Interactive Whiteboards in Language Education: Criteria for the Evaluation of IWB Materials

324

Published on

Paper presented at EuroCALL 2012, Gothenburg, Sweden.

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
324
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Interactive Whiteboards in Language Education: Criteria for the Evaluation of IWB Materials

  1. 1. Developing criteria for the design and evaluation of interactive whiteboard based materials: Intermediate findings from the iTILT project Euline Cutrim Schmid, Sanderin van Hazebrouck, Margret Oberhofer – EUROCALL 2012 www.itilt.eu
  2. 2. Overview www.itilt.eu • IWBs in education • IWBs in language teaching The Current Situation • Aim of the project, Partners, Duration iTILT – Interactive Technologies in Language Teaching • IWB training, Data collection, Website Development of the Project • Motivation • Theoretical Framework • Methodology • Criteria Defining Criteria for IWB Materials Design Conclusion
  3. 3. The Current Situation www.itilt.eu
  4. 4. IWBs in Education www.itilt.eu  General trend towards more ICT in schools across Europe  Clear increase of IWB sales 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 2010 2011 Belgium Netherlands UK Future Source, 2010
  5. 5. IWBs in language teaching www.itilt.eu Rapid increase of IWBs Limited teacher training materials and support for the design, evaluation and implementation of IWB- based materials for the FL classroom
  6. 6. IWBs in language teaching www.itilt.eu • development of training models • examples of good practice • Train language teachers to become confident users of the IWB technology and remain consistent with current models of language teaching methodology Need Aim Gray et al., 2007; Cutrim Schmid, 2010
  7. 7. www.itilt.eu Clear need for professional training and pedagogical resources to assist teachers in exploiting IWB in the foreign language classroom
  8. 8. iTILT – Interactive Technologies in Language Teaching www.itilt.eu The Project
  9. 9. www.itilt.eu iTILT Project Aim Partners Duration
  10. 10. Aim of the iTILT project www.itilt.eu Helping language teachers make the most of interactive whiteboards • produce effective IWB training materials for language teachers • inform teachers of IWB best practice based on research • provide a support network for teachers and schools • bring together teachers from all sectors (primary, secondary, vocational, tertiary) of education • encourage the sharing of example lesson plans and resources • promote reflective practice with IWBs
  11. 11. Website www.itilt.eu The final website will contain:  Video clips of IWB classroom episodes  Comprehensive training manual  Training materials in 6 different languages  List of publications on IWB in language education  Links to helpful websites  List of criteria for materials design
  12. 12. Partners www.itilt.eu Coordinator
  13. 13. www.itilt.eu
  14. 14. Duration www.itilt.eu January 2011 April 2013
  15. 15. www.itilt.eu Development of the project IWB Training Data Collection Website
  16. 16. IWB Training www.itilt.eu Aimed for language teachers • emphasis on communicative language teaching • explanation of strategies and procedures for designing and implementing effective IWB materials Training Resources • Designed for teaching different languages (EN, CY, FR, ES, TR, NL) • various educational contexts (primary, secondary, vocational and higher education) • organized around the four skills, speaking, listening, reading and writing and vocabulary and grammar teaching
  17. 17. The iTILT Training Manual www.itilt.eu  introduction to IWBs  general tips on how to make the best use of interactive whiteboards  criteria for the design and evaluation of IWB-based language teaching materials  tips for the implementation and copyright issues of IWB based material  examples of activities for teaching speaking, listening, writing and reading with an IWB, plus grammar and vocabulary
  18. 18. Electronic Flipcharts www.itilt.eu • description of the activity and steps to be taken by teacher and students activity • aim of the activity • learning goalsaim • explains how the flipchart was designeddesign • potential of the activity in comparison to former methods potential
  19. 19. Data Collection www.itilt.eu teacher interviews video stimulated reflection learner reflections group interviews with 4-5 students class filming 2 visits to 6 teachers in 7 partner countries
  20. 20. Website – Learning Objects www.itilt.eu Learning object video clip and short description Teachers‟ and students„ comments teaching resources (e.g. flipchart)
  21. 21. Website www.itilt.eu • More than 200 learning objects • 6 languages (EN, CY, FR, ES, TR, NL) • different educational sectors L E A R N I N G O B J E C T S
  22. 22. www.itilt.eu
  23. 23. www.itilt.eu
  24. 24. www.itilt.eu
  25. 25. Defining the Criteria for IWB Materials Design www.itilt.eu
  26. 26. Why the Focus on Criteria for IWB Materials Design? www.itilt.eu  The lack of appropriate materials for the interactive whiteboard (IWB) from publishing houses leads to an increasing responsibility for teachers as materials designers.  Research findings have shown that the technology has mainly been used by language teachers to support stepwise knowledge building, mainly through the use of drill and practice exercises.  Lack of a design framework that focuses specifically on IWB materials for language teaching.
  27. 27. Why the Focus on Criteria for IWB Material Design? www.itilt.eu  Aim of the iTILT project to support:  teacher autonomy: criteria help support reflection on others' and own current teaching materials  teacher experimentation: criteria help teachers get started making their own materials  teacher exchange and collaboration: criteria allow teachers to check whether resources they might consider submitting to the project website are likely to constitute an effective contribution
  28. 28. Criteria as guidelines www.itilt.eu  for the design of digital materials that exploit the IWB technology as an effective tool for:  a) facilitating the structuring and visualisation of concepts and ideas  b) assisting learners in engaging with and understanding complex subject matter and  c) enhancing classroom interaction
  29. 29. Theoretical Framework www.itilt.eu
  30. 30. Theoretical Framework www.itilt.eu  Interaction - essential role played by pedagogical materials in creating opportunities for enhanced interaction, collaboration and negotiation of meaning - Pica, 1994; Long, 1996; Müller-Hartmann, 2000  Desired features of tasks - Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth (2011) Task features that support language learning:  Motivate learners to get involved  Complexity  Focus on form  Problem-solving in interactive scenarios
  31. 31. Methodological Principles of Task-Based Learning – Doughty and Long (2003) www.itilt.eu 1. Use tasks, not texts, as the unit of analysis 2. Promote learning by doing 3. Elaborate input (do not simplify, do not rely solely on “authentic” texts) 4. Provide rich (not impoverished) input 5. Encourage inductive (chunk) learning 6. Focus on form 7. Provide negative feedback 8. Respect “learner syllabi” / developmental processes 9. Promote cooperative / collaborative learning 10. Individualize instruction (according to communicative needs and psycholinguistically)
  32. 32. www.itilt.eu Criteria for CALL Task Appropriateness - Chapelle (2001) Language-learning potential The degree of opportunity present for beneficial focus on form. Learner fit The amount of opportunity for engagement with language under appropriate conditions given learner characteristics. Meaning focus The extent to which learners‟ attention is directed toward the meaning of the language. Authenticity The degree of correspondence between the CALL activity and target language activities of interest to learners out of the classroom. Positive impact The positive effects of the CALL activity on those who participate in it. Practicality The adequacy of resources to support the
  33. 33. Literature on IWBs in Education www.itilt.eu The IWB literature on material design has focused on the following aspects (Jewitt et al, 2007):  Multimodality: harnessing a wide range of multimodal resources in order to facilitate pupil learning (Levy, 2002; Ball, 2003; Kennewell,2004).  Pace: increasing the pace and efficiency of classroom delivery and therefore best use of teacher time (Ball, 2003; Miller, 2003; Becta, 2004; Smith et al., 2005).  Interaction: enhancing interactive whole-class teaching (Glover & Miller, 2001; Ball, 2003; Becta, 2004; DfES, 2004). Jewitt et al., 2007
  34. 34. Development of the Criteria www.itilt.eu
  35. 35. Development of the Criteria www.itilt.eu  Phase 1: a set of 10 criteria were included in the training manual  criteria mainly drawn from previous research on IWB use in language education (Cutrim Schmid, 2011)  Phase 2: The initial set was further developed into 35 criteria, divided into 5 key areas.  - These criteria were based on:  analysis of video clips and materials developed by iTILT data partners and  teachers‟ feedback during training workshops  Phase 3: validation of the criteria in subsequent stages of the project via a survey  questionnaires administered to experts in two or more rounds (experienced practitioners and IWB researchers)
  36. 36. The Survey www.itilt.eu  The criteria are divided into five key areas: methodological principles, pedagogical activities, learner engagement, tools and features, and practical considerations.  Participants decide on the importance and relevance of the criteria by awarding them a mark from 1 (not important at all) to 5 (extremely important).  At the end of each of the sections participants will also be asked if they feel any criteria have been omitted from this list, or if a criterion needs to be reformulated.
  37. 37. Examples of Criteria www.itilt.eu
  38. 38. Criteria for the design of IWB-based Material www.itilt.eu Materials promote learning by doing as opposed to lecture content Materials allow learners to demonstrate understanding and help teachers to evaluate learning Materials create opportunities for learners to assess their own performance without teacher intervention Methodological Principles
  39. 39. Criteria for the design of IWB-based Material www.itilt.eu Activities have a clear language learning objective; they are not only designed for enjoyment Materials provide linguistic and/or cognitive support to help learners understand input Materials provide linguistic and/or cognitive support to maximise learners' language production Pedagogical Activities
  40. 40. Criteria for the design of IWB-based Material www.itilt.eu Materials include topics and activities which are likely to motivate learners Materials allow adequate space for learner experimentation and discovery, or inductive learning Learners' class contributions can have an impact on how the lesson unfolds Learner Engagement
  41. 41. Criteria for the design of IWB-based Material www.itilt.eu The materials include audio, visual and/or tactile input to support teaching and learning Pages and files are not overloaded with too much information or too many different stimuli which may overwhelm learners IWB tools (e.g., spotlight) and features (e.g., drag and drop) are used not only to support physical interactivity with the IWB, but also cognitive interactivity with learning content Tools and Features
  42. 42. Criteria for the design of IWB-based Material www.itilt.eu The materials represent an efficient use of teacher time in terms of preparation versus classroom use Instructions are included which allow other teachers to quickly understand the intended learner level, objectives, and implementation of activities The level of technological sophistication of the materials is appropriate to the technology available in class (connectivity, equipment, software) Practical Considerations
  43. 43. Conclusion www.itilt.eu
  44. 44. Conclusion www.itilt.eu Such objective is best accomplished through the examination of pedagogical practice , in close collaboration with teachers and in this way strengthening the link between theory, research and practice. The development of criteria for the design and evaluation of IWB- based materials is seen as an important element of this overall objective. The overall aim of the iTILT project is to assist teachers in exploiting the IWB in ways that are consistent with current models of foreign language teaching methodology.
  45. 45. Thank you for your attention Do you have any questions? www.itilt.eu
  46. 46. References www.itilt.eu Chapelle, Carol A. (2001), Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cutrim Schmid, Euline (2010). Developing competencies for using the interactive whiteboard to implement communicative language teaching in the English as a Foreign Language classroom. In Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 159- 172. Routledge Cutrim Schmid, Euline (2009). The Pedagogical Potential of Interactive Whiteboards 2.0. In Thomas, M. (Ed) The Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning. IGI Global, USA Doughty, C. & Long, M.H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and technology 7, 50-80 Gray, C, Pilkington, R, Hagger-Vaughan, L and Tomkins, SA. (2007). Integrating ICT into classroom practice in modern foreign language teaching in England: making room for teachers’ voices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30 (4), 407-429 Jewitt, Carey; Moss, Gemma & Cardini, Alejandra (2007), Pace, Interactivity and Multimodality in Teachers' Design of Texts for Interactive Whiteboards in the Secondary School Classroom. In: Learning, Media and Technology 32 (3), 303- 317.University of London, UK Long, Michael (1996), The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In: Ritchie, William C. & Bhatia, Tej K. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Academic Press. Miller, D & Glover, D. (2009). Interactive Whiteboards in the web 2.0 classroom. In: Thomas, M. Handbook of research on Second Language Leraning. IGI Global, USA. Müller-Hartmann, Andreas & Schocker-von Ditfurth, Marita (2011), Teaching English: Task-Supported Language Learning. Paderborn: UTB/Schöningh. Pica, Teresa (1994), Research on Negotiation: What Does it Reveal about Second-language Learning Conditions, Processes, and Outcomes? In: Language Learning 44 (3), 493-527. Reinders, Hayo & White, Cynthia (2010), The Theory and Practice of Technology in Materials Development and Task Design. In: Harwood, Nigel (Ed.), English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58-80. Wall, K., Higgins, S. & Smith, H. (2005). The visual helps me understand the complicated things: Pupils’ views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology 36(5), 851-867
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×