EUROCALL Teacher Education SIG Workshop 2010 Presentation Denyse Toffoli and Geoff Sockett


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • beliefs about teaching methodology beliefs about call
  • objective = improve our programme; case studies, comparative elements on small population
  • Context 356h  48h uses of ICTs Nathalie: interface yr1 / yr2 students fle tutoring
  • Compulsory pre-service courses 12h "Analysing language learning websites"  36h learning web software  In terms of Hubbard & Levy (2006) project-based CALL education, integrated throughout the degree programme. use of LMS (Dokeos) to access documents, submit work, but very few exchanges
  • Selection – neither the best nor worst; representative sampling ? objective = improve our programme; case studies, comparative elements on small population
  • Technological affordances can be related to didactic approaches From grammar-translation to task-based
  • Autonomy, choice, navigation Feedback from people and/or software (one option of feedback is to contact the webmaster) Association of sound, image, text to facilitate acquisition and reflect differing learning styles Contextualisation : a learning scenario which allows grammar to be learned functionally as part of cognitive tasks; Access to authentic resources Produce something (accomplish tasks) NA: letter to father christmas as an example of contextualisation of a task
  • Did she take FA as a model, basically to reproduce ?
  • Followed by fill in the blanks or mixed-up sentences, not linked to the stated subject nor to the preceding explanation. (ex "the subjet of the sentence" you have to fill the blanks with the correct verb
  • Experienced teacher with good mastery of linguistic phenomena; detailed and valid analysis (well-written) His essay and questionnaire show understanding of and leaning toward comm. Link to “saluer” for exos. Trial & error (HP matching exercises) word-order or crosswords with dictionary link Why is it not very communicative like this (neophyte web-editor; using simplest tools to meet course requirements)
  • Of the 11, 7 immediately coherent or even 11 to be fair to AC, who was stumped in his functional-notional appr. by technical limits We have more relevant feedback on what students are doing. When marking, I have more insight into "how does this work pedagogically"
  • Be more explicit about what they are doing as learners ( ie - how the analysis of tools course is task-based ) about specific learning effects that can be achieved through different types of tools ( ie - specific examples of HotPot feedback as learning, memorising, etc ) about scenarios Introduce appropriate software (eg: webquest templates, blog or chat tools, …) (pb = preparation for CML)
  • comparing
  • EUROCALL Teacher Education SIG Workshop 2010 Presentation Denyse Toffoli and Geoff Sockett

    1. 1. Teacher beliefs underlying novice CALL productions. A study of websites produced by pre-service language teachers/trainers Denyze Toffoli Geoff Sockett DLADL Université de Strasbourg
    2. 2. Research questions <ul><ul><li>How coherent are students’ approaches to teaching / learning when using CALL? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Web productions related to stated and implicit (essays) beliefs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How can we improve our instruction? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Do our courses prepare students to use CALL in their teaching? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Do students retain what we expect them to?  </li></ul></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Research approach <ul><ul><li>Qualitative: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Action research (inform & improve our practices) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Case studies (few students) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Comparisons (3 sources of information – depth) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Student web productions </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Student essays </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Questionnaire </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    4. 4. What we do in Strasbourg <ul><li>M1: Introduction to language education </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Methodologies and techniques of language teaching </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Introductions to CALL, research techniques, linguistics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Practice teaching (50 hrs) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>M2: Web design for languages (CML) </li></ul>
    5. 5. CALL components of M1 programme <ul><ul><li>  Analysing on-line CALL tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>12-hr task-oriented course </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>discovery of CALL tools (diversity) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>user introduction to LMS (Dokeos) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>compiling criteria for analysis </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>production = essay </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>12-hr initiation to HTML WYSIWYG editor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>on-line tutorial & teacher guidance </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>24-hr project to create a site </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>image, sound, exerciser, ftp software </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>production = on-line &quot;language&quot; site </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Methodology for this study <ul><ul><li>student selection (17/111) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ESSAYS (17) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>analysis of &quot;France Aventures&quot; </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SITES (14) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2nd term projects – websites </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>QUESTIONNAIRE (11) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>teaching methodology, place of CALL </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Questionnaire content <ul><li>10 questions about approach to teaching / learning languages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Methodes used </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Role of L1 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Errors & error correction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Johnson, 1992) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>5 questions about the role of CALL in language teaching </li></ul>
    8. 8. Teaching objectives about CALL <ul><ul><li>Technology needn’t dictate teaching approaches </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hyperlinks = simple HTML, but can be used both </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>to create an online grammar book or dictionary </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>to incite higher-order cognitive tasks (selecting, ordering, convincing) i.e.: webquests </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exercisers (MCQ, cloze, etc.) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>encourage drilling & memory work, </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>but can be used for discovery, especially with appropriate feedback (Higgins & Tatham 2003, Duchiron 2003, Bravard 2005) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Forums & chats </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>favour interaction, </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>but allow “legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave & Wenger, 1991) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Teaching objectives about CALL <ul><li>CALL can compensate some shortcomings of face-to-face instruction (Hirschsprung, 2005) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Access to authentic FL communication </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Optimisation of individual practice </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Progressive autonomy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Distance learning </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>CALL can capitalise on certain technical &quot;convergences&quot; with &quot;action-oriented&quot; pedagogies (Puren, 2009) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Project (group work) and autonomy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Information skills </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Access to authentic resources for tasks </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Online publishing of learning productions </li></ul></ul></ul>
    10. 10. 3 student case-studies <ul><li>SH: a consistent preference for communicative approaches; integration of tasks </li></ul><ul><li>SC: a consistent preference for grammar-based approaches </li></ul><ul><li>AC: a stated preference for communicative approaches; a translation-based website </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What happened? </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. SH: communicative & task-based <ul><li>Website </li></ul><ul><li>Beliefs (from questionnaire) </li></ul><ul><li>The goal of language learning is to communicate efficiently. </li></ul><ul><li>As a teacher I facilitate student interactions & manage classroom activities. </li></ul><ul><li>In my classes we </li></ul><ul><ul><li>solve problems in realistic situations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>act out situations and discuss topics </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Comparison of beliefs to production <ul><li>Her site </li></ul><ul><li>Pertinent animation & interesting content </li></ul><ul><li>Preparatory steps lead to tasks. </li></ul><ul><li>Most of the learning is informative (about francophonie) as opposed to language. </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback in exercises is inexistant, except for &quot;right / wrong&quot; reponses. </li></ul><ul><li>Her essay </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;The game mixes material with animation in a pertinent manner.&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;There is no real preparation for the tasks.&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;The student doesn't really have the opportunity to learn new things other than some cultural aspects.&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;It would be more pertinent to give clues or keys to the students, or even to encite them to try by not giving the answer.&quot; </li></ul>
    13. 13. Task orientation <ul><li>Essay </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Each stage of the journey consists of a task to be performed.&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;task&quot; appears 12 times in 3 pages. </li></ul>
    14. 14. Another example of task
    15. 15. SC: deductive grammar approach <ul><li>The goal of language learning is to memorise rules and examples in order to translate literary texts. </li></ul><ul><li>In my classes we work from written texts and grammars and work on translations and rules. </li></ul><ul><li>Beliefs (from questionnaire) </li></ul>
    16. 16. SC: comparing production to beliefs Essay: &quot;There are however no tools to explain the grammar points that need then to be applied to each exercise. ... It would be better to add explanations of grammar points presented before the exercises.&quot; &quot;Athough a help function is a necessary pedagogical tool, answers [to the exercises] should never be given.&quot;
    17. 17. AC: communicative preferences ; translation-based site <ul><li>Beliefs (from questionnaire) </li></ul><ul><li>The goal of language learning is to communicate efficiently. </li></ul><ul><li>As a teacher I facilitate student interactions. </li></ul><ul><li>In my classes we </li></ul><ul><ul><li>solve problems in realistic situations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>act out situations and discuss topics </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. AC: contrasting production with beliefs Essay &quot;… the presentation of 'authentic' and diversified situations&quot; &quot;communicative obectives (greetings, ordering, leave-taking in a restaurant), …&quot; &quot;Communicative goals of the site include lexical coherency, an ability to use rules of politeness. ...the site develops socio-cultural as well as linguistic skills.&quot; &quot;the exercises concern both pragmatic and linguistic knowledge.&quot;
    19. 19. What does this tell us? <ul><li>students’ approaches to teaching / learning with CALL are essentially coherent, whatever their approach may be. </li></ul><ul><li>pre-service teacher beliefs (about methodology) are formed more by their experiences as learners than by teacher training (Borg, 2006) </li></ul>
    20. 20. How can we improve our instruction? <ul><li>Facilitate integration of knowledge from general pedagogy courses into the CALL elements </li></ul><ul><li>Expose students to key examples of CALL in more depth </li></ul><ul><li>Consider pragmatic approach to CALL (such as Chapelle & Jamieson, 2008), rather than web-design </li></ul>
    21. 21. What about research methodologies on teacher education in CALL? <ul><li>Studying coherence across activities is a helpful way of assessing how well learners are grasping CALL pedagogy. </li></ul><ul><li>Contrasting different types of data requires the combination of a range of protocols </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluative criteria for CALL productions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Textual analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Teacher belief questionnaires </li></ul></ul>
    22. 22. Limits and future directions <ul><li>Sample size </li></ul><ul><li>Missing information (student background, profiles, …) </li></ul><ul><li>Reasons for apparent incoherence (more research necessary) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical overload </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on tools provided, not on pedagogy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of teaching experience </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of interest for future use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shaky didactic foundations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Confronting our own beliefs as teacher trainers </li></ul>
    23. 23. Bibliography Borg, S. 2006. Teacher cognition and language education: research and practice. New York: Continuum. Bravard S. 2005. USAGES PEDAGOGIQUES DES QCM : Un guide pour la mise en place d’un questionnaire à choix multiple. Chapelle, C. & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL . White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman. Duchiron, E. 2003. Les TIC dans l’enseignement / apprentissage des langues : Atouts, limites & exploitations potentielles du choix fourni. Juin 2003. Higgins, E. & Tatham, L. 2003, 2, 1. Exploring the potential of Multiple-Choice Questions in Assessment, Learning and Teaching in Action. Manchester: Hirschprung, N. 2005. Apprendre et enseigner avec le multimédia . Paris: Hachette. Hubbard, P. & Levy, M. 2006. Teacher Education in CALL. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: CUP. Johnson, K. 1992. &quot;Teachers' Beliefs Inventory – approaches to ESL instruction&quot; in Richards, J. & Lockhart, C. 1994. Reflective teaching in second language classrooms . Cambridge: CUP. Puren, C. 2009. &quot;Nouvelle perspective actionnelle et (nouvelles) technologies éducatives : quelles convergences… et quelles divergences ?&quot; Cyber-langues / APLV-Langues modernes :