~

Indice

Turismo y procesos de urbanizacion ante la globalizacion:

el nuevo paradigma del desarrollo urbano sustentable
Bonnie Lucfa Campos Camara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
Antecedentes 11
Justificacion 14
Planteamiento del problema 19
Objetivo general 22
Hipotesis de trabajo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
La region y el periodo 23
Bibliograffa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25

La feminizacion del Caribe: hacia una critica posmoderna

de la dicotomia naturalezalcultura
Erika Mueller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
Explotacion de la naturaleza y la mujer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
Cyborg Manifesto 32
Poscolonialismo y la critica al pensar occidental: la ciencia
des de un punto de vista poscolonial/ferninista . . . . . . . . . . .. 34
The use of technology in Teaching English
as a Foreign Language
Marfa Isabel Hernandez 141
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 141
Background 142
Advantages 142
Disadvantages 143
New approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 145
Conclusions 146
References 148

Exploring spelling errors: a preliminary classification

Alfredo Marfn M. 149
Introduction 149
Spelling errors of native Spanish speakers
as L2 users of English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 149
Spelling errors in a bilingual environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 151
Spelling errors in Ll and L2 users of English 152
The preliminary classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 154
Class 1. Omissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 155
Class 2. Additions 155
Class 3. Substitutions '. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156
Class 4. Letter order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156
Class 5. Phonological approximations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156
Class 6. Confusing words 157
Sources of spelling errors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 157
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 158
References 157

Los errores de interferencia en la redacci6n en frances

Marfa del Rosario Reyes Cruz 171
Introducci6n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 171
EI enfoque hist6rico-cultural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 172
El aprendizaje ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 173
La ensefianza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 175
EI enfoque hist6rico-cultural y su aplicaci6n a la ensefianza
de lenguas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 176
 The use
of technology in Teaching
English as a Foreign Language

he purpose of this article is to determine objectively observable ef-

T fects of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) on Teaching

English as a Foreign Language (EFL).
First, a general view of the role of computer technology in the last
past years is given, Next, the advantages and disadvantages of using
computers in EFL classrooms are explained. Finally, the components
are described which may make English learning through the use of
computers, a valuable, useful and meaningful experience.
For the past several years teachers have been talking about the use
of computers in the classrooms. The discussion first centered on the
use of computers as word processors, raising questions such as,
"Should students use the computer for learning English as a foreign
language?" In the last few years the debate has been decided with
teachers accepting the computer as a valuable tool for developing
students' language skills.
Singhal (1997) indicated that computer technology and TEFL are not
strangers to one another. In the 1960s and 70s, language laboratories
were being installed in numerous edlJcational settings. The traditional
language laboratory was comprised of a series of booths, each pro-
viding a cassette deck, and accompanying microphone and headphone.
Teachers monitored their students' interactions by using a central
control panel at a console. The basic premise behind this was that if
behavior was modeled, and then reinforced, students would quickly
learn the language in question. The language lab activities were the-
refore grounded in a stimulus-response behavior pattern. While the
language laboratory was a positive step in linking technology
and language education, it was soon recognized that such activities
were both tedious and boring for learners. Furthermore, the amount
of student-teacher interaction was minimal, and individualized in-
struction was irrelevant.
These factors joined together led to a shift towards the communi-
cative approach in second language education, namely toward com-
puter assisted language learning.

Glennan & Meldmed (as cited in Hanson, 1999) found that a RAND
report indicated that among the striking features of "a technology
rich methodology" were:

• A strong emphasis on individualized treatment of students, in-

cluding the use of portfolios.
• . A substantial restru..cturing of the school program, including
lengthened class periods, interdisciplinary programs, and, in
most cases, project-based learning.
• A focussed and concentrated effort to develop and change the
educational approach, often starting with one course or segment
of the curriculum but, in most cases, expanding to the whole
school.
Singhal (1997) indicated that computer technology and TEFL are not
strangers to one another. In the 1960s and 70s, language laboratories
were being installed in numerous edlJcational settings. The traditional
language laboratory was comprised of a series of booths, each pro-
viding a cassette deck, and accompanying microphone and headphone.
Teachers monitored their students' interactions by using a central
control panel at a console. The basic premise behind this was that if
behavior was modeled, and then reinforced, students would quickly
learn the language in question. The language lab activities were the-
refore grounded in a stimulus-response behavior pattern. While the
language laboratory was a positive step in linking technology
and language education, it was soon recognized that such activities
were both tedious and boring for learners. Furthermore, the amount
of student-teacher interaction was minimal, and individualized in-
struction was irrelevant.
These factors joined together led to a shift towards the communi-
cative approach in second language education, namely toward com-
puter assisted language learning.

Glennan & Meldmed (as cited in Hanson, 1999) found that a RAND
report indicated that among the striking features of "a technology
rich methodology" were:

• A strong emphasis on individualized treatment of students, in-

cluding the use of portfolios.
• . A substantial restrliCturing of the school program, including
lengthened class periods, interdisciplinary programs, and, in
most cases, project-based learning.
• A focussed and concentrated effort to develop and change the
educational approach, often starting with one course or segment
of the cumculum but, in most cases, expanding to the whole
school.
 • Changed relations among staff, including teacher peer mentoring
and more collaboration among teachers.
Enriched outcomes, not just in better performance measured
through traditional ways, but increased perception by students
that their learning is authentic and personally meaningful, and by
teachers that their work is one of mentoring and collaborating.

Moreover, a study by Burns (1996) indicated that content-lich

material which uses technology as a key component to engage stu-
dents in discussion, collaborative projects, and a range of similar in-
teractive activities, reinfores language acquisition while providing
much-needed context. Students continually speak, write, and hear
English, and subsequently develop content area mastery at the same
time. Teachers report that other fortuitous results are a positive envi-
ronment and a higher level of student self-confidence in the class-
room performance. Also, it is important to remember that knowing
English well today must include knowing how to read, write and
communicate in electronic environments. For most teachers and pro-
fessionals, learning how to compose electronic mail or make eJfec-
tive use of the World Wide Web involves English language skills that
should be considered as essential as speaking on the phone or mak-
ing use of a library.
Also, it is extremely important for teacher of EFL to emphasize the
use of technology as a tool for enhancing communication to give a
global view for both authenticity of task, and audience content during
the learning process.

Despite the advantages and widespread use of CALL, it continues to

suffer from criticism for several reasons. According to Armstrong &
Yetter-Vassot (1994) many EFL teachers believe that learning and prac-
ticing grammar rules of a foreign language through fill-in-the-blank
exercises, for example, does little to improve a speaker's ability to
produce grammatically appropriate utterances. Others point out that
CALL suffers from its rigidity because of the complexities of natural
languages.
 On the other hand, Hanson (1999) said that teachers are often dis-
appointed in computer applications because when they open a soft-
ware program they may be confronted on the screen with an extremely
short instructional blurb or a dialog followed by a test on the gram-
mar points contained in this brief material. This type of approach
seems very similar to the old grammar-translation and audio-lingual
methods. At the opposite end of the spectrum, teachers find content
CDs and websites that contain plenty of raw material in a variety of
media -text, pictures, video and audio- but they do not have any
pedagogically appropriate exercises, organizing schema, vocabulary
notes, composition and so forth.
At one extreme, there seems to be little pedagogical justification for
making students sit alone at the computer to fill in blanks and click on
"True "or" False". At the other end of the spectrum, it seems unfair to
throw students into a sea of content without any navigation tools.
Chapelle (1997) reported that because the purpose of CALL activi-
ties is L2 learning, the most critical questions to be addressed about
CALL are the following: What kind of language does the learner en-
gage in during a CALL activity? How good is the language experience
in CALL for L2 learning?
Furthermore, Hanson (1999) found that CALL was tied to a tutorial
and test approach (sometimes called "drill and grill") that assumed
that: 1) Students would work alone at the computer, and that 2) The
teacher could be replaced by the machine.
In the area of the internet, despite its benefits, not everyone is
ready to board the internet bandwagon. According to Meloni (1998),
some teachers have conyinced themselves that the internet is a waste
of precious time. Others harbor a certain curiosity and would like to
learn more about the possibilities, but feel that they just cannot in-
vest the time to learn about what is available and keep up with fre-
quent changes. Surveys, 1-}owever,have shown that fear is the main
reason why many teachers shy away from the internet. Their reti-
cence to venture into a cybernatic domain is why they tend to ignore
the computer revolution that is rapidly spreading into all areas of
daily life. One of the fears is a timidity of technology itself. Teachers
from non-technical backgrounds are worried that they will not be
able to master the new technology.
Long (as cited in Chapelle, 1998) found that when the goals of CALL
activities include learners' engagement in some form of negotiation
of meaning, procedures for data interpretation are reinforced. As we
study learners of L2 we can borrow from interactionist research on
task-based language learning that allows us to theorize certain ob-
servable features of interaction. This negotiation of meaning is ex-
pected to be positive for language developplent. Thus, negotiation of
meaning needs to be seen not only in face to face spoken conversa-
tions, but also in written interactions that occur over networked com-
puters. A second, more extensive expansion of the definition of ne-
gotiation of meaning is seen when the modified interactions take place
between the learner and the computer.
Early research on computers in the language classroom reflected
what has been called a determinist approach (Ebersole, 1995). From
a determinist perspective, a computer is an all-powerful machine,
that in and of itself, brings about determined results. Thus, research
on Computer-Assisted Language Learning seeks to understand the
overall effect of the computer, often at the insistence of administra-
tors, who demand proof that the computer really works. However, as
pointed out often before (Garret, 1991), the computer does not really
constitute a method for learning a language, thus the computer's ef-
fect cannot be researched independently in the particular way the
technology is put to use.
According to Warschauer (1998), to be able to fully understand
the interrelationship between technology and language learning, re-
searchers have to investigate the broader context that affects language
learning and its use in today's society, both inside and outside the
classroom. This can be accomplished if teachers expand their research
paradigms to engage in critical qualitative classroom research, which
attempts to take into account broad sociocultural factors of their stu-
dents as well as questions of human agency, identity, and semantic
meaning.
As Meloni said (1998), teachers must be aware of CALL'S potential
and how their colleagues are using it. Everyone must remember, how-
ever, that "technology should never be used just because it is there.
Technology must be used only when it enhances the language learn-
ing experience". If the computer offers students something that they
cannot obtain from an in-class communicative activity, then the use
of technology is appropriate. When the computer is simply a poor
substitute, its use is not acceptable.
The best uses of technology have been influenced by theories of
interaction in language, by teaching approaches that involve cogni-
tive academic language learning. This gives the attention to multiple
learning styles, and the use of constructivism, which asserts that learn-
ing involves the active construction of meaning, rather than simple
memorization. The tenets of this new paradigm include making stu-
dents responsible for their own learning with attention given to the
role of active cognitive learning (as well as input), by focusing on
multiple learning styles with respect for affective factors and emo-
tional states.
There is another important aspect related to CALL that is significant
to highlight. Although computers can now do mal1Ythings that teach-
ers can, language learning is, and always has been, a very human
experience, consequently human teachers will always be needed in
the classroom.
The computer revolution, however, seems irreversible, and, as Ray
Clifford of the Defense Language Institute put it, "Technology will
not replace teachers ...Teachers who use technology will probably
replace teachers who do not".
Below there is a diagram of the main components to take into
account in the use of technology in EFL classes (figure 1).
After analyzing the pros and cons of CALL, it can be concluded that
in the process of teaching-learning through the use of computer tech-
nology, there are basic components to take into consideration. These
components are inseparable from each other and include: knowledge
of the subject, teaching skills, multicultural factors, and instructional
technology skills found when using CALL. All these can work together
 FIGURE 1. Computer technology does not teach, teachers teach,
technology is the medium
Language

1C"'hing~,"",ing

Computer-Technology

in order to develop a better environment of learning, as shown in

figure 2.
The use of CALL is inevitable. For that reason, administrators and
other academics professionals should give access to computers to as
many students and teachers as possible. Teachers need to be trained
not only in the use ofthe computer but also they need to be trained in
curriculum instruction design and other techniques in order to design
well-structured lesson plans, activities, exercises, and examina-
tions which focus on the different elements that involve the art of
teaching.
Boswood, Tim
1997 New Ways of Using Computers in Language Teaching, Alexandria,
VA, TESOL.
Burns, D.
1996 Technology in The ESL Classroom, vol. 18, no. 4, Technology &
Learning, NovemberlDecember.
Chapelle, Carole
1998 Analysis of Interaction Sequences in Computer-Assisted Language
Learning, Tesol Quarterly 17(2), 165-187.
Hanson, Elizabeth
1999 CALL Environments: The Quiet Revolution, Alexandria, VA, TESOL.
Hirschbuhl, J.
1996 Computers in Education, 9th ed., Dushkin-McGraw Hill Annual
Editions.
Meloni, Christine.
1998 A Valuable Tool and Resource for ESL & EFL Teachers, ESL Maga-
zine.
Roblyer, M. D.
1996 Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching, Prentice Hall
Canada, Higher Education.
Singhal, Meena
1997 "The Internet and Foreign Language Education: Benefits and Chal-
lenges". The Internet TESL Journal, vol. III, no. 6, June.
Warschauer, Mark
1996 "Researching Technology in TESOL: Determinist, Instrumental, and
Critical Approaches", Tesol Quarterly 19(4),727-752.