EUROCALL Teacher Education SIG Workshop 2010 Presentation Jean-Claude Bertin

581 views

Published on

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
581
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This presentation  consider the specificity of ICT integration into language teaching from a theoretical perspective and see how the traditional roles of language teachers have to evolve as a result of pedagogic innovation. The main stance of my presentation derives from a recent publication with my colleagues JPNC and PG. Although this book does not explicitly focus on teacher education and training, the approach we take helps me outline the main lines of changes involved in CALL and especially distance language learning.
  • I will start by a few introductory remarks from the social sciences and education. (Clic) 1. When technologies are introduced in an educational context, Annoot (2007) notices that the traditional model of teaching is relatively rarely questioned  innovation seems to proceed more significantly from the attention given to the new publics attracted by distance learning. (Clic) 2. The initial impact of technology sees to appear at process level (language learning in our case) as the computer technology marks a break in the traditional units of time and space (especially through distance learning and asynchronous learning). (Clic) 3. Distance opens institutions (and universities most significantly) to new publics (Clic) Annoot  it would be wrong to think that the evolving roles of teachers are only due to the ICT integration into the classroom. The new publics, the new actors involved in the computer-mediated pedagogic situation modify the teacher’s place in the system as well as in the pedagogic relationship. Public educational policies and the generalization of technology in our societies, as well as the emergence of new actors on the educational scene (including the growing focus on learners and learner autonomy) introduce new forms of control of teacher activity.
  • This approach is based on what I have called “didactic ergonomics”,  naturally start with a presentation of the concept and of the resulting model of computer-mediated Language Learning. I will then consider how the global model offers different points of entry into complexity  by considering the various types of mediation and interactions involving the teacher I will try to point out the variety of roles and the related competences and skills that teachers can be expected to develop. I will proceed in two different complementary steps: A focus on mediation and the various dimensions involved in computer-mediated and distance language learning; A focus on the systemic aspects of the situation and especially the main sub-systems that be outlined involving the teacher as well as the new emerging actors in the pedagogic situation As a result of this deconstruction, I will say a few words on the identification of specific roles, especially those of teacher and tutor In my conclusion  suggest a few perspectives for teacher training and education.
  • In order to make my point clear  start with a few basic reminders which form the basis of my epistemological stance. Approach I have suggested in the publication I mentioned  systemic Basically a system is oriented around a central PROCESS (in our case language learning) Process involves several actors playing different or complementary parts, as the case may be  they forms the components of the system, or the poles around which the model that describes it is organized. To understand the way the system works  necessary first to identify the nature of each of these components (= initial analytical perspective) A system is then defined by a number of interactions between these actors. The reason why these interactions develop is the implementation of the process. A further feature of a system : appearance of retroactions: The nature of each component is modified by the existence of their interactions 5. but the way we define the process itself also results in such modifications in the nature and roles of the actors.  In other words, a systemic approach is necessarily dynamic in nature. For example, if I agree on the definition of the learning process based on such keywords as « learner-centred », « learner autonomy », « learner interaction », or « task »  then clear consequences on the roles of each actor : I will not deal here with the history of language teaching methodologies, but this is what is at stake here. The choice of methodology contributes to define the roles of the actors. However, the introduction of a new pole such as technology, for example, may contribute to alter the perception of the process itself (see for example the return to some sort of neo-behaviourism to be seen in a number of CALL materials)…
  • Second basis of my approach : Edgar Morin’s « complex thought » Based on systemic perspective and on the idea that different systems may interact. Morin points to the fact that human knowledge is becoming more and more specialized in each distinct field. (Clic) Problem: each individual field tends to lose sight of the fact that the world is one (a global system)  therefore each field necessarily interacts with the others. Too much specialization leads to impoverishing common knowledge.  The researcher should accept to consider the complexity thus created rather than simplify things to make them more easily understandable. (Clic) Last important element of Morin’s perspective: if the world is complex (i.e. made up a large variety of components and interactions // complicated)  we also have to acknowledge the fact that we cannot develop an exhaustive knowledge of it.  accept the principle of uncertainty and integrate it in our theoretical descriptions. Practical consequences : my approach is necessarily interdisciplinary  interactions between disciplines and how these interactions can help us reduce uncertainty by merging or confronting perspectives, + help us develop a more comprehensive representation of our object. (Clic) the systemic perspective underlying the approach makes it necessary to consider the GLOBAL situation FIRST, then to deconstruct it in order to see how the various interactions define a number of roles and competences  in this sense, my epistemological position is emergentist in nature.
  • Introduction: the didactic ergonomics perspective that I have developed is an attempt to model the CALL situation in order to understand how its various component parts interact and to improve its pedagogic efficiency.  based on ergonomics = how a process can be instrumented and how the users can make be as efficient as possible. The model I have developed and refined thanks to an interdisciplinary approach is organized around 5 poles. The first three poles correspond to traditional representations of the learning situation (Houssaye 1988, Legendre 1988, Carré 1997)  language – learner – teacher. Have been widely discussed. The reason why these three poles start interacting  their relationship with the central language learning process. For this presentation, let me simply say that the process is defined in relation to the Task-Based approach (the learning cycle described by Narcy-Combes 2005, 2010): an articulation between a macro task orienting learner activity and interactions with the language and micro-tasks aiming at solving specific communication problems arising from the macro-task  A tentative combination of socioconstructivist and cognitivist theories of language learning. The specific case of Computer-mediated language learning makes it necessary to introduce a fourth component in the model: the technology pole. As for the former components, the nature of this pole has to be clearly identified… a new level of complexity as this pole is too often referred to in generic terms (“technology”, “computer”, “ICT”…) that in fact cover a wide array of realities (computer, generic and specific software, hardware, networks and the Internet…), and associated characteristics (multimedia, interactivity…). Further complexity is introduced by the fact that materials (or environments) may be designed with specific representations in mind by their designers/teachers… while the actual users (the learners) develop their own practices that may be driven by significantly different representations [J’Y REVIENS PLUS LOIN] A final question related to the technology pole may be: what do we do, what should be do with technology for language learning purposes? My work with colleagues from other disciplines (especially psycho-sociology and education sciences) has led me to add a fifth component in the model: the context , which makes every single situation specific . Definition of context is wide: from micro level (the actual learning situation) to a macro level constituted of national and European language and education policies. An intermediate level  the institution for which the learning environment is designed. When thinking about teacher education, it is important to bear in mind that the context both places constraints and opportunities on the teacher AND is liable to change as a result of the teacher’s will to initiate pedagogical innovation. Interactions are not necessarily limited to computer-mediated technological mediation! Direct interactions can also take place between the learner and the language (outside the formal language learning situation) and between learner and teacher (who may be physically present in the computer lab or during face-to-face sessions in the case of blended learning situations for example). To reflect real life situations, the model can be complemented by a number of other components that partly reflect the 5 original poles in the virtual reality of the screen ( a mirror image of the model) Peers A tutor (whose presence in the literature is widely acknowledged… while his role and “personality” are not always clearly distinguished from those of the teacher The tutor’s task can be facilitated by technological monitoring devices. The degree of information on learner activity provided by such devices contributes to define the actual role that the tutor can fulfil. The information provided by such devices may be used by teachers as well as by learner to adapt behaviours, activities and tasks so as to regulate the whole system. As teacher and learner clearly form two different users of the learning space, this must provide two types of interface matching the individual roles and needs of these users. What the model also contributes to identify is the distinction between the materials , the computer-mediated learning space and the global learning environment . The notion of environment (what the French refer to as “dispositif”) requires coherence (epistemological and pedagogic coherence). coherence between the institutional context and the cultural and language objectives of the course; coherence between the theoretical stance underpinning every single pole of the model as well as the process itself. (ex. difficult to imagine a behaviourist vision of the teacher’s role to co-exist with a cognitivist vision of learning !). This means that all implicit representations have to be made explicit when designing a language learning environment . In this sense the apparently central position of technology must not be understood as a technocentric vision of CALL (aim = integrating technology) but as a clear indication of its mediating function.  The interest of using this model for my approach of teacher education is that its systemic component can help construct the “teacher” pole in two different ways: The initial definition of his didactic role helps clarify the specific position of the teacher in a given context ; The identification of the network of interactions in which the teacher is involved and the resulting retroactions point to the evolutions that are made necessary for the whole environment to work efficiently. Using a model is the means by which we can reduce (if not totally solve) the problem of constructs : overcoming the epistemological barrier formed by existing representations (of language, of learning processes, of technologies, etc.). - Each set of interactions indicates what should be questioned - It does not however provide ready-made answers as we do not necessarily have a clear notion of the actual NATURE of these interactions.  This is why I believe that research is a necessary part of decision-making in the field of language policies and language teaching methodologies.
  • (clic) 1. « an individual’s knowledge is described as a personal construction mediated by teachers or peers. Distance [and technology] will not affect the individual’s construction of knowledge, but may make mediation and social interaction more complex » (Narcy-Combes 2010) Whatever the form of language teaching, then, what remains constant is the first level of mediation which I call “pedagogic mediation” (clic) 2. Pedagogic mediation : Three types of mediation involved (together with the related competences): Selection of tasks: macro tasks especially can be characterized in two ways : authenticity : should reflect ‘real-life activities’ (Ellis) should destabilize in some way the learner’s cognitive and language representations (cognitive conflict) Selection of input (language mediation): related to choice of metalanguage, choice of documents and sources to perform the task, type of language used in direct/computer-mediated exchanges,…). Follow-up : related to monitoring, error/problem diagnosis, type of feedback (in terms of contents, activities, metacognition…). (clic) 3. Pedagogic mediation in the model Competences involved in pedagogic mediation have largely been discussed and constitute the main body of traditional teacher training syllabi . The virtual learning space represented in grey  where the teacher’s role becomes “hidden” or “mediated” by the technology. (clic) 4. Second level of mediation  instrumentation of the language learning situation = “Technological mediation” This raises question of the role given to technology : is it used… as a result of external pressure? (technocentric perspective? institutional pressure? Existing learning space or environment (ex. Platform already present to be used by new teachers)? As a result of didactic intention? (teacher or institution-driven?) In all cases, decision-makers (teachers and/or management) should devote necessary time to matching pedagogic objectives with the pedagogic potential of the various forms of technology. Technology may indeed be seen both as a filter on pedagogy (it cannot totally replace man nor former technologies) and as an incentive to pedagogic innovation (the computer technology can be a source of teacher creativity). This means the teacher has to develop some degree of computer literacy (to be able to devise appropriate uses, to move from technological innovation to pedagogic innovation). Devising innovative uses of technology includes : Reflecting on the type of technology to be used (computer, networks, ready-made or customs-made materials…) Reflecting on the modes of teaching: face-to-face situations, distance or blended learning Reflecting on the function of the materials (complement to traditional courses or complete multimedia and/or distance courses).  teacher’s computer literacy is to be considered in direct relation to didactic competence. (clic) 5. A third level of mediation appears in the case of distance learning : mediation by distance Originally though as a extra “layer” of mediation… our interdisciplinary approach  consider it as what Lapassade (1971) and Petit (1991) called an “analyser” (clic) citation sur écran In our case: physical distance opens up onto further dimensions such as time distance (synchronous/asynchronous learning), social or again psychological distance. To compensate for these different dimensions, the teacher in charge of the learning environment has to make explicit as many elements in the learning situation that normally remain implicit. This need for explicitness = a source of evolution in the teacher’s roles.
  • These various dimensions of mediation can help us deconstruct the model into several subsystems, each of which points to specific roles of the teacher. Subsystem 1  teacher-oriented. Corresponds to the upper part of the model : Process around which subsystem revolves  organization of learning materials (tasks) and pedagogic / technological mediation within the learning space and environment (clic) Several types of competence required at different levels: course, task, materials and environment design This entails  capacity to use programming and/or authoring tools  the virtual learning space should ideally include an ergonomic teacher interface (i.e. adapted to his/her level of technical competence AND to the pedagogic depth* of the materials to be developed) * I call pedagogic depth the degree of elaboration of the resulting materials  correspond to the degree to which authoring tools make it possible to take advantage of the specific features of the computer technology. The question raised at the design phase is two-fold : Identifying what the computer can/cannot do Opting between merely transferring existing materials to thoroughly revisiting activities and documents to take into account the pedagogic potential of the computer This means  developing enough computer literacy (regularly updated) to feed his/her creativity. (see former slide) Another way of tackling this problem, which has been widely discussed in the literature  developing team work  in which case the teacher should also be a team organizer (if does not master enough technical skills, he remains the didactician who defines the pedagogic lines along which the materials will be developed). (clic) Technological mediation also means collecting enough information to be able to monitor learner activity and progress + to organize feedback (3rd component identified in pedagogic mediation) as well as regulation of the whole system.
  • Subsystem 2: learner-centred  corresponds to all interactions involved in language learning activities. Expected competences  depend on the nature of the teacher’s presence in this situation Physical presence of the teacher mediated / hidden by the screen  teacher present felt through pre-planned pedagogic sequence / choice of activities (Bertin 1998) Physical presence possible in case of blended learning or CMC situations  ex.: face-to-face meetings, lectures posted online (clic) What makes the distinction between the teacher-centred and the learner-centred sub-systems especially important is the absence of direct connection in time between them These two subsystems correspond to two different moments of the teaching situation : teacher-centred system  focuses on organization & planning  but the teaching act is as yet latent, virtual  embodied in materials and the provision of the traditional or technological tools forming the structure of the learning environment Learner-centred system  only enacted when the learner interacts with the materials within the learning environment. This may not necessarily in a synchronous relationship with task and materials preparation. Not only a question of synchronicity : distance learning may also introduce significant cultural differences due to the geographical distance involved. In other words the acts of teaching and learning are no longer to be considered in a linear perspective, but as different moments and places as well… Two main effects on the identification of teaching roles  planning materials implies a capacity to infer on potential pedagogic situations  no longer possible to ‘improvise’ when responding to unplanned situations. = illustration of the “analyzer” effect of distance (clic) The distinction between the two ‘moments’ of teaching and learning generates another distinction between the roles of teacher and tutor The main distinction at this point between teacher and tutor  their position in the learning situation : Teacher may appear to be the organizer of the whole learning environment (including the computer-mediated learning space)  the writer and the stage director of the pedagogic play  before, during and after the actual learning time. Tutor  appears only when learning takes place Distinction yet not so easy, and will be examined later in more detail  difference between teaching moment (intention-driven) and learning time (= practice) creates need for information and regulation  (next slide)
  • If the first two sub-systems correspond to two different moments / acts, they also reflect two different perspectives : Teacher’s perspective  pedagogy-driven + possibly theory-driven if research or experimental dimension present in the design of the learning environment.  Influenced by the teacher’s personal representations of the computer (varies largely in the community according to the level of technical mastery)  necessary to develop reflection on how technology may coincide with didactic intention. Learner’s perspective : actual practice largely depends on…  Individual representations of language learning (  influence of former experience)  Individual representations of the technology (  personal use of the computer largely independent of language learning representations – games, internet browsing,…) (clic) Result of this difference in perspectives: real practice does not necessarily coincide with didactic intention !! (Fischer 2006) For the whole system (learning environment) to be effective,  need to measure this gap to define system’s efficiency  Information needed on how the didactic potential of the environment implemented in actual use  monitoring device Degree of elaboration of this monitoring device defines the nature of follow-up made possible by teacher/tutor. It also defines to a large extent the capacity of the whole system to evolve (reminder : one of the essential features of a system  its dynamic nature (clic) What is at stake here is two-fold : The capacity of the monitoring device to generate information on learner activity The capacity of the teacher to process this information (not so easy with large groups !)  implies another question: the capacity of the computer to help the teacher/tutor process large quantities of information and make them usable (clic) usable for what ?  2 different objectives can be set for teacher/tutor follow-up At an individual level  trace learner activity for evaluation purposes or to provide appropriate feedback and support to individual learners At systemic level  help teacher/designer spot potential defects with the system and modify it accordingly (regulation function). What is not yet clear at his point  the extent to which the technology can provide support to the teacher/tutor (automatic data processing, intelligent tutors…)
  • As a result of preceding slides  need to come back on the identification of the respective roles of teacher and tutor Existing literature on language learning shows little if any distinction between teacher and tutor. Most often, the authors use either terms in the same context for example : Lamy & Hampel (2007, 61) : paragraph on teacher’s roles and skills begins by referring to.. “the tutor” ; Narcy-Combes (2010, 130) mentions that “ teachers can be course designers, materials designers, tutors, interlocutors, etc.” This is immediately followed by a description of TUTORS’ roles and skills. Authors in education sciences are more explicit about this difference by focusing more explicitly on their status in the environment and the need for specific training (Annoot 2007). (clic) My position here will be to identify them mainly through a) position in the system b) the roles implied by this position (independent of the person who performs these roles) To consider that the interactions between the five components of the system retroacts on the nature of each one. (clic) TEACHER Focus of SS1 and SS3  most important competences related to the 4 levels of mediation planning and design  Course design  Task design  Materials design  Learning environment design and management  tutoring skills As studies point to the need to develop blended rather than purely distance learning environments  teacher’s roles also include face-to-face situations (or the direct interactions outside the computer-mediated learning space – see global model) and the associated skills identified in traditional learning. (clic) This means teacher in CALL environments is required to develop “new literacies” (Lamy and Hampel 2007,43). ( The notion of literacy has served to conceptualize this understanding (by the users) of the tools in their environment ) These literacies can be identified as the area of competence defined by the interactions between the different components of the model (clic) (schéma 1) - Lamy & Hampel 2007 consider this to be the area “ where the technological means are a consideration underpinning the construction of all research questions, i.e. the influence of the ‘how’ (means/medium) on the ‘what’ (product event, outcome)”. (clic) (schéma 2) I could easily use their representation of the new literacies, by noting that “participants” include learner, peers, teacher and tutor and by adding that context also plays a part in defining literacies since… the teacher should be able to adapt the four levels of design I have mentioned (task, materials and environment) to the specific context in which he works; The teacher should also play an active part in initiating change in the context itself (clic) TUTOR Appears in learner-centred & regulation sub-systems  clearly focusing on pedagogic mediation and appearing specifically during “learning act” (Bertin & Narcy-Combes 2007). A “middleman” position. Not supposed to “teach” but to support. With Narcy-Combes (2007) we defined tutoring as a compound activity including providing pedagogic help, advising on learning aids, processing follow-up data to provide feedback and scaffolding.  specific skills for online tutoring have been listed by several authors (White 2003, Lamy & Hampel 2007,…) for example. (clic) They can roughly be ranged according to such categories as : Technical skills (provide assistance) Guidance (choice of materials and organization of learning, metacognitive support) Social skills (animation) Disciplinary competence (for acceptance and recognition by learners) Adaptability (different situations, different learners,…) More generally,  difficult to give specific lists of skills to be developed by teacher and/or tutor  we can infer on them by identifying the various interfaces of interaction between the actors/poles of the system We would need to have a more precise representation of the NATURE of these interactions (  still room for research here). But difficult to get reliable data.. Difficulty for researchers to be accepted as an “external eye” in existing learning environments (a threat ?) When data exists, most often based on limited populations  statistical validity questionable.
  • What I have tried to show  how teacher training depends upon identification of roles and skills (clic) What stands out  the increased complexity of the roles involved in Computer-mediated language learning situations because of the number of components and interactions; (clic) Roles may be also more or less blurred according to context (modes of teaching – face-to-face in multimedia lab, distance or blended learning environments -; human and financial resources available; etc.)  necessary evolving roles from one situation to another  implications in terms of teacher education (clic) To design training courses for online tutoring  we would need to get a clear idea of required skills and competences. This is made difficult by the (wide) gap existing between didactic intention underpinning courses, materials and environments and actual practice (how learners actually interact with these elements). (clic) Another question is raised : who performs these roles? Are the teacher and the tutor one and the same person or are they separate human beings? Surveys of existing practice show the variety of situations in this respect According to the relative weight given to each role, the tutoring function may be performed either by a peer (priority given to social and psychological considerations), by an adult or by the teacher himself.  Sharing roles ? (must we consider there must be ONE tutor that an perform the different roles or several specialized tutors ?  Can technology share these roles with teacher/tutor ? (intelligent tutors?)  These questions are to be considered as part of the more global context (institution + state of research in the field) (clic) To conclude  would like to stress two main considerations that determine the type of teacher training: (clic) a dynamic and flexible perspective for teacher training Evolving nature of technology  makes it necessary to develop of dynamic perspective: the way technology questions didactic thinking is constantly renewed.  necessary to make representations constantly evolve Technological mediation, and especially distance as an analyzer  require teachers to develop flexibility “ Managing their multiple roles within online environments and coping with learner demands for individualized feedback requires flexibility and may initially go against their posture as a teacher ” (Lamy & Hampel, 2007: 62)  develop evolving representations of themselves as professionals = reflexive perspective  another dimension of flexibility  since any learning environment is by necessity highly contextualized  no way to offer generalizations that can be applied as such by teachers : these must develop capacity to analyze how one situation may be transferred to another (which elements are transferable, which are not). Analyze context interactions with the rest of the system. This reflexive perspective can only derive from a vision of the teacher as researcher  capacity to analyse his own practice in relation to the evolving nature of the other components of the system. Patrick Gravé and myself (2010, 216-17) therefore advocate an ‘action-research training programme’ as a means to promote this reflexive competence. (clic) A long-term perspective for teacher education All these considerations point to the difficulty to identify a clear set of competences on which a teacher training syllabus could be grounded. “ training is a formal and institutionalized process of preparation towards the achievement of pre-specified outcomes and the development of skills for predictable situations…” (Richards & Nunan, 1990)  clearly not the case here. (clic) What is necessary is more flexible and long-term perspective = what Richards & Nunan called “teacher education” : “teacher education is more flexible in its formats and is seen as a life-long pursuit in order to be able to cope with new and unpredictable situations which require both a reformulation of beliefs and conceptions and the modification of established patterns” .
  • EUROCALL Teacher Education SIG Workshop 2010 Presentation Jean-Claude Bertin

    1. 1. Teacher Education SIG Workshop 2010 Jean-Claude Bertin UMR 6228 IDEES –CIRTAI (Université du Havre) A didactic ergonomics approach to ICT integration and the evolving roles of the teacher
    2. 2. Introductory remarks <ul><li>Introduction : a few remarks from the social sciences and education (Annoot 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Technology does not as a rule challenge traditional practices </li></ul><ul><li>Initial impact of technology  at process level </li></ul><ul><li>Distance  new publics </li></ul><ul><li>New forms of control of teacher activity </li></ul>
    3. 3. Presentation outline <ul><li>A didactic ergonomics approach to CALL </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Epistemological considerations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Constructing the model </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Deconstructing the model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>focus on mediation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>focus on systemic aspects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifying roles : teacher and tutor </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Conclusion: perspectives for teacher education </li></ul>
    4. 4. Epistemological stance (1): a systemic approach to CALL
    5. 5. Epistemological stance (1): complex thought (Edgar Morin) ? ? Holistic perspective
    6. 6. Constructing the didactic ergonomics CALL model SLA theories Teaching methodologies Language theories Cultural & language objectives Direct interactions with language/culture Direct interactions with teacher Teacher interface Learner interface System regulation
    7. 7. Deconstructing the model – focus on mediation <ul><li>Pedagogic mediation : a constant. </li></ul><ul><li>« an individual’s knowledge is described as a personal construction mediated by teachers or peers. Distance [and technology] will not affect the individual’s construction of knowledge, but may make mediation and social interaction more complex » </li></ul><ul><li>(Narcy-Combes in Bertin et al 2010) </li></ul><ul><li>Pedagogic mediation in the model </li></ul><ul><li>Technological mediation </li></ul><ul><li>Mediation by distance </li></ul><ul><li>The “analyzer” concept (Lapassade 1971; Petit 1991) </li></ul><ul><li>“… anything that causes truth to emerge of what is hidden; anything may refer to a group, an individual, a situation, an event, a scandal […]” (Lapassade, 1971, p. 15) </li></ul>
    8. 8. Deconstructing the model – sub-systems and the teacher (1) <ul><li>Sub-system 1: teacher-centred </li></ul><ul><li>Process  organization of materials and pedagogic mediation </li></ul><ul><li>Competence in : </li></ul><ul><li>Course design </li></ul><ul><li>Task design (including technological constraints and potential) </li></ul><ul><li>Materials design </li></ul><ul><li>Environment design </li></ul><ul><li>Computer literacy / team organizer </li></ul><ul><li>Follow-up </li></ul><ul><ul><li>organization & planning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>provision of monitoring devices </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Deconstructing the model – sub-systems and the teacher (2) <ul><li>Sub-system 2: learner-centred </li></ul><ul><li>Process  language learning </li></ul><ul><li>Competences : </li></ul><ul><li>Mediated presence of the teacher </li></ul><ul><li>Physical presence  blended learning </li></ul><ul><li>Asynchronous articulation between SS1 and SS2 </li></ul><ul><li>Teacher-centred system  organization & planning (virtual, latent) </li></ul><ul><li>Learner-centred system  only when learner interacts with materials </li></ul>
    10. 10. Deconstructing the model – sub-systems and the teacher (3) <ul><li>SS1 and SS2 : 2 different perspectives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Teacher  pedagogy driven + representations of the computer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learner  individual representations of language learning and of technology </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Potential gaps between didactic intention and practices </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need for data on system’s operation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Teacher and monitoring </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Generate information on learner activity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Process this information </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Objectives of follow-up </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Individual level: learner evaluation, feedback and support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Systemic level: system regulation </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Teacher and tutor <ul><li>Little real distinction in the literature </li></ul><ul><li>My position = identification through: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Position in the system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Roles defined by these positions + interactions between the 5 poles of the model </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Teacher </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Course design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Task design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning environment design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(social/pedagogic) management of direct interactions with learner </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ tutoring’ skills </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop “new literacies” (Lamy & Hampel 2007) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tutor </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on mediation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A compound activity (Bertin & Narcy-Combes 2007) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Skills </li></ul></ul>Context New literacy “ The notion of literacy has served to conceptualize this understanding (by the users) of the tools in their environment” (Lamy & Hampel, 2007 : 43) <ul><ul><li>Technical skills (provide assistance) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guidance (choice of materials and organization of learning, metacognitive support) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social skills (animation) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disciplinary competence (for acceptance and recognition by learners) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adaptability (different situations, different learners,…) </li></ul></ul>“ where the technological means are a consideration underpinning the construction of all research questions, i.e. the influence of the ‘how’ (means/medium) on the ‘what’ (product event, outcome)” (Lamy & Hampel, 2007 : 43) New literacy <ul><li>Learner </li></ul><ul><li>Peers </li></ul><ul><li>Teacher </li></ul><ul><li>Tutor </li></ul>
    12. 12. Conclusion <ul><li>Teacher training depends on identification of roles and skills </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased complexity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Blurring of roles according to context </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Difficulty to identify competences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who performs these roles? Sharing roles? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Two perspectives for teacher training </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A dynamic and flexible perspective </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Teacher as researcher </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An action-research training programme </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A long-term perspective : from “teacher training” to “teacher education” </li></ul></ul>“ Managing their multiple roles within online environments and coping with learner demands for individualized feedback requires flexibility and may initially go against their posture as a teacher ” (Lamy & Hampel, 2007: 62) “ training is a formal and institutionalized process of preparation towards the achievement of pre-specified outcomes and the development of skills for predictable situations…” “… teacher education is more flexible in its formats and is seen as a life-long pursuit in order to be able to cope with new and unpredictable situations which require both a reformulation of beliefs and conceptions and the modification of established patterns”. (Richards & Nunan, 1990)
    13. 13. Thank you for your attention !

    ×