Skip to main content
UploadLanguage (EN)Support
BusinessMobileSocial MediaMarketingTechnologyArt & PhotosCareerDesignEducationPresentations & Public SpeakingGovernment & NonprofitHealthcareInternetLawLeadership & ManagementAutomotiveEngineeringSoftwareRecruiting & HRRetailSalesServicesScienceSmall Business & EntrepreneurshipFoodEnvironmentEconomy & FinanceData & AnalyticsInvestor RelationsSportsSpiritualNews & PoliticsTravelSelf ImprovementReal EstateEntertainment & HumorHealth & MedicineDevices & HardwareLifestyle
Uploaded bycutrimschmid
PPTX, PDF1,873 views

Second language interaction with interactive technologies: the IWB in state school foreign language classrooms

The document discusses the integration of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) in foreign language classrooms, detailing their increasing adoption and varying levels of interactivity in teaching practices. It highlights the challenges faced by language teachers in utilizing IWBs effectively, the need for proper training, and the importance of communicative competence in language teaching. Findings from the research indicate a preference for lower levels of interactivity and traditional teaching methods, influencing the implementation of task-based language teaching.

Education◦
Related topics:
Language Teaching Insights• Language Learning•
Downloaded 12 times
Second language interaction with interactive technologies: the IWB in state school foreign language classrooms Shona Whyte (University of Nice, France) Euline Cutrim Schmid* (University of Education Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany) Gary Beauchamp (Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK) AILA World Congress 2014 Brisbane, Australia 11 August 2014
Interactive Whiteboard (IWB): touch-sensitive screen – video projector – computer
Background
Growing use of IWB in classrooms … 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
IWB penetration by country
Types of interactivity at the IWB Level 1 no interactivity lecture supported didactic IWB illustrates, learners copy from IWB technical teacher displays, learners copy authoritative teacher controls IWB, fixed questions and answers Level 2 dialectic learners use IWB to justify responses interactive teacher uses more tools physical teacher presents, learners come to IWB to show answers dialogic input is provided by learners as well as teacher Level 3 synergistic all learners use IWB to contribute ideas enhanced interactivity fluent technology use, flexible lesson structure conceptual learners contribute, teacher at back of classroom Whyte, 2013 Adapted from: Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2010; Glover et al., 2007; Jewitt et al., 2007
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)
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)
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)
iTILT Project
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 ● 267 videos from ● 81 lessons by ● 44 teachers of ● 6 languages in ● 7 countries at ● 4 educational levels http://www.itilt.eu Whyte, Cutrim Schmid, Thompson and Oberhofer, 2013
Method
Participants: EFL Teachers France Germany Total primary 4 4 lower secondary 2 1 3 upper secondary 2 2 4 Total 8 3 11
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
Video clips France 33 Germany 21 Round 1 26 Round 2 28 Primary 15 Secondary 39
Analysis
Language Context Planning (task-as- plan) Control (task-as- process) Drill Display Simulation Communication Levels of IWB-mediated Interaction
Language Context Planning Control Drill • pre-planned language • closed questions • repetition, choral repetition • teacher feedback on form • limited attempt to contextualize language • focus on linguistic form • opportunities for language production are entirely pre- planned by teacher • entirely controlled by teacher • language pre- selected for presentation and practice • teacher controls access to board and turn-taking Level 1: Drill
Video Clip 1
Language Context Planning Control Display • pre-planned language elements but some learner choice in language to be produced • input/output goes beyond minimum target items • closed questions but also some open questions • teacher feedback mainly on language form • limited attempt to contextualize language • effort to extend input and output • no simulation of real-world activity • opportunities for language production are mainly pre-planned by teacher • board elements support some unplanned production from teacher and/or learners • mainly controlled by teacher with some space for learner choice provided • main objective is to practice pre-selected language elements Level 2: Display
Video Clip 2
Language Context Planning Control Simulation • some focus on meaning • teacher feedback on form but also on content • interaction based on communicatio n rather than language form • meaningful context • role-play: pretending to be someone in a real-life activity • activity includes some space for learner choice • teacher expands on minimal requirements of activity to allow more communication • learner- oriented activity • voluntary participation • learner choice in how to participate Level 3: Simulation
Video Clip 3
Language Context Planning Control Communication • focus on meaning • teacher feedback on content • interaction based on genuine communication rather than language form • learner choice of language forms and shaping of communicative event • authentic context • activity worth doing in L1 • interaction represents real-life activity • exchange of participants' own opinions or reactions • open activity with space for learner choice • advance planning/ preparation by learners • learner-centred activity leading to learner controlled activities • space for spontaneous interaction Level 4: Communication
Video Clip 4
Findings
33% 41% 17% 9% Overview of interactivity types
27% 39% 42% 39% 15% 4% 15% 18% First and second rounds of filming
French and German teachers
73% 20% 7% 15% 60% 5% 20% 21% 37% 16% 26% Primary and secondary teachers
Discussion
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
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
Conclusion
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
Further reading ● Cutrim Schmid, E. & Whyte, S. (Eds.) (to appear in September 2014) 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. ● Cutrim Schmid, E. (to appear). Interactive whiteboards and language learning. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds). Routledge handbook of language learning and technology. Routledge.
References: http://wp.me/p28EmH-3Z