalantzis, as members of the New London Group, suggest is rooted in active design of meaning as well as active design of social futures. The key concept that is used as a basis of literacy pedagogy is Design in which people are “both inheritors of patterns and conventions of meaning while at the same time active designers of meaning” (Cope and Kalantzis 2000:7). They link designers of meaning to designers of social futures in the workplace, public and community (Cope and Kalantzis 1997). Of the four components of pedagogy that they propose, i.e. Situated Practice, Overt Instruction, Critical Framing and Transformed Practice, Transformed Practice can be linked to Transformative Pedagogy in which “students as meaning makers become designers of social futures” (Cope and Kalantzis 2000:7). The other components include: “Situated Practice which draws on the experience of meaning-making in life worlds, the public realm, and workplaces; Overt Instruction, through which students develop an explicit metalanguage of Design;

5

6

and Critical Framing, which interprets the social context and purpose of Designs of meaning” (Cope and Kalantzis 2000:7).

4 Pedagogy and Information Technology (IT) The way in which IT will be used in the learning environment depends largely upon the pedagogical orientation.

4.1 Traditional Pedagogy and Information Technology (IT) As traditional pedagogy focuses on the transmission of information and skills in second language teaching, traditional pedagogy “implies the teaching language structures and forms with little emphasis on internalization of meaning or active communicative/authentic use of the language” (Cummins 2000b:38). Furthermore, as traditional pedagogy implies that students learn predominantly from the textbook, IT used with this orientation would reinforce the learning of content or vocabulary and grammatical knowledge (Cummins 2000b). IT used in this way is made more appealing to students than the textbook through the use of interactive games and activities; however, the basic aim is still reinforcement of information and skills.

4.2 Constructivist/Progressive Pedagogy and Information Technology (IT) Constructivist/progressive pedagogy “highlights the importance of teacher-student interactions that encourage students actively to construct meanings and become cognitively engaged in challenging projects and activities. There is a focus on activating students’ prior knowledge and allowing them to bring their experience or cognitive schemata to bear on solving problems” (Cummins 2000b:39). Much of the research within constructivist tradition has made use of sociocultural theory with special emphasis on Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. There is much activity in the field of language learning and technology that correspond with this pedagogical framework. There are also many uses of IT that involve higher-order thinking skills and cognitive challenge. These activities are likely to be more motivating for students than simply learning about a topic from a textbook. The active, hands-on, cooperative activities are many times cognitively engaging and motivating. Through such activities students learn content, language structures and functions.

6

7

4.3 Transformative Pedagogy and Information Technology (IT) Although the instructional assumptions of transformative pedagogy are similar to those of constructivist/progressive pedagogy, there is a divide in reference to social assumptions. According to Cummins: Transformative pedagogy uses collaborative critical inquiry to enable students to analyze and understand the social realities of their own lives and of their communities. Students discuss, and frequently act on, ways in which these realities might be transformed through various forms of social action. Thus, the focus is on constructing meanings, cognitive challenge, and dynamic support within the zone of proximal development. However, the content for investigation and inquiry has social relevance related to the power structure in society (Cummins 2000b: 260). The theoretical framework in reference to IT deals with using IT to: •

Combat the social inequities which its use reflects,

•

Develop students’ language and literacy abilities, and their awareness of how language and literacy are implicated in relations of power,

•

Amplify the impact of pedagogy beyond what would be achieved without the use of IT,

•

Serve as a tool for promoting collaborative relations of power (Cummins 2000a), and

•

Participate in engaged distancing (Cummins and Sayers 2000).

Cope and Kalantzis (2000) refer to transformative pedagogy in that in their pedagogical concept they suggest “active participation in social change” (Cope and Kalantzis 2000:7). Furthermore, they link transformative pedagogy to IT in two ways: a) IT permits diversity in ways of expression. The New London Group uses the term multimodal meaning to refer to diversity of expression. They use the meanings on the WWW or interactive multimedia as examples, where written text is combined with audio, visual, and spatial expressions of meaning. Thus, the use of IT in the classroom expands the range of literacies or modes of expression available to the student. Here, these different modes of expression are expanded in order to include expression or literacy in other languages. As IT can bridge distance, it can also bridge languages. b) Local diversity and global connectedness mean that a single standard version of a language is no longer sufficient Local diversity and global connectedness changes the nature of language learning as it is insufficient to speak of only one single standard version of

7

8

a language. Here, this point is linked with two issues related to DiaLogos’ implementation: Different languages As IT’s ability to bridge geographic distance facilitates communication between people with different L1’s (or different forms of L1), different forms of a single standard version of a language are used in communication. As Computer Mediated Communication seems almost completely monopolized by the English language, this refers to different Englishes that one needs to know in order to be able to communicate with people from a variety of environments and a variety of fields. In the environment of IT, this does not seem to hinder communication and has the ability to bridge difference. Language correctness Although Cope and Kalantzis do not specifically refer to language correctness, the connection is made between language correctness and single standard versions of language. Persons engaged in this type of communication may have to use a L2, which they do not know well. Where in other situations, they may not attempt to use a language that they do not have a full command of, in electronic communication it seems that it does not pose a major problem. In conclusion, pedagogies that represent a single version of language are insufficient in the environment of IT.

5 Computer-mediated Sister Class Networks and Transformative Pedagogy Computer-mediated sister class networks have employed transformative orientations; however, the use of IT within this orientation is rare or uncommon when compared to the use of IT within traditional or constructivist/progressive orientations. When implementing programs or projects involving IT, it is important to note that educators share different pedagogical perspectives (Warschauer 1997) and computer-mediated activities can reinforce other approaches to learning, but at the same time can enforce traditional transmission approaches as well (Warschauer in press). Furthermore, educators are often constrained by institutional and societal expectations so that IT does not have the transformational effect intended (especially in cases where it is used for language and with ethnic minority students) (Cuban 1986; 1993 in Warschauer 1997).

6 DiaLogos: an Internet based sister class project with multiple pedagogical orientations DiaLogos means both dialogue / conversation and “through words” / “through discourse” / “through logos”. At the same time “ Dia” comes from the Greek word for Internet, i.e. “Diadiktio”. Thus, DiaLogos as one word means “logos on the Internet” or “logos through the Internet”.

8

9

DiaLogos was an Internet based sister class project that was carried out over two school years between primary school classes (4th, 5th and 6th grades) in Canada and Greece. The initial object was to create an environment of “dialogic inquiry” where two different languages (i.e. English and Greek) could be learned. In cooperation with their sister classes, students in Greece were learning English and students in Canada (students of Greek descent) were learning Greek. The “sister project” of DiaLogos was Metro-polis (Theodoridis 2000). Metro-polis focused its activities on the Canadian side, hence the learning of Greek, while DiaLogos focused its activities on the Greek side, hence the learning of English. The pedagogical significance of DiaLogos was not in that it followed a transformative orientation but that it managed to combine the very traditional environment of the regular English class with new orientations to pedagogy: constructivist/progressive and transformative. These orientations were combined in a way so that “nothing was wasted”. The traditional orientation of the classroom was utilized in ways that followed the theoretical framework regarding language learning and the “new” environment created with the introduction of the Internet and sister class pairs served to “orient” the teachers and students to new ways of learning. These new ways of learning also corresponded to the theoretical framework regarding language learning.

6.1 Combining Traditional Learning with New Learning Environments At the elementary school level, all students in Greece use the same book which is published by the Ministry of Education, regardless of the student’s actual language level. All students are grouped into three levels according to their grade (i.e. grade 4, 5 and 6). The methodology of the textbook is described by the authors as communicative, but in the actual classroom, teaching often involves a more traditional approach (i.e. explicit grammar teaching, memorization, etc.). Students in the Greek primary school attend English lessons three hours per week. The DiaLogos students attended regular English lessons two times a week using the textbook published by the Ministry of Education. However, once a week the lesson was held in the DiaLogos computer room. This combination of traditional teaching and DiaLogos in reality combined the three focuses of Cummins’ Development of Academic Expertise (Cummins 2000c).

9

10

Table 1: Classroom Conditions for Academic Language Learning

Focus on Meaning

Focus on Language

Teacher – Student Interactions

Maximum Cognitive

Maximum Identity

Involvement

Investment

Focus on Use

(Cummins 2000b)

10

11

This framework combines three focuses of learning: focus on meaning, focus on language and focus on use. Focus on meaning involves making input comprehensible and developing critical literacy. Focus on language involves awareness of language forms and uses and critical analysis of language forms and uses. Focus on use deals with using language to generate new knowledge, create literature and/or art and act on social realities. These three focuses revolve around a central core, which combines teacher student interactions with maximum cognitive engagement and maximum identity investment. The three focuses of the framework and the central core can be separated in relation to the activities that were taking place in the traditional classroom and in relation to IT. In reference to Focus on Meaning: in the traditional classroom, the students were making input comprehensible when they were reading texts or listening to other students or the teacher speaking. However, they were not developing critical literacy. Critical literacy was being developed with the use of IT and in combination with the sister class. The diversity of the two sister class pairs served to fuel critical literacy. In reference to Focus on Language: the teacher was already making the students aware of language forms and uses by explicitly teaching grammar, vocabulary, syntax, etc. in a traditional manner. However, the critical analysis of language forms and uses came when the students were comparing different forms of language use. The English language in their textbook was relatively one form, the English language on the Internet was diverse and the English language used by their sister classes opened up an entirely new prospect of using the language. For example, students from Canada were using expressions that were completely new to the students in Greece.

11

12

Table 2: Letters from Canada Thursday, February 18, 1999 Chester afternoon class for E1 and E2 Rhodes. [Student from Canada] Katerina – I didn’t have much of a Christmas this year because I was moviong and we didn’t put up a tree and stuff like that but it was fun moving and stuff. On Christmas eve we went to my aunt’s house and had a big feast and me and cousin Maria were chilling out. On New Years eve we went to my moms friends house and clebrated it there and we brought in 1999 we [with] a really big bang!! BYE FOR NOW KATERINA!!!!!!!!! Posted by Michael I. on December 11, 1999 at 23:06:53: [Student from Canada] Hi its me your penpal. My name is Michael I.. What did it look like and how was it at the museum and threatre? What does your cousin look like? Was the parthenon aand the Acropolis cool? I doubt it was bad. Have a nice day 1998-1999 school year bulletin board entry from Diefenbaker (Afternoon) to ST2 Rhodes [Student from Canada] 7. On my winter break I had a remarkable week. My sister had her 8th birthday party. We had a blast! .. Hellen Vrysselas. Diefenbaker school 1998-1999 school year bulletin board entry from Chester to E1/E2 Rhodes [Student from Canada] 9. Whaz up! My name is Katerina. I’m 10 years old but November 15th I’m turning 11 years old. . . . .

12

13

Expressions in the letters above such as stuff like that, and stuff, chilling out, with a really big bang, we had a blast and whaz up fueled the students curiosity and lead to the critical analysis of language forms. Cool and bad were words that students in Greece were familiar with; however, they were not familiar with the different way in which they were used. The students were using English, but a different type of English. This had an effect on the students in Greece who began using the English language as the students in Canada were using it as early as the first year of correspondence (Kourtis Kazoullis unp. PhD Thesis). Whereas in the traditional classroom the activities dealt mostly with Focus on Meaning and Focus on Language, in respect to the use of IT, the activities dealt with Focus on Use. The students were using language to generate new knowledge, create art and literature and act on social realities. In reference to the central core of the framework which combines teacher-student interactions, maximum cognitive engagement and maximum identity investment, the DiaLogos activities served to amplify maximum cognitive engagement as the students could work at their own levels and with a variety of materials. Also, students were engaged in maximum identity investment as what they were producing stemmed from their own identities and experiences in combination with the identities and experiences of the members of their sister classes. Many times in foreign language learning, in an effort to provide the students with access to the culture of the target language, the identities of the learners are not taken into consideration, especially in cases where the material is produced in an English-speaking country for use in many different countries. In this sense, the identities of all the learners cannot easily be used. However, when the students themselves produce the material, it is inevitably drawn from the students’ own experiences and identities. Sister class connections via the Internet that join students from different geographical regions inevitably lead to a combination of identities and experiences and a critical examination of the above.

6.2 Ancient Rhodes In order to provide information to a student from Canada who was doing a project on Ancient Greece in his own school, the students from one school in Rhodes, Greece began conducting research on their own island and the areas around their homes and school in English class. As all curriculum in Greek schools is appointed by the central government and all textbooks are the same, regional history is not specifically taught in school. The students began conducting their own research and embarked upon a project that was entitled “Ancient Rhodes”. The significance of this project was that the students learned that they were able to make waves or act on social realities. The students were guided through the project with the help of a learning packet. This learning packet involved suggestions to teachers in how to guide the students through critical research. This was divided into a series of phases (Kourtis Kazoullis, unpublished PhD Thesis).

13

14

Table 3: Critical Research Critical Research Phase 1: Setting Questions What do we want to know?

Phase 2: Using what we know and what others know to construct new knowledge First we begin with what we already know. The students begin from themselves (i.e. what do they know about the topic), then what each member of the group knows, then what the class as a whole knows. Likewise, the same process (i.e. ourselves in relation to others) takes place with the sister class (i.e. What does the sister class know? Do they know something different?). Once we utilize what we already know, we can gather new information.

Phase 3: Gathering Information a. Finding information. Where can we find information? We find information by first looking at what is physically near us and then moving more and more distant. First we begin from our own environment. For example, in Ancient Rhodes students can begin by what they see around their home and school. All through the city there are brown signs that provide archeological sites. Is there one near their school or home? Then information is found from other sources (teachers, the Internet, visiting sites, performances, experts, textbooks, i.e. 4th and 5th grade history books, other books, etc.). Finally, see what information we can find from our sister classes. b. Taking notes. How do we store the material we find? c. Documenting our work. How do we state where we found the material?

Phase 4: Critically Viewing our Topic Is the material we found all from one viewpoint? This can be discussed. Before we start writing, we can discuss things in class. We can also discuss our topics with our sister class and see what they think.

Phase 5: Production as process not as product

14

15

This is where we actually write our texts. We must remember what we learned about documenting our work. It is important that the text that students produce is not a product, i.e. a text that is written once and forgotten about. It is meant to be a process. The text once written can be changed at any time. More information can be added without time constrictions. The student can change his/her opinion. The text can be produced by one individual, but it can also be the combined efforts of a group.

Phase 6: Sharing our ideas with others both orally and in written form. Our articles can be shared between students, classes and schools. They can be sent by e-mail to the sister classes.

Phase 7: Critically viewing our work with others. When we share our work with others, we can critically view our work by asking for other opinions and discussing issues with others. (Kourtis Kazoullis, unp. PhD Thesis)

15

16

The research that the students conducted was divided into three steps: • Step 1: The students went out looking for information in their own neighborhood. For example, in the village that the school was in, there were several archeological sites and signs put up by the archeology department giving information about these sites. In most cases, the students had not even noticed these signs or sites prior to the project. •

Step 2: The students visited the museum of Rhodes and the special exhibit commemorating the 2400 year history of the city of Rhodes. Preparation was done in advance in class on what the students could ask the guiding archeologist.

•

Step 3: Finally the students were asked to find information on the Internet dealing with ancient Greece and ancient Rhodes. The project was to be an exercise in critical literacy as the students were to examine whether the image of Greece in these texts was similar or different from their image of Greece.

This third step lead to several discoveries. The students discovered that the material on the Internet includes a variety of opinions, thus, may contain opinions that are different from what the students themselves believe. They also discovered that how their own culture is depicted, may be very different from how they view themselves. But more importantly, they discovered that they could take action and that this action could bring results. The action that the students took involved writing a letter to the editor of an electronic archeological magazine protesting against the representation of their culture in a way that was not acceptable to them. The students thus acted on social realities.

7 Conclusion New concepts are proposed, applied and have to function in an environment that is often traditional. At least in the Greek context, any pedagogical concept must be part of a synthesis that can work with other concepts. Many times what seems relatively easy is difficult in practice. For example, the introduction of IT in the traditional school environment can easily have a limited use merely to support traditional pedagogy. Even the introduction of some elements of progressive pedagogy, let alone transformative, is a long and tedious task. Nevertheless, the introduction of some elements of progressive pedagogy in foreign language learning can open paths and perspectives that go beyond traditional and progressive pedagogy. E.g. the activation of prior knowledge or everyday knowledge in combination with school knowledge can result in a critical examination of different aspects of the curriculum. It seems that on one hand the distance between progressive and transformative pedagogy is wide and on the other hand this same distance could be eliminated by numerous tasks that employ a combination of everyday or prior knowledge with the formal school knowledge. This combination in itself creates the conditions for

16

17

critical literacy and transformative pedagogy. In this sense using IT in second and foreign language learning can serve both in traditional and progressive / transformative ways. The preexisting traditional environment does not prohibit the development of progressive concepts, though it is difficult to design a thoroughly transformative concept in a traditional setting (Skourtou 2001, in press). The experience gained out of DiaLogos showed us that (a) the limits of a traditional environment can be steadily surpassed, (b) constructivist elements can be built in, (c) the planning of transformative outcomes is not always feasible, and, finally, (d) transformative outcomes can evolve when the conditions are appropriate, i.e. when there is an actual need to think critically and take action, especially when the issue deals with the identities, experiences, beliefs etc. of the students. In the case of DiaLogos (after two years of the project’s implementation) the students were able to take action on their own, without the teacher’s guidance, when the topic dealt with their own identities and when they felt very strongly about the topic.

References Brown, K., Cummins, J., Figueroa, E., & Sayers, D. (1997) Global learning networks: Gaining perspective on our lives with distance. In E. Lee, D. Menkart, and M. Okazawa-Rey (eds.) Beyond Heroes and Holidays: A Practical Guide to K-12 Anti-Racist, Multicultural Education and Staff Development (pp. 334-354). Washington, DC: Network of Educators in the Americas. Cope, B. and Kalantzis M. (eds.) (2000) Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London and New York: Routhledge. Cope, B. and Kalantzis M. (eds.) (1997) Productive Diversity – A New Australian Model for Work and Management. Annandale: Pluto Press Australia Cummins, J. (2000a) Academic Language Learning, Transformative Pedagogy and Information Technology: Towards a Critical Balance. TESOL Quarterly 34(3), 537548. Cummins, J. (2000b). A Pedagogical Framework for Second Language Learning in the Context of Computer-Supported Sister Class Networks. In Ε. Skourtou. (ed.) Working Papers of Rhodes: Bilingualism and Learning on the Internet. University of the Aegean. http:www.rhodes.aegean.gr/gr/tetradiarodou Cummins, J. (2000c) Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (1996) Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society. Ontario: California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. and Sayers, D. (2000) Families and Communities Learning Together: Becoming Literate, Confronting Prejudice. In Z. F. Beykont (ed.) Lifting Every

17

18

Voice: Pedagogy and Politics of Bilingualism. Cambridge: Harvard Education Publishing Group. Cummins, J. and Sayers, D. (1995) Brave new schools: challenging cultural illiteracy through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Gee. J. P. (2000). New People in New Worlds: Networks, the new capitalism and schools. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (eds.) Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 43-68). London and New York: Routhledge. Kourtis-Kazoullis (unpublished doctoral dissertation). DiaLogos: Bilingualism and the teaching of second languages on the Internet. Rhodes: Univeristy of the Aegean Krashen, S. (1993) The power of reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Shor I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Short, D. J. (1991) Integrating Language and Content Instruction: Strategies and Techniques, National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE), Program Information Guide Series, No 7, Fall 1991 Simich-Dudgeon, C., McCreedy, L., Schleppegrell, M (1988) Helping Limited English Children communicate in the Classroom – A Handbook for Teachers, National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE), Program Information Guide Series, No 9, Winter 1988/89 Skourtou Ε. (in press) Connecting Greek and Canadian Schools through an Internetbased Sister Class Network, International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 2/2002. Skourtou Ε. (2001) Lernen und Zweitsprachlernen im Internet – Paedagogische Fragestellungen. In Chr. Beck and Al. Sofos (eds) Neue Medien in der paedagogischen Kontroverse, Mainz: Logophon Theodoridis, T. (2000). Metro-polis. Retrieved on June 2, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.metro-polis.net Warschauer, M. (in press). Online learning in sociocultural context. Anthropology and Education Quarterly. Warschauer, M. (1997) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal 81(3), 470-481. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18

19

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John- Steiner, S. Scibner, and E. Souberman (eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ziminsky E. (1994) The Effectiveness of Whole Language Approaches on the Oral Literacy Skills of Bilingual Pre-School Children Identified as Speech Impaired. New York State Association for Bilingual Education 9, 39-45.

19