Date post: | 14-Jun-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | shona-whyte |
View: | 489 times |
Download: | 2 times |
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
Background
–Hennessy & London, 2013
One in eight classrooms (34 million teaching spaces) across the world now have an IWB and by
2015, one in five will have one
http://wp.me/p28EmH-46
IWB penetration by country
http://wp.me/p28EmH-46
Interactivity with the IWB
beginner
apprentice
initiate
advanced
synergistic
none
authoritative
dialectic
dialogicinteractivity in teacher
use of IWB
–Beauchamp, 2004 Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2010http://wp.me/p28EmH-46
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
– Plowman, 1996
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
Gratuitous interactivity
– Aldrich et al., 1998
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
Reactive versus proactive learning
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
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://itilt.eu
–Whyte et al., 2013
IWB use by 44 iTILT teachers
1. IWB access
2. IWB functionalities
3. language competences
–Whyte, Beauchamp & Alexander, 2014
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
Overall IWB use by iTILT teachers
Present study• participants• data
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 (54 activities)
France 33 Germany 21
Round 1 26 Round 2 28
Primary 15 Secondary 39
Analysis• drill• display• simulation• communication
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
Findings
Overview of interactivity types
DRILL DISPLAY SIMULATION COMMUNICATION
18 33% 22 41% 5 9% 9 17%
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%
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
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%
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
–Teacher CF primary, novice teacher & IWB user
“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.”
Pedagogical orientation - French primary
“ 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
Pedagogical orientation - French secondary
– Teacher HF upper secondary, experienced teacher, novice IWB user
“ 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”
Pedagogical orientation - French secondary
– Teacher DG upper secondary, experienced teacher, experienced IWB user
“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.”
Pedagogical orientation - German secondary
– Teacher EG upper secondary, novice teacher and IWB user
“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].”
Pedagogical orientation - German secondary
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.) 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.
Referenceshttp://wp.me/p28EmH-46