Student Teacher roles in 3D world projects in modern language and teacher education


Published on

Presentation for my paper contribution to the SITE conference 2013 in New Orleans

  • 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
  • SL superior to other CMC insofar as it provides “ a sense of place” which makes learning and indeed socializing in a virtual world a more human experience than many other online environments (Erard 2007) >> social presence Language a resource for doing things & engaging in meaningful co-activity >> these are precisely the contexts that are difficult to create in FL classrooms. Students are cooperatively engaging in event driven scenarios.
  • Student Teacher roles in 3D world projects in modern language and teacher education

    1. 1. Exploring student teacher roles in 3D world projectsin modern language and teacher education    SITE 2013 Conference, New Orleans  Ton Koenraad, TELLConsult
    2. 2. 1990 – 2011 2011 – presentHogeschool Utrecht TELLConsultUniversity of Applied Sciences Technology EnhancedFaculty of Education Lifelong & Language Learning 2005
    3. 3. Presentation Contents• 3D in Language education & teacher training:• Educational context + 2 project cases• Evaluations / Conclusions• Future
    4. 4. Educational context• Innovation of mainstream education:  introduction of activating, learner-centered pedagogy• Introduction of competency-based curricula in Higher  and Vocational Education -- Partnerships to create  Learning Blends• Modern Language Pedagogy:  - gradual adoption of task-based approaches  - introduction of CEFR-related curricula & national  exams• Individualisation / heterogenity increases need for &  use of ICT-mediated materials and learning processes
    5. 5. The ViTAAL ProjectPARTNERSHIP: – 2 Secondary Schools:  PC College,  OSG West Friesland  – 2 Teacher Ed. Organisations:  Hogeschool Utrecht Hogeschool van Amsterdam – Educational service provider: CPS – National Edu Networks:  Surfnet & Kennisnet 
    6. 6. The ViTAAL Project• R & D for 3 Activity Formats: 1. Language Village:   training & testing2. Interactive narrativeLanguageQuest3. Events  and Fun Activities
    7. 7. Format 1: Virtual Language Village •Teachers • Student Teachers & Trainers •Fellow pupils Pupils
    8. 8. IRL, what is Languagevillage | Langueville | Sprachstadt ?• RL-simulation with physical props as scenes for everyday communicative situations• Teachers, native or competent speakers take on roles and/or assess.• Target group at 2ndary Schools: mostly beginner to intermediate level (CEFR: A1-A2)• A school-based, yearly event.
    9. 9. Virtual Language Village• Rationale: More practice of oral skills for RL language tasks• Design principles Blended approach: - techer-led f2f sessions & in-world sessions with fellow pupils and student mentors - using additional materials alligned to textbook in use - formative, in-world assessments by student teachers
    10. 10. Virtual Language Village: Organisation• Production / Mentor Team A’dam student teachers (n=18)• Materials: paper based prep. activities, CEF Level A1-A2 194 pp.• Participants 2 schools, 1 class each Age: 13-14 Student teacher mentored groups (size: n=3)
    11. 11. Format 2. LanguageQuest:an interactive detective story
    12. 12. The Interactive LanguageQuest• Rationale: Enhance the WebQuest concept using story development and embedding ‘live’ interaction• Design principles- LanguageQuest design criteria (Koenraad & Westhoff, 2003)- Competitive pupil teams (n=5)- teacher-coached f2f team sessions & in-world meetings with story characters (student mentors)- formal assessment of interim products & final team results by teacher
    13. 13. Interactive LanguageQuest: Organisation• Production / Actor Team A’dam student teachers (n=7)• Materials: - Original storyline, - CEF-based inputs & tasks ( A2 – B1) - specifically designed LQuest template• Participants - 1 school, 1 class Age: 16-17 - 1st year student teachers (n=7)
    14. 14. Evaluation & ResearchGeneral Focus: Feasibility• Proof of concept for Learning Blend: learning potential, added value, win-win?• Mapping of conditions• Materials & Activity design
    15. 15. Evaluation: Pupil perspective• Interesting, nice change • Did and learned equally little as in f2f lessons• Spent more time than usual after school hours • 3D world not very inviting (looks, interactive facilities)• Learned more: - vocab, • Technical (voice) & - talking about self, organisational problems ordering things, giving (partner presence) directions• More awareness of: • extension of the virtual - relevance of grammar / village needed: a wider pronunciation for variety of shops. communication - personal knowledge & skills gaps
    16. 16. Evaluation: Teacher perspective• Pupils enthusiastic, more • More class-based motivation & time on task, preparation time needed less inhibition for online sessions• More authenticity in • Success factors: tasks, language use: - timely delivery & quality of attention for accuracy prep materials - operational technology - teacher competences:• More opportunities for classroom management, ICT- differentiation & skills independent work • Allignment of class• Enjoyed working with new activities with student formats mentors agendas
    17. 17. Evaluation: Student teacher perspective• Great learning • Design task very time opportunity: consuming - designing materials - getting peer-feedback on design issues • Organisational problems: - pupil presence• Practicing teaching - teamwork skills: - giving feedback to pupils • Technical issues: - doing assessments - voice - AW- interface skills
    18. 18. Evaluation: Teacher educator perspective• Great chance for • Collaboration with linking theory to schools is vital practice • Current module is too• Implementation of demanding: further experiential learning phasing of curriculum in teacher ed. content • Critical trainer’s skills: - coaching student production teams - personal ICT / AW skills
    19. 19. (student) Teacher professional development for SCMC- (student)enhanced language teaching Teacher professionaldevelopment for SCMC enhanced and researchlanguage teaching and research
    20. 20. NIFLAR project aims• Exploring the added value of video-web communication (VWC) and virtual worlds (VW) for the development of intercultural communicative and competence in L2 Development of design principles for effective L2 tasks in VWC and VW• Learning Blend: Focus on language learners AND student teachers
    21. 21. Task aims for language learners and student teachers• Enhancing FL intercultural communicative competence (ICC):  authentic and fucntional NS – NNS interaction• Promoting pedagogical awareness on:  Intercultural communicative competence  Challenges and opportunities of VWC and/or VW by participation in task design and action research
    22. 22. Student teacher roles• task designers• task implementers• NS interlocutors• researchers of task effects: – on interaction – on language development – on intercultural development – on motivation• researchers of VLE-related challenges and pitfalls
    23. 23. Examples of tasks developed by pre-service teachers
    24. 24. Tasks in Second Life Task 1 Brilliant people! Brilliant people! -pre-task & task -pre-task & task --NS& FLL NS & FLL Scenarios: Scenarios: --Participantsgo to an Participants go to an appartment: look around, appartment: look around,exchange info, watch pictures, exchange info, watch pictures, eat and drink eat and drink -Decide where to go: cinema, -Decide where to go: cinema, Valencia, museum Valencia, museum -Describe aabrilliant person -Describe brilliant person
    25. 25. Meaningful interaction: task 1 Exchanging info Sharing info about pictures about appartmentExample Clips
    26. 26. Evaluation pre-service teachers• Use & implement SCMC-tools to enhance authentic interaction• Task design to promote ICC• Greater awareness of problems learners face in L2 communication• Support learners using pedagogical strategies & multimodal affordances of the specific environment.
    27. 27. Some student research findings1. task effects (CEFR grid): + on fluency and interaction -- on accuracy2. tool evaluation (surveys): + opportunities for authentic & functional interaction -- technical problems (lag / voice quality)3. teacher reflection (diary entries): + growth in task design, interaction & feedback skills -- skeptical on opportunities for future teaching practice
    28. 28. More info on:results, support & research