Pre-service teachers views of technology for teaching and learning foreign languages


Published on

Shona Whyte; EuroCALL CMC & Teacher Education SiG workshop, Barcelona, April 2011

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

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

No notes for slide
  • \n
  • \n
  • An example of resistance to technological/pedagogical innovation\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • “teachers” are pre-service teachers; little classroom experience\n
  • I’m going to distinguish teachers, who are graduate students in teacher training programmes, but have generally no teaching experience yet, and students, who are undergraduates majoring in English (literature/culture or media/culture).\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • 6 questions about first and second language learning: no differences between groups. For L1, everybody believes imitation plays an important role, correction less. IQ not a factor, but motivation is; L1 transfer is a major source of learner error and an early start is good.\n
  • 6 questions about second language teaching: differences between language teachers and language majors. Undergraduate language majors are most wedded to PPP and error correction, English teachers least. These teachers plus SLA group least likely to find groupwork problematic. \n
  • Differences between language & science teachers least convinced that teaching = learning; primary teachers most.\n
  • All students had classes which used technology (class website, e-mail) but only those in classes with specific ICT objectives considered they had worked a lot online; only the non-ICT English undergraduates perceived teacher e-mail contact as frequent.\n
  • Most groups were confident in their basic internet skills\n
  • Differences in ICT skills before and after classes: most students could make a ppt, half felt they could help others with ICT. They learned how to create accounts on certain sites, to make wikis and embed, and make slides with audio\n
  • ICT classes learned most, especially the English majors\n
  • English Teachers learned most\n
  • EFL ICT class started lowest and made most progress\n
  • EFL ICT class started lowest and made most progress\n
  • EFL ICT class started lowest and made most progress\nAbility to help someone evidence of self-efficacy belief in own ICT skills\n
  • EFL ICT class started lowest and made most progress, but still reluctant to rate ICT skills highly. They learned to use Audacity, make slidecasts, make own wikis and embed videos/slides. Also learned to help others. Self-efficacy estimations don’t change quickly. \n
  • \n
  • Language students are less convinced of the utility of ICT tools, unless they have training. Non-language teachers seem slightly less sure of their utility for the learners directly, rather than via teachers.\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • Pre-service teachers views of technology for teaching and learning foreign languages

    1. 1. EUROCALL CMC & Teacher Education SIG, Barcelona, 14-15 April 2011 Pre-service teachers views ontechnology for teaching and learning foreign languages Shona Whyte University of Nice, France
    2. 2. changes in the language classroom‣ more learners (younger,more diverse)‣ more generalist teachers‣ insufficient training‣ more technology
    3. 3. what we knowabout teacher Beauchamp & Kennewell cognitions Borg‣ classroom practice affectedby beliefs and experience(not just training)‣ technical interactivity ≠pedagogical interactivity‣ procedural (not justtheoretical) training required Feryok
    4. 4. mis mat ch pedagogicalrecommendations ≠ classroom implementation
    5. 5. teacher cognitions FL teaching ICT
    6. 6. Teacher cognition & technology research context and methodology preliminary findings tentative conclusions
    7. 7. Research context & methodology
    8. 8. subjects137 graduate/undergraduatestudents in 7 classes71 questionnaire responses32 volunteers (e-mail addresses)11 interviews
    9. 9. method12 week semester (October-December)online questionnaire (after class, beforegrades; December/January)preliminary data analysis (February)follow-up interviews (March)
    10. 10. subject profiles5 groupsteachers - graduate teacher trainees(English, primary, science)students - undergraduate Englishmajors (literature or media/culture)
    11. 11. EFL teachers (ICT class) pre-service secondary EFL teachers second of 2-year graduate training 25 students programme19 respondents contact class in IT for FL teaching 10 volunteers online component involved group wikis and creation of online teaching/learning 3 interviews resources future teaching is secondary EFL
    12. 12. Primary Teachers with TEFL pre-service primary teachers 34 students second year of 2-year graduate training programme for generalist primary school15 respondents teachers 5 volunteers course on FL pedagogy for young learners 1 interview teacher used videoprojection, Google site, Ss sent e-mail attachments future teaching includes FL classes, but not priority
    13. 13. Science teachers (contact/distance) pre-service secondary science teachers 26 students first of 2-year graduate training programme contact and distance EFL classes with13 respondents technology (videoconference, filmed 5 volunteers student ppt presentations) 2 interviews future teaching does not include FL (distance students will teach distance courses)
    14. 14. English undergraduate (ICT) undergraduate English majors first/third year of 3-year English 43 students programme17 respondents contact class in ICT for FL learning 7 volunteers online component involved blogs and group wikis 2 interviews future careers do not involve teaching (journalism, translation)
    15. 15. English undergraduate (SLA) undergraduate English majors 9 students third year of 3-year English programme7 respondents contact classes in learning theory and SLA 5 volunteers teacher used videoprojection, Google site, Ss sent e-mail attachments 3 interviews future careers may include FL teaching
    16. 16. summary English English English Primary Science ICT ICT SLA teachers teachers teachers studentsEnglish Y Y Y ? N ICTtraining Y Y N N ?Teaching Y N ? Y Y
    17. 17. summaryEnglish English Primary Science English ICT ICT teachers teachers SLAteachers students ET PT ST EST ESS
    18. 18. Findings cognitions about1. language learning/teaching2. own ICT use/skills3. ICT for language learning/teaching
    19. 19. student profileAge: 62% < 25 years oldEffort: 85% good attendance (57% tried hard)ICT use: 91% e-mail; 79% films/seriesICT skills: 25% rated 4 or 5/5 (“expert”)SL beliefs: 72% teacher correction
    20. 20. Cognitions abut FL EFL Teachers ICT Primary Teachers (EFL) learning Science Teachers English students ICT English students SLA100 75 50 25 0 L1 imitation L1 correction Intelligence Motivation Early start L1 transfer L2 Lightbown & Spada, 1999
    21. 21. Cognitions about FL EFL teachers ICT Primary teachers (EFL) teaching (1) Science Teachers English students ICT English students SLA100 75 50 25 0 PPP is the best approach error correction is essential group work provides “junky data” Lightbown & Spada, 2000
    22. 22. Cognitions abut FL EFL teachers ICT Primary Teachers (EFL) teaching (2) Science Teachers English students ICT English students SLA 100 93 75 50 57 47 48 25 31 0 students learn what they are taught
    23. 23. All students Cognitions about EFL teachers ICT English students ICT ICT class experience English students SLA100 75 50 25 0 I did a lot of work online I had a lot of e-mail contact with the teacher
    24. 24. EFL Teachers ICT Cognitions about Primary Teachers (EFL) Science Teachers basic internet skills English Students ICT English students SLA100 75 50 25 0 find websites find audio + video e-mail download freeware
    25. 25. Cognitions about learning of ICT skills After class, I can ppt sign up Before class, I could 90 21 46 Audacity embed67.5 15 51 55 68 45 42 56 45 4422.5 23 18 19 17 0 help wiki slidecast
    26. 26. Creating an account (Google sites, 75 After class, I can 27 Before class, I could 46 60 50 58 54 46 42 44 71 25 29 29 0 0 ET PT ST EST ESS All
    27. 27. After class, I can Making a slideshow (ppt) Before class, I could100 15 6 7 85 86 75 80 21 68 50 58 42 25 29 0 0 ET PT ST EST ESS All
    28. 28. After class, I can Making a slidecast (slides + audio) Before class, I could100 75 50 13 24 38 25 42 100 0 27 23 29 14 0 19 0 ET PT ST EST ESS All
    29. 29. After class, I can Create a wiki Before class, I could100 75 50 65 45 25 89 31 11 47 0 8 35 0 23 0 ET PT ST EST ESS All
    30. 30. After class, I can Help someone with an ICT problem Before class, I could 90 1867.5 15 45 42 71 60 62 5622.5 42 43 0 0 0 0 ET PT ST EST ESS All
    31. 31. ET PTSelf-efficacy in ICT skills ST EST ESS All40 3930 29 27 2520 16 1410 0 ET PT ST EST ESS All I’m an expert user (4 or 5/5)
    32. 32. ICTskills English ICT English ICT English teachers students studentsproficiency L H Lachievement H H Lself-efficacy L H L
    33. 33. ICT and FL learning/teachingmajority of respondents saw positive role for ICT for teacher(70-100% agreement, 0-15% disapproval on 7 questions)primary and science teachers were less enthusiastic regardinglearner autonomy (13-20% disagreement on 2 questions;non ICT English majors were more sceptical about utility of theinternet and Web 2.0 tools for learner autonomy andmotivation
    34. 34. Conclusions - FL teaching preference for structural syllabus and teacher-fronted classes views change with training central teacher role particularly important to primary teachers
    35. 35. Conclusions - ICTpositive view of ICT for languageteaching/learningICT more useful to teacher than learnerpersistently low self-efficacy for ICT use
    36. 36. integrated training • FL • ICT • classroom practice
    37. 37. Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impacton learning. Computers & Education, 54, 759-766.Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice.London: Continuum.Feryok, A. (2010). Language teacher cognitions: Complex dynamic systems? System,38, 272-279.Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999).  How languages are learned.  Oxford: OxfordUniversity PressWhyte, S. (2011). Learning theory and technology in university foreign The case of French universities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 10(2), 213-34.Whyte, S. (to appear). Learning to teach with videoconferencing in primary foreignlanguage classrooms. ReCALL.