Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Putting CMC in practice in the EFL classroom: Students’ experiences and attitudes at employing a wiki for an advanced Engl...
Study synopsis<br />This small-scale study explores the practices and experiences of university Ss on the application and ...
Study synopsis (cont.)<br />Advanced, elective English language course (B2 level)<br />Course Aim:  to promote critical th...
The introduction of a wiki had a trifold purpose: <br />to motivate learners to practice written, authentic expression; <b...
Only 20% of sample had previous contact with wikis so there was a need for the T to train them (account creation / wiki ma...
Method<br />For this qualitative study, two methods of data collection are/will be used:<br />(i) Wiki material;<br />(ii)...
Feedback<br />Feedback revolved around Ss’ experiences in dealing with CMC for this language course and their views on its...
Sample<br />n=10 students, all Greek-speaking<br />Year of study: 3rd/4th<br />Study orientation: non-homogeneous sample; ...
Pedagogical contract<br />A minimum of 14 entries/S were required<br />All Ss should try to contribute to the wiki individ...
Pre-task<br /><ul><li>Account creation
Experimentation with ghost wiki page (a how-t0 tutorial)</li></li></ul><li>Session 1<br />i. Sshad to pick their favorite ...
Session 2<br />i. …Post a comment on their favorite character from the film<br />ii.…Comment at least once to at least 2 o...
Session 3<br />Anonymous entries<br />i. …Post a comment on <br />a. using the wiki for class purposes <br />b. their perc...
Corpus<br />Number of students registered: 10<br />Number of participants: 9<br />Days the wiki ran: 15<br />Number of tot...
Wiki Views<br />
Wiki Messages<br />
Results – Sessions 1&2<br />Writing level: very good<br />Syntax: Very few mistakes<br />Certain competency was expected w...
Results – Session 3<br />Overall, Ss were caught between technology use (new to them) and f2f contact (more comfortable/ha...
Perceived advantages of the wiki<br />helpful <br />easy way to share information/ideas<br />any time/anywhere, hence no p...
Positive comments<br />‘really interesting that we can use Internet in an educational way’ <br />‘Ss develop the ability o...
Perceived disadvantages of the wiki<br />I. Socialization & Interpersonal contact<br />‘can not replace personal contact w...
Perceived disadvantages (cont.)<br />II. Lesson quality<br />‘interaction sometimes seems the only way to avoid mistakes a...
Perceived disadvantages (cont.)<br />III. The Wiki as an instructional tool<br />‘New technology’ / ‘Haven’t used it befor...
Quality of study<br />Qualitatively, the project was positively perceived<br />Being a pedagogical activity, the wiki is n...
Conclusions<br />Small scale project, and learning context (FL course / writing tasks) was critical to outcomes<br />Hence...
Conclusions<br />Consensus that CMC can be put in great use in the FL classroom.  However, not everyone feels comfortable ...
Suggestions<br />Further training of both instructors and students in CMC<br />Gradual implementation of CMC in the EFL cu...
Follow-up<br />Open-ended interviews are scheduled after the course ends in May to triangulate findings<br />Study to be r...
References<br />Cole, M. (2009) Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: 	Lessons from the trenches. Computers...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

CMC Teacher Education SIG Presentation; Tsouris

456

Published on

PowerPoint Presentation, Tsouris, Eurocall CMC Teacher Education SIGs, 2011, Barcelona

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
456
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "CMC Teacher Education SIG Presentation; Tsouris"

  1. 1. Putting CMC in practice in the EFL classroom: Students’ experiences and attitudes at employing a wiki for an advanced English Language course<br />Constantinos Tsouris<br />Language Centre<br />University of Cyprus<br />
  2. 2. Study synopsis<br />This small-scale study explores the practices and experiences of university Ss on the application and effectiveness of CMC in the EFL classroom. <br />Ongoing study; to be triangulated/replicated in the next 6 months. <br />
  3. 3. Study synopsis (cont.)<br />Advanced, elective English language course (B2 level)<br />Course Aim: to promote critical thinking skills<br />Awiki was employed as a means of S-S and S-T interaction and as a means of continuous course assessment <br />Ss’ views and experiences were gathered in a 2-week period in order to assess the use of technology for LL purposes<br />Wiki was only means of communication between Ss-T for those 2 weeks<br />
  4. 4. The introduction of a wiki had a trifold purpose: <br />to motivate learners to practice written, authentic expression; <br />to promote their critical thinking skills based on a constructivist approach;<br />to gather data for this study.<br />
  5. 5. Only 20% of sample had previous contact with wikis so there was a need for the T to train them (account creation / wiki management)<br />Following training, Ss seemed to be at ease with using this tool<br />During use of tool, questions did arise regarding:<br />tool functionality (e.g. whether they could upload a file from their pc)<br />how to do things (e.g. how to link a website/upload a video)<br />troubleshooting (e.g. wiki stopped responding / failure to save comments / overwriting of comments)<br />
  6. 6. Method<br />For this qualitative study, two methods of data collection are/will be used:<br />(i) Wiki material;<br />(ii) Semi-structured individual and group interviews with all Ss, to be conducted after the course is finished; <br />
  7. 7. Feedback<br />Feedback revolved around Ss’ experiences in dealing with CMC for this language course and their views on its advantages and drawbacks. <br />
  8. 8. Sample<br />n=10 students, all Greek-speaking<br />Year of study: 3rd/4th<br />Study orientation: non-homogeneous sample; <br />Sscame from various University Schools:<br /> Classical Studies X 4<br /> Turkish Studies X 2<br /> Sociology X 1<br /> Physics X 1<br /> Greek Philology X 2<br />
  9. 9. Pedagogical contract<br />A minimum of 14 entries/S were required<br />All Ss should try to contribute to the wiki individually, both by posting as well as by commenting on other Ss’ views <br />Personal posts had to be at least 100 words long / comments on others’ posts at least 50 words long<br />Deadlines should be kept regarding posting of comments <br />
  10. 10. Pre-task<br /><ul><li>Account creation
  11. 11. Experimentation with ghost wiki page (a how-t0 tutorial)</li></li></ul><li>Session 1<br />i. Sshad to pick their favorite film <br />ii. …Post a comment regarding their chosen film<br />iii. …Comment at least once on every other post (critical writing)<br />
  12. 12. Session 2<br />i. …Post a comment on their favorite character from the film<br />ii.…Comment at least once to at least 2 other posts (critical writing)<br />
  13. 13. Session 3<br />Anonymous entries<br />i. …Post a comment on <br />a. using the wiki for class purposes <br />b. their perceptions on the use of technology in education (critical writing)<br />
  14. 14. Corpus<br />Number of students registered: 10<br />Number of participants: 9<br />Days the wiki ran: 15<br />Number of total hits: 720<br />Average number of hits: 48/day, approx. 65/student<br />Number of posts: 139 (135 from students)<br />Average number of posts/student: 15<br />
  15. 15. Wiki Views<br />
  16. 16. Wiki Messages<br />
  17. 17. Results – Sessions 1&2<br />Writing level: very good<br />Syntax: Very few mistakes<br />Certain competency was expected with particular sample. Results with 1st/2nd year Ss may differ.<br />
  18. 18. Results – Session 3<br />Overall, Ss were caught between technology use (new to them) and f2f contact (more comfortable/had more experience with)<br />
  19. 19. Perceived advantages of the wiki<br />helpful <br />easy way to share information/ideas<br />any time/anywhere, hence no pressure<br />saves travel time/costs<br />fun <br />gives benefit to T to explain things easily <br />constructive<br />rewarding <br />
  20. 20. Positive comments<br />‘really interesting that we can use Internet in an educational way’ <br />‘Ss develop the ability of using the internet as well as distance learning skills’. <br />‘new experience, will help us in the future’ <br />‘TLG is part of our lives. We have to customize our learning environment according to new available TLG tools’. <br />‘crucial to get informed about new TLG advances’<br />‘grateful that at least partly the university implements TLG in its classes’ <br />
  21. 21. Perceived disadvantages of the wiki<br />I. Socialization & Interpersonal contact<br />‘can not replace personal contact with classmates/Ts’<br />‘one way of estranging people’ / ‘contributes to alienation’. <br />‘against developing human relations’ / ‘no socialization’<br />‘personal communication in classroom is more efficient’ <br />
  22. 22. Perceived disadvantages (cont.)<br />II. Lesson quality<br />‘interaction sometimes seems the only way to avoid mistakes and comprehend difficult aspects of the lesson’ / ‘f2f is better and easier for us to communicate and solve some Qs’<br />‘we can’t see our classmates’ expressions when they write; sometimes something may ‘sound’ bad; misunderstandings may arise’<br />
  23. 23.
  24. 24. Perceived disadvantages (cont.)<br />III. The Wiki as an instructional tool<br />‘New technology’ / ‘Haven’t used it before; need time to adjust to it’<br />‘I prefer lesson as I’ve known it since I was in primary school’<br />‘Didn’t know we could use wikis for classes’ <br />‘No one taught us this before’ / ‘Ss should receive training on this’<br />
  25. 25. Quality of study<br />Qualitatively, the project was positively perceived<br />Being a pedagogical activity, the wiki is not a ‘‘real-life’’ one. However, interactions were meaningful because, based on level/quality of participation, they made sense for the learners who were fully engaged in the writing process/interactions (cf. Mompean, 2010)<br />
  26. 26. Conclusions<br />Small scale project, and learning context (FL course / writing tasks) was critical to outcomes<br />Hence, no great claims about generality of findings can be made.<br />Study needs to be replicated using larger numbers of Ss<br />Results show internal consistency<br />Key points are not discipline-specific, thus I consider them valuable for the wider LL&T community.<br />
  27. 27. Conclusions<br />Consensus that CMC can be put in great use in the FL classroom. However, not everyone feels comfortable using it because: <br />it is a relatively innovative development<br />of a lack of training<br />a number of Ssare accustomed to more traditional learning methods<br />
  28. 28. Suggestions<br />Further training of both instructors and students in CMC<br />Gradual implementation of CMC in the EFL curriculum (blended approach) <br />More user-friendly virtual environments to help novices<br />
  29. 29. Follow-up<br />Open-ended interviews are scheduled after the course ends in May to triangulate findings<br />Study to be replicated during Fall semester 2011 with larger samples of 1st/2nd year Ss in order to (a) try and replicate findings and, (b) see whether year of study has any bearing on perceptions<br />
  30. 30. References<br />Cole, M. (2009) Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, 52, 141–146.<br />Kessler, G. (2008) Student-Initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative learning. ReCALL, 20(1), 35-54. <br />Lund, A. (2008) Wikis: a collective approach to language production. ReCALL20(1), 35-54.<br />Su, F. and Beaumont, C. (2010) Evaluating the use of a wiki for collaborative learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(4), 417-431.<br />Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., and Wheeler, D. (2008) The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British J of Educational Technology, 39(6), 987-995.<br />

×