Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Mobile Phones in Language Education
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Mobile Phones in Language Education

584
views

Published on

Presentation of Anglia Pilot on Mobile Phones in Language Education for GloCALL 2010 conference

Presentation of Anglia Pilot on Mobile Phones in Language Education for GloCALL 2010 conference

Published in: Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
584
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Using mobile phones forthe assessment of and fororal skills development in secondary education. Ton Koenraad Hogeschool Utrecht, University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Education TELLConsult
  • 2. Overview  Project context & goals  Pre-Pilot: set-up & research questions  Data collection  Results & conclusions  Next phase
  • 3. English for Kids Foundation “Voice for children” A, not -for-profit organisation
  • 4. " Voice for children " Every kid has a right to communicate. English is a good tool to communicate internationally.The English for Kids Foundation wants to promote the use of English to communicate internationally. We want to give children a voice.
  • 5. Projects are to meet thefollowing requirements:> long term target (3-5 yrs)> aimed at children> close co-operation withlocal organisations in theproject countries so thatactivities can be embeddedand be allowed to proceed
  • 6. EFKF projects:NicaraguaVery Young Cambodia Learners IndiaSurinam EDS South Africa Elandsdoorn Kenia Teacher support Gobabis Namibia
  • 7. www.englishforkidsfoundation.org www.efkf.org
  • 8. Anglia Network Europe www.anglianetwork.eu
  • 9. International context 15 European countries
  • 10. Step by step
  • 11. Examinations - 28 January - 15 April - 20 May - 24 June - Speaking Tests
  • 12. Why this Project? Anglia: flexibility / assessment of - sharing innovative speaking practice materials - delivery of formal language assessmentsEnglish for Kids: mobile as infrastructure,& schools assessment for: washback effect of testing
  • 13. Issues to be researched general organisation task and test design, teacher competences face & content validity aspects system usability Research design / instrument development
  • 14. Natural interface. Widely available. Familiar to students. Technology used as a tool – not “accessorizing education”. Also available on iPod Touch & Skype.Why use a phone? 20 20
  • 15. How it worksTeachers: Personal online workspace to set spoken questions/tasks. Questions are easy to set online by using a microphone or uploading audio files. Audio player allows teachers to review spoken work and leave feedback. Over time teachers establish a digital portfolio of student work. 21
  • 16. How it worksStudents: Connect using: Mobile phones iPod Touch Skype Landline Computer Access spoken exercises & leave voice responses. Connect with other students for role play. Personal online workspace to store work, listen & receive feedback. Listen to exemplar and sample questions posted by teachers. 22
  • 17. Pilot 2 secondary ed. EFL teachers 2 Anglia member schools Volunteer students (n= 20) Assessment: asynchronous, interview format Oral presentation skills
  • 18. Data CollectionInstruments Pupils TeachersPre- + +QuestionnaireRecordings + ++ Test scoresPost- +QuestionnaireStructured N=2 +InterviewReflections Developers
  • 19. Pre-Questionnaire:Learner Profiles (1) Aspect Group A Group B Group size 12 8 Girls 5 4 Boys 7 4 Avg. Age 13.5 13.5 Years of English 3 3 Attitude to Fairly Learning English positive Positive Average score 6.37 7.6 at Secondary
  • 20. Pre-Questionnaire: Learner Profiles (2) Aspect Group A Group BSpeaking Skills: Fairly good Good(Self reported) Like speaking in So, so Definitely class Actual speaking hardly Very frequentlyTelecollaboration at n/a Slightly more than school once Tel. Experience Very occasionally in projects n/a Tel. Experience seldom seldom IRL
  • 21. Pre-Questionnaire:Learner perceptions: L2 in class & IRL Aspect Group A Group B L2 in lessons Once in 3 Practically every lessons lessonAnswers /Discussion Only now (very) and then frequently Pairwork Hardly ever sometimes Use of English IRL 1. Chat in 1. Holidays, games 2. Chat in 2. Holidays games 3. Skype 3. Txt chat
  • 22. Assessment of Oral skills Aspect Group A Group B Assessed Tasks in All: 1 All: 3.5 2010School reports: Oral 35% ? 70% ? skills included?Expectations: Yes: 35% Yes: 60%Is tele-testing valid? ?: 55% ?: 40 %Post: Valid Yes: 60% 40%
  • 23. Topics Introduction/warming up Your holiday this year A good school Social networks A million euros The climate
  • 24. Post-Questionnaire (1) Aspect Group A Group BTechnically OK? Yes So, so Read Yes Sure InstructionsDifferent from Yes Yes expectation Questions: Hard to Idem, but complexity, remember, Speed OK speed, Speed bit fast, loudness, Not loud enough
  • 25. Post-Questionnaire (2) Aspect Group A Group BAnswer time left Yes Yes Expected Mark Just sufficient O.KProblem Topics Networks; 1M Euros Good School; Climate Test Location School School + home O.K. to do Yes, quite YesMore pleasant No Nowithout teacher
  • 26. Pupils’ Comments Time constraint is unnatural Was interrupted: new session needed Retries: worries about costs Questions could be louder Questions: peer voice is more inviting
  • 27. Teacher Perceptions System usability -System: fairly user-friendly Topics - More alignment with pupils‟ interests might be needed Validity -Content measured in time is less suitable as criterion when no interaction is possible - computer-based testing, as such, not perceived as unusual or unfriendly. - Retry option?
  • 28. Reviewing work online 34
  • 29. Teacher Perceptions Teacher competencies: - Knowledge of CEFR -> difficult, training / practice needed - Evaluation categories (content, accuracy, complexity, fluency.) useful; scoring doable in one session. But …would prefer a grading scale that results in a CEF-level: better match to Dutch current grade system
  • 30. Teacher perceptions Implementation - Use as practice material and preparation for speaking test. Actual testing: rather face-to- face - Gives students the opportunity to practice outside the classroom, extra practice - Chances for providing individualised feedback - May help reduce anxiety of insecure & shy students:
  • 31. Conclusions / next steps Improve briefing (demo, online tutorial) + raise awareness implications of re-tries Redesign questions (granularity) Try-out alternatives: - system access (landlines, computers) - content aligned to syllabus / textbook
  • 32. Conclusions Pupils, teachers & management have concerns about costs Also found in other projects: […] cost to the end user is a major consideration and can be a barrier to successful uptake when using mobile devices (Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2007)
  • 33. Thank you for your attention.Comments, Questions? www.koenraad.info Ton.Koenraad@gmail.com
  • 34. AnnexLiterature Selection Research data Learnosity
  • 35. Literature selection Collins, T. (2005). „English Class on the air: Mobile Language Learning with CellPhones‟, Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT‟05). http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/icalt/2005/23 38/00/23380402.pdf Fallahkair, S., Pemberton, L. & Griffiths, R. 2007. „Development of a cross-platform ubiquitous language learning service via mobile phone and interactive television‟. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23 (4), 312-325. Kukulska-Hulme, Agnes; Sharples, Mike; Milrad, Marcelo; Arnedillo-Sanchez, Inmaculada and Vavoula, Giasemi (2009). Innovation in Mobile Learning: A European Perspective. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), pp. 13–35.
  • 36. Literature selection (2) Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G. & Sharples, M. (2004). „Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning‟. FutureLab Report 11. http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_revie ws/Mobile_Review.pdf. Sharples, M. (Ed.). (2006). Big issues in mobile learning. Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative, University of Nottingham, UK. Shield, Lesley and Kukulska-Hulme, Agnes (2008). Special issue of ReCALL on Mobile Assisted Language Learning. Cambridge University Press. Thornton, P. & Houser, C. (2005). „Using mobile phones in English education in Japan‟. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, (3): 217-228.
  • 37. Pre-Questionnaire:Learner Profiles (1) Aspect Group A Group B Group size 12 8 Girls 5 4 Boys 7 4 Years of English 3 3Positive Attitude to 2.42 3.11 Learning English STD: 0.51 STD: 0.33 Average score 6.37 7.6 at Secondary STD: 0.9 STD: 1.7 Speaking Skills: 6.58 7.55 (Self reported) STD: 0.9 STD 0.68
  • 38. Pre-Questionnaire: Learner Profiles (2) Aspect Group A Group B Like speaking in 2.67 3.78 class STD: 0.78 0.44 Actual speaking 1.5 3.56 STD: 0.52 STD: 0.53Telecollaboration at n/a 2.0 school 0.0 Tel. Experience 1.38 in projects n/a STD: 1.0 Tel. Experience 1.83 1.44 IRL STD: 1.19 STD: 0.73
  • 39. Pre-Questionnaire:Learner perceptions: Oral L2 inclass Aspect Group A Group B L2 in lessons 2.1 5.0 STD: 0.50 0.0Answers /Discussion 2.2 / 1.6 3.9 / 3.2 Pairwork 1.6 1.9 English IRL 1. Chat in 1. Holidays, games 2. Chat in 2. Holidays games 3. Skype 3. Txt chat
  • 40. Assessment of Oral skills Aspect Group A Group B Assessed Tasks in All: 1 All: 3.5 2010Formal reports: Oral 35% ? 70% ? skills included?Is tele-testing valid? Yes: 35% Yes: 60% ? : 55% ?: 40 %Post: Valid Yes: 60% 40%
  • 41. Post-Questionnaire (1) Aspect Group A Group B Likert scale Disagree 1 Agree 4Technically OK? 2.43 1.8 STD: 1.13 0.84 Read 2.8 3.0 Instructions STD: 0.7 0.7 Different from 2.7 2.8 expectation STD: 0.76 1.3 Questions: Not loud enough idemcomplex, speed, Hard to Speed OK loudness, remember
  • 42. Post-Questionnaire (2) Aspect Group A Group B Likert scale Disagree 1 Agree 4Answer time left 3.4 3.2 STD: 0.5 1.1Expected Mark Just sufficient O.K STD: 1.4 1.1Problem Topics Networks; 1M Euros Good School; Climate Fun to do 2.8 2.4 STD: 0.4 0.9More pleasant 2.07 2.0without teacher STD: 0.6 1.0
  • 43. Speak. Listen. Learn. www.learnosity.com Twitter @learnosity

×