Target language interaction at the IWB (EuroCALL)

1,251 views

Published on

Background on iTILT project on IWB for foreign language teaching (http://itilt.eu) and follow-up work on actual interactional opportunities for learners in IWB-mediated activities

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,251
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
354
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Target language interaction at the IWB (EuroCALL)

  1. 1. Analysing target language interaction in IWB-mediated activities: from drills to tasks in state secondary EFL classes Shona Whyte (University of Nice) Euline Cutrim Schmid (University of Education Schwäbisch Gmünd) Gary Beauchamp (Cardiff Metropolitan University) EuroCALL 2014 Groningen, Netherlands 22 August 2014
  2. 2. Background
  3. 3. One in eight classrooms (34 million teaching spaces) across the world now have an IWB and by 2015, one in five will have one –Hennessy & London, 2013 http://wp.me/p28EmH-46
  4. 4. IWB penetration by country http://wp.me/p28EmH-46
  5. 5. Interactivity with the IWB synergistic advanced initiate apprentice beginner dialogic dialectic authoritative none interactivity in teacher use of IWB –Beauchamp, 2004 Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2010 http://wp.me/p28EmH-46
  6. 6. Interactivity in IWB-mediated teaching enhanced interactivity conceptual interactive physical supported didactic technical interactivity of teaching –Jewitt et al., 2007 Glover et al., 2007 http://wp.me/p28EmH-46
  7. 7. Gratuitous interactivity pupils respond to opportunities for interaction which have been designed into the software with no clear purpose - there is no learning gain and the interactions are empty and passive rather than active – Plowman, 1996
  8. 8. Reactive versus proactive learning A reactive model of interactivity is one which has been designed to support learning through drill and practice /reaction and response mode. Conversely, proactive learning is thought to take place through the user being involved actively in the construction of the knowledge – Aldrich et al., 1998
  9. 9. Interaction hypothesis negotiation of meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways. Long, 1996
  10. 10. Communicative competence and task-based language teaching Prioritisation of meaningful communication and interaction over drilling and memorisation of grammar and vocabulary: ● negotiation of meaning and practice in communication (Savignon, 2007) ● use language with an emphasis on meaning to achieve an objective (Bygate et al., 2001) ● three of four dimensions of communicative competence (sociolinguistic, discourse, strategic) presuppose interaction (Blyth, 2001)
  11. 11. Research on the IWB for language teaching ! ● increase in motivation, multimodality, and pace (Cutrim Schmid, 2008, 2010; Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012) ● compatible with any teaching style, including teacher-controlled whole-class activities (Gray et al., 2007; Gray, 2010) ● long learning curve involving both technical and pedagogical development for teachers (Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012; Whyte et al., 2013)
  12. 12. Challenges for language teaching ! ● identifying and exploiting key affordances of novel technologies for one’s own teaching context (Whyte, 2011) ● adopting strongly CLT and TBLT methods in traditional state school settings, where rote learning of vocabulary and grammar rules remain common (Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012; Whyte, 2011) ● the specificity of the IWB as a complex tool which can be relatively easily integrated into existing practice but requires teacher support in context and over time if it is to mediate pedagogical innovation (Hennessy & London, 2013)
  13. 13. iTILT project
  14. 14. Design of IWB training ! ! Implementation of IWB training ! ! Use of IWB in classroom ! 1st visit 2nd visit ! Selection of video examples ! Creation of Open Educational Resources ● video recording of IWB-mediated language teaching ● learner focus group interview ● video-stimulated teacher interview http://itilt.eu ! ● 267 videos from ● 81 lessons by ● 44 teachers of ● 6 languages in ● 7 countries at ● 4 educational levels –Whyte et al., 2013
  15. 15. IWB use by 44 iTILT teachers 1. IWB access 2. IWB functionalities 3. language competences –Whyte, Beauchamp & Alexander, 2014
  16. 16. Overall IWB use by iTILT teachers IWB access IWB tools Language competences clear preference for learner use of IWB balance between embedding and activity balanced use of IWB for skills and subskills limited range of tools and features used much more speaking + listening than reading + writing individual learner at IWB; group work in German classes focus on basic features: images, pen + drag/ drop; audio for French teachers strong focus on vocabulary, also pronunciation and more grammar focus among German teachers Limited range of basic features used to teach oral skills and vocabulary with individual learners at the IWB
  17. 17. Present study • participants • data
  18. 18. Participants: EFL teachers France Germany Total primary 4 4 lower secondary 2 1 3 upper secondary 2 2 4 Total 8 3 11
  19. 19. Teacher M/F Age Teaching Learners IWB Level AF F 40+ 20+ 9-10 2-3 Primary BF F 40+ 20+ 8-9 2-3 Primary CF F 20+ 0 7-11 0-1 Primary DF F 30+ 4 7-12 2-3 Primary EF F 30+ 7 12-13 0-1 Lower Secondary FF F 20+ 2 11-12 2-3 Lower Secondary HF F 40+ 20+ 16-17 0-1 Upper Secondary IF M 30+ 10+ 15 4-5 Upper Secondary BG M 25 + 2 11-12 0-1 Lower Secondary DG F 40 + 20 + 16-17 5 Upper Secondary EG F 25 + 4 15-16 2 Upper Secondary
  20. 20. Video clips (54 activities) France 33 Germany 21 Round 1 26 Round 2 28 Primary 15 Secondary 39
  21. 21. Analysis • drill • display • simulation • communication
  22. 22. Language Context Planning (task as plan) Control (task as process) ! Drill !!!! •!pre-planned language •!(choral) repetition •!feedback on form •!limited attempt to contextualize language •!focus on linguistic form •!entirely pre-planned by teacher •!teacher controls access to board and turn-taking ! Display !!!!!! •!input/output goes beyond minimum target items •!some open questions •!limited attempt to contextualize language •!no simulation of real-world activity •!mainly pre-planned by teacher •!some unplanned production •!mainly teacher control •!practice of pre-selected language elements ! Simulation !!! •!some focus on meaning •!some feedback on content •!interaction based on communication •!meaningful context •!role-play: pretending to be someone in a real-life activity •!some space for learner choice •!teacher expands on activity •!learner-oriented activity •!voluntary participation and choice in how to participate ! Communication •!focus on meaning •!feedback on content •!genuine communication •!learner choice of forms •!authentic context, real-life activity •!participants' own opinions or reactions •!open activity with space for learner choice •!preparation by learners •!learner controlled activities •!space for spontaneous interaction
  23. 23. Findings
  24. 24. Overview of interactivity types DRILL DISPLAY SIMULATION COMMUNICATION 18 33% 22 41% 5 9% 9 17%
  25. 25. Development over time DRILL DISPLAY SIMULATION COMMUNICATION Round 1 7 27% 11 42% 4 15% 4 15% Round 2 11 39% 11 39% 1 4% 5 18%
  26. 26. French and German teachers DRILL DISPLAY SIMULATION COMMUNICATION French teachers 13 39% 15 45% 3 9% 2 6% 33 German teachers 5 24% 7 33% 2 10% 7 33% 21 Total 18 33% 22 41% 5 9% 9 17% 54
  27. 27. Primary and secondary teachers DRILL DISPLAY SIMULATION COMMUNICATION Primary 11 73% 3 20% 1 7% 0 0% Lower secondary 3 15% 12 60% 1 5% 4 20% Upper secondary 4 21% 7 37% 3 16% 5 26%
  28. 28. Discussion
  29. 29. Summary of findings " general preference for activities involving lower levels of interactivity " drilling mainly in primary classrooms; communication restricted to secondary classrooms " more drill and display activities by French teachers, more variety in German classes lower levels of interactivity basic IWB tools and features involving single learner at IWB reactive (gratuitous) interactivity
  30. 30. Pedagogical orientation - French primary “We repeat and repeat it. They will try to guess, so we hear different words, different names of animals. And finally, we repeat and repeat and repeat, and they learn it. They remember it.” –Teacher CF primary, novice teacher & IWB user
  31. 31. Pedagogical orientation - French secondary “ I think it makes it less painful. Because all the info is just there, in front of them. So the drilling is not as painful as it can be sometimes […] and the drilling is also part of language learning.” – Teacher EF lower secondary, experienced teacher, novice IWB user
  32. 32. Pedagogical orientation - French secondary “ It's obviously a very big defeat for the classical idea of learning by rote, learning pattern drills: ‘I can sit here and concentrate on this and later on that will be beneficial to me.’ But you know, we have to live with the times” – Teacher HF upper secondary, experienced teacher, novice IWB user
  33. 33. Pedagogical orientation - German secondary “First I realised that there is a problem that the whiteboard is in the centre of the lesson and not the students ... and so we decided this time to make students talk and not use only the whiteboard as the most important tool. So I think that’s very important. Not to forget that the most important aim of the lesson is to make the students talk and not only use the whiteboard with the pen.” – Teacher DG upper secondary, experienced teacher, experienced IWB user
  34. 34. Pedagogical orientation - German secondary “But I think they are too little active for me. So I would change this with the laptop thing that I told you. Yes, this I would do when they work in pair work, or maybe individual work. And then you can do that again together as a group [on the IWB].” – Teacher EG upper secondary, novice teacher and IWB user
  35. 35. Possible explanations • early stages of IWB adoption not associated with pedagogical transformation • core beliefs about second language teaching and learning lead to resistance to CLT and TBLT • institutional influences: • less CLT orientation, primary ELT training in France • more TBLT in Germany
  36. 36. Conclusion
  37. 37. Implications ● no clear-cut positive effects on classroom interaction associated with IWB use ● more classroom-based research in state-school settings involving teachers in collaborative action research ● stronger focus on teacher education in design and implementation of communicative tasks
  38. 38. Further reading ● Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (Eds.) Teaching languages with technology: communicative approaches to interactive whiteboard use. A resource book for teacher development. Bloomsbury. ● Whyte, S., & Alexander, J. (2014). Implementing tasks with interactive technologies in classroom CALL: towards a developmental framework. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 40 (1), 1-26. PDF ● Whyte, S. (to appear). Implementing and researching technological innovation in language teaching: the case of interactive whiteboards for EFL in French schools. Palgrave Macmillan.
  39. 39. References http://wp.me/p28EmH-46

×