Online Language Learning: Tips for Teachers 3030914178, 9783030914172

Citation preview

Online Language Learning Tips for Teachers

Laurence Mann Jieun Kiaer Emine Çakır

Online Language Learning “Given the sudden recent surge in online learning, this book will be extremely helpful to anyone teaching foreign languages in universities. Based on the experiences of the authors and written by teachers for teachers, the chapters centre on practical and digestible tips for integrating online technologies and materials into teaching procedures and academic practices.” —Professor Paul Seedhouse, Director of ilab:learn, Newcastle University, UK “A distinctive feature of this interesting book is that it is based on teaching languages and cultures other than English so will be useful to a broad range of language teachers and teacher trainers (including ELT). I particularly recommend the book for MA students but it could also be a springboard for research into social media for language teaching.” —Dr Aisha Walker, EdD Director, School of Education, University of Leeds, UK

Laurence Mann • Jieun Kiaer Emine Çakır

Online Language Learning Tips for Teachers

Laurence Mann Faculty of Oriental Studies University of Oxford Oxford, UK

Jieun Kiaer Faculty of Oriental Studies University of Oxford Oxford, UK

Emine Çakır Faculty of Oriental Studies University of Oxford Oxford, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-91417-2    ISBN 978-3-030-91418-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91418-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the ­publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and ­institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Pattern © Melisa Hasan This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgements

This book came into being during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 and 2021. Nothing can undo what has happened; nor can any knowledge we gain from the crisis ever hope to make up for what has been lost, in the form of lives, livelihoods and learning. However, as disasters often do, this pandemic has shone light on the forbearance and resilience of certain groups of people. Through our own experiences as teachers during COVID crisis, we have built up a huge amount of respect and admiration for students enrolled in full-time and part-time education over the same period. Faced with disruption to teaching and learning on scale rarely seen in recent memory, students adapted and, to the best of their ability, got on with the job in hand. Seeing this happen in real time, we were inspired to write a book about learning languages online that offers teachers and students some optimism for the future. It is to our students, therefore, that this book must be dedicated. There are many people to thank for their help in preparing this book. The experiences recounted within its pages were shared by colleagues and students throughout the Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford. In particular, we are indebted to members of the Language Teachers’ Committee and Hiroe Kaji, Lecturer in Japanese, for helping to organize and participating in our workshop, as well as for encouraging participatory research and professional development among our Faculty Colleagues and beyond. We are also grateful to the former Chair of the Faculty Board, Ulrike Roesler, and the Chair of FHS Examiners, Imre Bangha. For their expertise and support, we offer special thanks to the editorial team at Palgrave, as well as the three anonymous reviewers, for honing our project v

vi 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

into something much better. Finally, we also thank Natalia Wojas and Derek Driggs, for giving the final manuscript a thorough read, and Elvira Mann, for providing invaluable advice and suggestions at all stages of the process.

Contents

1 Introduction  1 2 First Tip: Bring Social Media into Teaching in Meaningful Ways 19 3 Second Tip: Diversify the Curriculum 47 4 Third Tip: Find Self-Generated Opportunities for Professional Development 73 5 Fourth Tip: Think Carefully About Assessment 97 6 Conclusion: Don’t Lose Faith127 Appendix133 References135 Index143

vii

Abbreviations

AFL AR CEFR CF CPD DAP EP GCE A-Level GCSE HE HEPI JFL KFL KSL L1 L2 LTC MMORPG NASUWT NFER PEPA QAA VLE

Assessment for Learning Action Research Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment Corrective Feedback Continuing Professional Development Degree Awarding Powers Exploratory Practice General Certificate of Education Advanced Level General Certificate of Secondary Education Higher Education Higher Education Policy Institute Japanese as a Foreign Language Korean as a Foreign Language Korean as a Second Language First Language Second Language Language Teachers’ Committee Massively Multiplayer Online Role-playing Game National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers National Foundation for Educational Research Potentially Exploitable Pedagogic Activities The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education Virtual Learning Environment

ix

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Screen-­sharing can be useful to indicate specific parts of texts 25 Fig. 2.2 Chats can be used by teachers to share new vocabulary and for students’ revision 26 Fig. 2.3 Apps can easily be used to find language partners 27 Fig. 3.1 Using MSForms poll to select text genre 60 Fig. 3.2 Fandom blog selected for hip-hop translation classes 65 Fig. 4.1 Satariyan and Reynolds’s reflective model for action research (2016)79 Fig. 5.1 Feedback conversations in language teaching 114

xi

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Abstract  This introductory chapter sets out the need for a new set of tips for teachers specializing in language education who work online. While the use of the internet in teaching and learning is already a well-researched field, until the outbreak of COVID-19, there was still a reticence among some teachers to exploit the full potential of the internet as a rich depository of language learning resources. Through a rapid shift to online teaching during the pandemic, many important lessons have been learnt and, as this chapter argues, teachers who have lived and worked through this period are now well placed to share their experiences with the broader pedagogic community, with the aim of building more robust strategies for online integration in future. This chapter also outlines the approach of the remainder of the book—that is, broadly, to marry the unique experiences and action research of teachers working in one UK higher education (HE) institution, with data and practical advice gathered from an ever-growing body of scholarship on the use of internet technologies, both in general and in the unique environment of the language classroom. Keywords  Teaching and learning • Languages • Higher education • COVID-19 • Shift online • Technology • Internet • National Curriculum • Non-European • Translanguaging

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 L. Mann et al., Online Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91418-9_1

1

2 

L. MANN ET AL.

The Need for Some Tips No-one reading this in the near future will need reminding that 2020 and 2021 were years of terrible suffering and loss. The coronavirus pandemic which swept across our planet is, at the time of writing, still causing disruption and loss of life in many countries, including the UK. Now that, in the developed world at least, the light of vaccination and immunity has appeared at the end of the long tunnel, attention is already starting to turn from the immediate health and safety of the public, to the longer-term human, economic and social costs of the virus. Among these, education is set to loom large. In the UK, COVID-19 disrupted education in face-to-face environments over a period of months. This disruption affected not only universities but also primary and secondary schools, tertiary colleges, centres of vocational education and, even, medical schools (BMA). The internet rapidly became the only practical means for teachers and students to communicate, for students to access essential learning materials and for staff to organize their teaching. Computers and digital resources, including the internet, had been used in educational settings for decades before 2020; however, the provision of entirely digital teaching during the pandemic was made possible only by very recent developments in internet-enabled technologies, as well as the growing embeddedness of these in developed societies. Had the pandemic occurred in 2000, or even 2010, it is unlikely that the continuation of formal education would have been possible. As with most unexpected events, levels of preparedness varied from institution to institution, and even from individual to individual, but overall, students in the UK were saved from the worst effects of a protracted educational interregnum by their smartphones, tablets and laptop computers. However, what might seem to be a clear and resounding triumph for digital learning technologies and their advocates is, at best, a contested victory. Teaching unions and professional bodies generally welcomed the physical distancing of teaching staff and learners during the pandemic, because of concerns for the health and safety of their members. In its coronavirus guidance, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), for example, states unequivocally that “It is not necessary for schools to require all available teachers to attend school sites for the provision of remote education and blended learning without good reason” (2021). On the other hand, some senior teachers, as well as politicians, were vocal in calling for the resumption of face-to-face

1 INTRODUCTION 

3

learning, as quickly as it is safe to do so. For example, Katharine Birbalsingh claimed, on BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions, that the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on teaching and learning in the UK had definitely proven that online learning could not replace the work of teachers (19 Feb. 2021). This book will argue that such an assessment represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of teachers in online learning. Such claims also reflect an existential anxiety on the part of teachers concerning the growth of online teaching and learning. In the future, it is indeed possible that teachers will encounter the same competition from automation and artificial intelligence that has already been faced by workers in other sectors. Even now, many teachers are already concerned that the online materials they create and offer students through asynchronous learning environments will be reused without their permissions, losing them their intellectual property rights and, in a worst-case scenario, resulting in their own redundancy (Flaherty, 2020; Vincent, 2020). There is particular tension between teaching staff and students concerning the pedagogic value of lecture recordings—a topic that has already attracted scholarly attention in, for example, Morris et al., 2019. In other words, there is a risk of digital teaching technology becoming what Rousseau once called a ‘dangerous supplement’—seductive for its ability to please in the present, but ultimately destructive of that which it supplements. This is a serious point of concern, and it is right that it is being raised by researchers and senior practitioners alike. As teachers ourselves, we the authors do not feel immediately threatened by online technologies. Even in the long term, it is unlikely that they will completely replace us, any more than did earlier technologies deployed in the service of teaching and learning, such as chalkboards, slates or pencils. More than those technologies, however, online tools offer distinct possibilities for widening participation outside the physical infrastructure of schools and universities. They allow students to continue their learning outside the classroom, across vast distances, time zones and even when in transit between one location and another. This potential for asynchronous learning cannot help but deconstruct some of the traditional power dynamics of the classroom, as earlier developments in asynchronous learning (such as the foundation of the Open University) did in the past. Also mirroring the Open University model, the technological shift to online teaching can affect economic relationships between institutions and their teaching staff, making it easier to hire short-term, remote tutors. Such developments clearly have the potential to reshape attitudes concerning

4 

L. MANN ET AL.

access to learning. Therefore, while online technologies might not yet be poised to replace teachers in a post-COVID UK, they are going to change how we work in the long run—and we need to get ready for this. It is not our view that the COVID pandemic has proven that teachers are more useful than technology, despite claims to that effect. What it has done is to offer teachers profound opportunities to use and evaluate online technologies that were previously beyond the scope of their interests or skill-sets. Many of you will have encountered, as we have, colleagues who were broadly unfamiliar with online learning tools before the pandemic, who have become very proficient in their use over the past year. There will be some skills and approaches developed during this time that even the most-committed devotees to the physical classroom will be reluctant to shelve, as the pandemic subsides. We do not wish to second guess the course of development technology will take, or the applications people will find for it. However, as we write this, we find it difficult to imagine a future in which digital communication does not continue to permeate ever deeper into the fabric of our lives, throughout the developed world and beyond. Mobile data communication is progressing rapidly and an ever-expanding repertoire of internet-­ enabled objects and devices are appearing in our schools and universities, as well as in our homes. Smart devices link physical and virtual learning environments instantly. Virtual and Augmented Reality technologies, or future incarnations of these, have the potential to blur these lines still further. The development of this Internet of Things (IoT), as it is sometimes called, is one of the reasons that, while they may have legitimate concerns about them, teachers cannot pretend online technologies do not exist or argue that they are protecting their students’ interests by doing so. Just as the physical architecture of schools and classrooms met the needs of mass education for industrialization in the nineteenth century—and just as it failed some learners while helping others—online education is now giving learners exposure to extra ‘dimensions’ of non-physical connectedness that permeate their daily lives. We have a responsibility to ensure that it develops in ways that meet a diversity of learners’ needs. Further complicating matters is the fact that online technologies that are more sophisticated on the inside often appear simpler on the outside. In some cases, these are gradually becoming hidden from view and easier to miss altogether. For example, an internet-enabled fridge, that manages its own contents, is still fundamentally a fridge—and does not require

1 INTRODUCTION 

5

special training or knowledge of the internet to operate. As we approach a world where almost everything humans interact with is linked together digitally, but in increasingly subtle ways, it might therefore be an appropriate point for us, as teachers, to rethink our relationships with digital technologies and, if necessary, adapt our practice accordingly. Working with technology requires the application of thought, discussion and imagination. In the longer term, there are ethical issues for teachers to consider, in addition to the immediate practicalities of how to deploy increasingly advanced tech in schools and universities. It is heartening to see that universities are taking issues of digital ethics seriously; questions surrounding the ethics of artificial intelligence are now on the agenda in a number of leading institutions, including the government-backed Alan Turing Institute (founded 2015) and Reuben College, the newest constituent college of the University of Oxford (founded 2019). Trained as they are to consider the ethical implications of all their duties, teachers are well-placed to tackle issues, arising from widespread digitization of learning and AI integration, with professionalism and enthusiasm. Language teachers, in particular, have a role to play. The internet is bringing into being entirely new modes of communication, with which learners are going to need to interact, irrespective of their existing language background, or the new languages they are aiming to acquire. Since the development of communication skills lies at the heart of language learning, it is particularly important for language teachers to address the question of how to integrate online material and approaches within their work, as will be discussed further in Tip#1.

Teaching and Learning Languages in Britain Language learning and the internet are both phenomena that bridge national and cultural boundaries. We hope that this book might be of use to people across the world with a professional interest in teaching and learning languages online. However, since the experiences that prompted us to write about online language education took place mainly within a higher education (HE) setting in the UK (and specifically in England), it is worth dedicating a few lines to an outline of that particular context. Learning a foreign language is currently compulsory at state-run schools in England at Key Stages 2 and 3 (i.e. age 7–14). The teaching and learning of modern languages in England and Wales was made compulsory, for the first time in history, with the introduction of the National

6 

L. MANN ET AL.

Curriculum in the late 1980s. Until the government’s decision to remove the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) language requirement in 2004, the largest ever proportion of British young people studied a language other than English through to school-leaving age (16 at the time). This move towards more systematic language education emerged against a backdrop of a complex and diverse history. In her seminal book Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages: A History of Language Education, Assessment and Policy in Britain (2017), Nicola McLelland begins her account with a discussion of the languages British people have chosen to teach and learn throughout time. Even at this most basic level of electing a language to learn, the story is one of considerable variety across time and space, as interests have waxed and waned alongside political and economic factors. While, alongside Latin (the ancient language of choice), French has been the most popular choice of foreign language for Brits since the Norman Conquest, other once-popular choices, such as Dutch, have all but disappeared, supplanted by newer contenders, such as German, Spanish and Chinese (pp. 5–38). Historical diversities extended beyond just the choice of language, to the content and delivery of language teaching across the country. In another important publication, McLelland (2018) puts it, “what was taught to pupils studying French, German or any other language in Britain … was—and remains—very decentralised and hence very variable. Not only did Scotland have its own system entirely (and still does), but even within the remainder of Britain, multiple examination boards were free to stipulate their own syllabi and examination requirements” (p. 9). This diversity was most likely linked to an organic process of development for language teaching that met local needs. Indeed, until the adoption of a National Curriculum, much of what was actually taught in schools was known only to teachers and other professionals working within institutions themselves. In the 1960s and 1970s, this holding in reserve of curricula information by schools was referred to by many in public life as ‘a secret garden’. After the roll-out of the National Curriculum, modern languages, like other subjects, were mapped onto a national framework of Key Stages and, until 2004, this included a Key Stage 4 (GCSE) requirement. In the nearly two decades since this requirement was removed—and despite efforts to the contrary—language courses in further and higher education are suffering substantial declines in recruitment, alongside an apparent crisis of participation and uptake lower down the system. The

1 INTRODUCTION 

7

reasons for this decline are complex and not well understood, but researchers have probed the links between students’ perceptions of the general utility of learning a foreign language (often tied to the status of English as a world language) and their own personal motivations, in an attempt to find ways to encourage more students to pursue languages at school. In their interventional study, Taylor and Marsden, for example, demonstrated that learners who took part in a “panel discussion about real-life stories of needing and / or using languages …” were not only better aware of the “general value of languages” but, also, of a “perceived importance of languages for themselves” (2014, pp. 912–913). The same study also found that students’ perceptions of foreign language classes as easy or difficult exert a significant effect on their uptake—in keeping with conventional wisdom concerning the immediacy of links between classroom experience and personal interests among adolescent learners (Goodnow, 1992). Official and media reports have also cited the rise of ‘global English’ and an impression, on the part of learners, that everyone in the world speaks English (British Council, 2020) or that foreign languages are too difficult to learn (Jeffreys, 2019), as principal causes for the waning uptake in language learning. Alongside this, they also point to a decline in international engagement as well as the lack of clear frameworks for implementation in primary schools and transitions between primary and secondary education (Collen, 2020). The same period, since the early 2000s, has coincided with the rapid development of internet technologies, multimodal platforms for communication and, in recent years, a huge array of freely available resources and applications for language learning. Anecdotally, at least, it seems to us that the internet is driving participation in language learning activities among some communities—and we have seen the signs of this in student recruitment settings for language courses at universities. Further work needs to be done in order to ascertain the extent to which this apparent trend is real and, if so, why this has not translated into better participation rates in schools, particularly for European languages such as French and Spanish which, traditionally, have seen considerably higher participation rates than the non-European languages that we, the authors of this book, teach.

8 

L. MANN ET AL.

The Internet and Languages If the internet is indeed driving an interest in language learning, it is not difficult to see why. Apart from any direct impact on language teaching technology, there are a plethora of areas in which digital multimodal communication through the internet has facilitated rapid developments in global consumption through language, impossible in the pre-digital era of books, magazines and film. These patterns of consumption intersect regions, cultures and languages in ways that excite the imagination—and have made some people very rich—but, in most instances, they are yet to be fully harnessed in support of language education. One particularly important example is that of cooking. Global interest in food and cooking has been greatly impacted by the development of the internet, especially in the more economically developed countries. Already in 2015, a Google study from the United States estimated that “59% of 25- to 34-year-olds head to the kitchen with either their smartphones or tablets” (Cooper, 2015). The same study found that the internet provided the inspiration for young people’s choice of what to cook and how to do so, with YouTube searches for “‘best recipes’ on YouTube … up 48% year over year” (ibid.), although part of the enjoyment for many seemed to be in embellishing and building on what they had learnt from their digital tutors (ibid.). Elsewhere, food words of international origin are thriving in English in diverse translingual contexts, dependent in large part on the influence of the internet and social media (Kiaer, 2020). In essence, the internet is driving people to learn more about food cultures distinct from their own, learning new words in the process, chatting with other global users about these and then creating their own fusion versions—of the words and the dishes. Human creativity, after all, knows no boundaries. In other areas, too, trends in digital consumption are supporting worldwide interest in cultures and languages originating outside Europe— including such billion-dollar industries as Bollywood, anime and K-Pop. Korean pop music is influential enough as a marketing tool to have resulted in a new McDonald’s meal in 50 countries (Reuters, 2021). Anime is so popular on Netflix that there are review websites dedicated to selecting the ‘best’ anime shows to watch on the platform (Kienlen, 2021) and revenue from Indian movies screened outside India has seen dramatic rises in recent years (at least until the outbreak of COVID-19; see Vohra, 2018). In a globalized, internet-driven world, none of these developments are particularly surprising. However, the popularity of these now-global

1 INTRODUCTION 

9

phenomena does seem incongruent when contrasted with the relative few opportunities for learners to study the languages and cultures that brought them into being—at least formally. In 2021, a UCAS  (Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) undergraduate programme search yields only 21 providers of Japanese courses (and most of these are only as a minor, or part of some larger languages degree structure), 5 for Korean and none for Hindi or South Asian Studies, although the latter can be studied from 2021 as part of a BA in Languages and Cultures at SOAS and more widely at postgraduate level. Further down the system, the picture is still bleaker. While Chinese grew to overtake German in terms of GCE A-Level (General Certificate of Education Advanced Level) entries in the UK in 2018 (Wood & Busby, 2018), A-Level Japanese narrowly survived scrappage in 2017, alongside wider qualification reform in England (Hollingworth, 2015). Urdu, a major language of Bollywood, was almost lost in the same set of changes, along with several other Indian languages with significant communities of heritage speakers in the UK, such as Panjabi and Bengali. As yet no UK examination board offers an A-Level in Korean. With European languages on the decline and globally significant non-­ European languages underrepresented in secondary school curricula, it is tempting to muse on how the teaching and learning of languages in the UK could develop in coming years. In university departments offering languages not traditionally taught in many schools, we have always been in a strong position to judge the raw interest in those languages among applicants. Despite the lack of investment and opportunities within the school system, we are consistently impressed by the level of commitment to their chosen languages our students show, as well as, in many cases, their existing attainment in the languages before beginning our ab initio degree programmes. Clearly, this interest is now supported by digital trends in cultural consumption, as well as online language learning tools. Compare, for example, the bleak picture of the state of languages in UK schools painted above with the fact that during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns, the UK has led the world in language learning through digital apps. Despite the unprecedented restrictions on global travel during that period, language learning platform Duolingo reported rapid increases in its global user base during 2020, highlighting the 132% rise compared with 2019 seen in the UK, which corresponded to “almost double the worldwide average” (Palmai & Smale, 2021). It seems likely that, in the future, European language courses at university will also be supported by these digital learning trends.

10 

L. MANN ET AL.

The conclusion that must be drawn is that language education is not doomed. Indeed, it might even be experiencing a renaissance—however, at the moment, this is not taking place in the classroom for the most part. Rather, the power to learn and develop is in the hands of learners themselves, supported by global trends in cultural consumption, digital learning apps, social media, fandom communities and artificial intelligence. Instead of letting ourselves be washed away, as language teachers, we must work to ensure that we ride along on the crest of this wave.

What This Book Is and What Is It Not This book collects the experiences of the authors, three language teachers working with non-European languages within the UK higher education sector during a period of exclusively online and blended teaching, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. These experiences working online are combined with advice, suggestions and data carefully selected from the ever-growing body of scholarship on higher education teaching and online learning technologies. The book’s aim is to make the case for cautious and well-planned integration of internet teaching tools into languages programmes within universities across the country. This is because we do not believe it is sufficient for language teachers to be carried along by a wave of technologies designed totally outside the scope of their own experiences and professional activities, or simply imposed on them from above (often from outside language teaching altogether). For their relationship with internet technologies to be robust, all language teachers will need to think about how the internet, as it develops further in the future, can be used to support their own work. Books and resources such as this one exist to reassure teachers undertaking that task that they are not alone—what has been described as the “commonality of pedagogic practice” (Brookfield, 2017). This book can further reassure them that whatever challenges they face, the outcome of their labours is likely to be positive if they retain the same principles of good practice they have adopted in their previous teaching, applied carefully to the digital environment. This brings us to what this book is not. It is not the culmination of a large-scale quantitative or longitudinal study—meaning that it cannot confirm the efficacy of any particular approaches statistically. Neither is it concerned primarily with the introduction of specific learning technologies (although it does, from time to time, name examples that have come

1 INTRODUCTION 

11

in useful in our own teaching). The reasons we have, in general, avoided instructing teachers to adopt particular learning technologies are, firstly, that internet sites and learning tools are constantly developing (as well as being renamed) and secondly that, as mentioned above, we feel it important for individual teachers to have the opportunity to think about what works for them in their own practice, experimenting with different learning technologies along the way. The usefulness of this book lies, rather, in its new focus on the intersects between language teaching and internet communication, established principles of good teaching and the unique, but broadly applicable, experiences of the teachers involved in its production, discussed further below. We thus invite our readers to approach this book on its own terms and with the above caveats in mind.

How to Use This Book This book consists of four main chapters, an introduction and a conclusion. The main chapters are each centred on one ‘tip’, which is designed to help teachers think critically about and hone their practice in a particular area of teaching, when working online. These tips are intended as general words of advice from one teacher to another, rather than precise instructions for how to teach (we know you know how to do that already!). The first tip focusses on the need to bring social media, SNS (social networking service) and other widespread digital communication tools into language teaching in meaningful ways and gives suggestions on how to do so. The second tip advises us to think about how we can approach the curriculum constructively when shifting to online teaching, with diversity and inclusivity in mind. The third tip explores opportunities for continuous professional development among language teachers working online, even under pandemic conditions. The fourth tip relates to the ongoing need for careful alignment of learning and assessment as more and more language classrooms integrate online and blended approaches in future. Overall, this book stresses the need to think ‘elementally’ about online teaching; in other words, to break down our successful offline and online teaching experiences into the smallest building blocks we can and use these blocks to create and recreate robust strategies for adapting to change and for meeting our learners’ needs as circumstances and technologies evolve. Within each chapter, readers will find a general discussion of theory and practice related to the central theme, followed by either a small case study or a selection of the authors’ own experiences in that area. The chapters

12 

L. MANN ET AL.

conclude with a list summarizing the key points of that tip—perhaps we can call them ‘sub-tips’—which are intended to help busy teachers make a rapid assessment of whether that tip would work for them and, if so, how to implement it in their teaching. Here is also where we, as authors, offer our suggestions and solutions, based on experiences developing online curricula during the COVID-19 pandemic. Readers are encouraged to reflect on the interconnectedness of these suggestions, both within and between the chapters. Good practice in teaching is joined-up practice— and the growth of the internet is pushing this interconnectivity still further. Due to limits of time and space, there will inevitably be many questions and answers that we are unable to cover in this book. It is impossible to compensate for these entirely; however, we have tried to make up for some of the lacunae by appending a list of useful additional resources to the end of each chapter. These come in various forms, including scholarly books and articles; blogs written by teachers and other education professionals; studies, reports, consultation documents by universities and professional bodies; as well as a range of free online resources for developing skills in online teaching. We encourage readers to consult these sources widely alongside our advice and, in the interests of the wider professional community, to document and publish their own experiences of teaching languages online.

The Data: Language Teaching Within the Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford Alongside existing published material, this book collects the experiences of a group of language teachers and academics working within the Faculty of Oriental Studies at the University of Oxford (https://orinst.web.ox.ac. uk). This Faculty is home to teachers and researchers working in a wide range of non-European languages and provides the mainstay of the university’s teaching offering in those languages. Institutionally speaking, languages in this Faculty are managed separately from modern European languages and cultures. The reasons for this are primarily historical and relate to the fact that the study of languages outside Europe—especially those with a classical written tradition—has a considerably longer heritage at the university, with the earliest posts, in Hebrew and Arabic, created in 1546 and 1636 respectively (History of the Faculty, n.d.). In contrast, the teaching of modern European languages did not begin until 1848, after a

1 INTRODUCTION 

13

Professorship (of Modern European Languages) and two language teacher posts were created by university statute the previous year. Ancient and modern languages as they are taught today within the Faculty of Oriental Studies range from the Eastern fringes of Europe and North Africa to Japan and incorporate an interdisciplinary palette of linguistic, historical, cultural and literary material. While extremely diverse, the languages taught within the Faculty have in common that they are all fairly distant, linguistically and culturally, from the language and location of instruction (British English, England). Many of them are grammatically very dissimilar to English and are written in a different script—or, in some cases, multiple scripts. Three of the largest undergraduate subjects by student numbers within the Faculty, Chinese, Arabic and Japanese were placed in the highest category (V) of languages that “are exceptionally difficult for native English speakers” by the US Foreign Service Institute (Language Difficulty Ranking, n.d.). Although teaching within the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford goes on in a unique context (which brings its own particular challenges and concerns); in many respects, it resembles language teaching generally. While by no means purely technical programmes of language training, all degrees offered by the Faculty have the teaching and learning of languages at their core, focussing on the holistic study of a region through the medium of its language or languages—and avoiding dependence on material in English translation. Students therefore have to acquire fluency in a language (or languages) from the regions they specialize in, in order to make sense of the societies, cultures and literatures that have emerged from those regions. In the case of languages still spoken today, this fluency is expected across the four skills of writing, reading, listening and speaking. Though the languages taught within the Faculty of Oriental Studies are considered to be ‘difficult’ (see above), the challenges faced by students in the Faculty confront the learners of all languages to some extent. For example, while it might appear obvious that Chinese and English writing are fundamentally different in how they encode language or that French and English are more similar in that respect, at the level of processing in the brain, the picture is more complex. Although an ‘alphabetic’ system, English writing contains substantial logographic elements. A great deal of psycholinguistic work is ongoing to investigate the extent to which existing understandings of the mechanisms underpinning bilingual reading in alphabetic written languages are useful in understanding logographic bilingualism, including work on logographic-logographic bilinguals (Ma

14 

L. MANN ET AL.

et al., 2020). In practice, teachers are left to try to navigate the differences between European and non-European languages in their own way—and, for the most part, this means the same regular repetition, practice and support of learners’ essential to all language pedagogy. Another commonality between our work in the Faculty of Oriental Studies and language pedagogy more broadly relates to classroom diversity. Learners come to us with a variety of backgrounds and experiences of language learning. Some are heritage learners, some are ab initio students and others arrive with knowledge developed in other contexts, such as schoolwork, previous employment or self-study. These days, widespread access to global popular cultures and language learning tools through internet-enabled devices adds to the colourful diversity of L2 learning experiences we observe among our students. Teaching staff are similarly varied. Some are native speakers, some are learners themselves. For some, language teaching is the main focus of their professional lives and, for others, the portfolio is broader. Depending on the size of the subject and teaching team, some may be solely charged with almost all teaching and administration for their language, whereas in larger teams this workload is often divided into various specialisms, each overseen by an individual faculty member. The principal language of instruction also varies between different class types and the skills on which they focus. A class in Classical Chinese translation, for example, will inevitably involve lots of discussion and feedback in English and, for obvious reasons, is never taught by a native speaker. An advanced oral skills class in modern Japanese, however, is taught by a L1 speaker of Japanese, almost entirely in Japanese. The inherently cross-­ cultural and cross-disciplinary focus of research and teaching within the Faculty means that almost all classes within the faculty do contain some strategic integration of multilingual discourse within the teaching and learning space—or what has sometimes been called “translanguaging” (Canagarajah, 2011). In sum, the bulk of our activities as language teachers in the Faculty of Oriental Studies are not dissimilar to those of language teachers working elsewhere. We therefore hope that the tips in this book will prove relevant and heuristic to teachers at a variety of institutions, working in European languages, EFL or Classics, as well as our colleagues in Asian and global area studies programmes.

1 INTRODUCTION 

15

Becoming a Reflective Learner (and an Empathetic Language Teacher) Many language teachers will have experience of learning an additional language themselves. Others have observed children learning their first language or languages. We are aware of how much language learning takes place outside our classrooms, and for the most part, we are committed to ensuring that what takes place within them supplements and complements that. Part of the rationale for writing this book has been to encourage language teachers to work with the internet to develop and enhance their practice in ways that support the needs of learners whose learning experiences outside the classroom also depend largely on the internet. This might sound straightforward. However, when the language learning experiences of most teachers have not involved the internet, there is clearly a potential for an epistemic disparity to develop. To demonstrate this, let us consider the example of learning how to write in Chinese. Before computers and the internet, L1 and L2 learners of Chinese depended on paper dictionaries and extended hours of writing practice, in order to memorize the thousands of logograms necessary for fluent communication in the written language. In fact, the process of learning characters through copying and memorization had not changed greatly throughout the long history of the Chinese language. Today, logographic writing systems are usually ‘typed’ through a software-based input editor using a transcription, often Pinyin in the case of Chinese. The software selects the correct characters based on the pronunciation entered, in addition to grammatical and semantic context. Where ambiguity still exists, users select the correct logogram from a list. Similarly, when reading, unknown characters can be entered using a handwriting function, or simply highlighted, copied and pasted into any one of a large number of search engines and online dictionary resources. Among L1 and L2 learners, receptive recognition of the characters—including the ability to select the correct one from a list—is thus the most fundamental skill for reading and writing Chinese today. Although this applies to the language use of both learners and teachers in the present, it is nevertheless difficult to imagine encountering Chinese for the first time this way, for those of us who learnt the language even a few short years ago. A major risk is that we allow this disparity to develop into distrust. As Walter Ong reminded his readers, Plato once argued that writing was “a mechanical, inhuman way of processing knowledge” that was “destructive

16 

L. MANN ET AL.

to memory” (2002, p. 25). Putting aside the question of whether this is true under any circumstances, few would argue that human societies would be better off had writing never existed or that the deployment of writing to record and complement spoken language has not added to the total sum of our species’ knowledge and creative achievements. Written culture never wholly replaced oral culture, nor is it likely that digital or virtual culture will ever replace what preceded it. Over time, though, we may expect it to bring about similarly innovative and important developments in patterns of language use. As teachers of language, we should work with these, rather than against them—and, crucially, this means accommodating language as it is used online within our teaching. Tip#1 discusses in further detail how we might respond to the effects of internet communication in our teaching. Returning to the gulf in experience between learners encountering L2 for the first time in a highly digital environment and teachers who are learning about the effects of that environment after learning the language, we are still left with the question of how, if at all, it is possible to overcome this. Like a number of others, Stephen Brookfield’s seminal book Becoming a critically reflective teacher (1995, 2nd edition 2017) encouraged us to become just that, teachers who reflect critically on our own practice. A key stage within this process of reflection is returning to our own background as learners and recollecting our studies and strategies. This approach could be particularly helpful to teachers working with online technologies for the simple reason that it helps us break down our personal views of learning to the elemental level. For many of us, engagement with digital learning technologies is still often at the level of the experiment. This is not at all a bad thing, since it brings about innovation and gives us fresh opportunities to think about teaching. However, in order to ensure our engagements with technology are built upon sound pedagogical foundations, there is a clear need to work at the elemental level; that is the level of learning objectives, skills and knowledge. This does not mean we need to teach at this level. Good learning activities regularly combine a number of such elements into a seamless whole. It is rather at the planning stage, particularly when encountering a novel environment or technological context in which to work, that it is most useful to break down learning into key elements. If we are able to do this, through reflection, for our own learning in the past, this will provide comparative context to do so again for the new modes of learning we are developing in the present. Remember that not all the

1 INTRODUCTION 

17

things you did in the past worked out well. Most of us would admit to having memories of some unsuccessful strategies. There will inevitably be other activities and strategies that worked in the context you deployed them as a learner, but that are less likely to be successful in a digital, online environment. Finally, you might have your own more recent experiences learning other subjects or completing professional training activities online. These can also provide important context for designing new online approaches in your own teaching. The need to break down our experiences through such activities into their core elements and interrogate their objectives, before reconfiguring these, as appropriate, within our own teaching, is stressed throughout the remainder of this book. By doing this, what might have appeared a challenge can become an opportunity.

References Brookfield, S. (1995, 2nd ed., 2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1–28. https://doi. org/10.1515/9783110239331.1 Collen. (2020). It is an online article entitled “Language learning is still in decline in England’s schools”, accessed here: https://www.britishcouncil.org/voicesmagazine/language-learningdecline-england-schools Cooper, J. (2015, June). Think with Google. Cooking trends among millennials: Welcome to the digital kitchen. https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/intl/en-­ gb/future-­o f-­m arketing/digital-­t ransformation/cooking-­t rends-­a mong-­ millennials/ Effective Language Learning. Language difficulty ranking. https://effectivelanguagelearning.com/language-­guide/language-­difficulty/ Faculty of Oriental Studies. The history of the faculty. https://www.orinst.ox. ac.uk/history-­faculty-­1#/ Flaherty, C. (2020, May 19). IP problems. Inside higher ed. https://www.­ insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/19/who-­owns-­all-­course-­content-­youre-­ putting-­online Goodnow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and the study of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 177–196. Hollingworth, W. (2015, September 25). New reforms threaten future of Japanese language study in England. Japan Times. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/ news/2015/09/25/national/new-­reforms-­threaten-­future-­of-­japanese-­language-­ study-­in-­england/

18 

L. MANN ET AL.

Jeffreys, B. (2019, February 27). Language learning: German and French drop by half in UK schools. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-­47334374 Kiaer, J. (2020). Study abroad in Korea: Korean language and culture. Routledge. Kienlen, J. (2021, May 7). The best anime on Netflix to watch right now. https:// www.themanual.com/culture/best-­anime-­series-­on-­netflix/ Ma, J., Yujia, W., Sun, T., Cai, L., Fan, X., & Li, X. (2020). Neural substrates of bilingual processing in a logographic writing system: An fMRI study in Chinese Cantonese-mandarin bilinguals. Brain Research, 1738, 146794. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.brainres.2020.146794 McLelland, N. (2017). Teaching and learning foreign languages: A history of language education, assessment and policy in Britain. Routledge. McLelland, N. (2018). The history of language learning and teaching in Britain. The Language Learning Journal, 46(1), 6–16. Morris, N. P., Swinnerton, B., & Coop, T. (2019). Lecture recordings to support learning: A contested space between students and teachers. Computers & Education, 140. NASUWT. (2021). Arrangements for remote teaching and learning. https://www. nasuwt.org.uk/advice/health-­safety/coronavirus-­guidance/arrangements-­for-­ remote-­teaching-­learning-­support.html Ong, W. (2002). Orality and literacy. Routledge. Palmai, K., & Smale, W. (2021, January 11). UK leading the way in use of language-­ learning apps. BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-­55562267 Reuters Asia Pacific. (2021, April 19). McDonald’s adds K-pop spice to menu with new BTS meal. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-­pacific/mcdonalds-­ adds-­k-­pop-­spice-­menu-­with-­new-­bts-­meal-­2021-­04-­19/ Taylor, F., & Marsden, E. (2014). Perceptions, attitudes, and choosing to study foreign languages in England: An experimental intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 902–920. Vincent, J. (2020, August 20). University staff are worried their recorder lectures will be used against them. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/21373669/ recorded-­lecture-­capture-­copyright-­universities-­coronavirus-­fears Vohra, P. (2018, August 2). Indian movies attract millions around the world—And that number looks set to grow. CNBC. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ indian-­movies-­attract-­millions-­around-­001200376.html Wood, C., & Busby, E. (2018, August 16). A-level results day 2018: Chinese overtakes German for first time. Telegraph. https://www.independent.co.uk/ news/education/education-­news/level-­results-­day-­chinese-­german-­modern-­ foreign-­languages-­decline-­students-­a8494156.html

CHAPTER 2

First Tip: Bring Social Media into Teaching in Meaningful Ways

Abstract  The first ‘tip’ offered in this chapter is to try to harness the immense power of social media to facilitate language learning, particularly in the area of pragmatics and highly context-dependent communication. This chapter emphasizes the need to see social media not just as a single tool but, rather, as a diverse pool of resources that can be brought into teaching in equally varied ways. By letting go of the reins a little and allowing students to experience a fuller range of pragmatic strategies used by native speakers through popular culture sources such as dramas and music, as well as the social media and fandom responses to these, teachers can oversee a process whereby learners naturally gain access to the complex web of contextual information that underpins native-speaker discourse. According to the student experiences shared in this chapter, this approach stands in stark contrast to the officially sponsored apparatus of online teaching, such as video calls and institutional virtual learning environments (VLEs), which often come across as failed attempts to replicate face-to-face teaching. This chapter also introduces the potential of social media apps and technologies to provide unprecedented opportunities for language exchange with native speakers, as well as self-regulated learning outside the classroom. Keywords  Social media • Pragmatics • Communication • Dramas • Apps • Language exchange • Pronunciation • Immersion • Chatbots © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 L. Mann et al., Online Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91418-9_2

19

20 

L. MANN ET AL.

Everything has gone virtual. We all thought this would happen someday but nobody expected such radical change to affect everybody’s everyday life all of a sudden. Everyone is learning how to interact virtually—across languages, cultures and generations. Elderly grandparents are desperately learning how to talk to their family using video-chat applications, including some that have only become available very recently. Parents are rushing to arrange virtual play dates for their children using similar platforms. Pupils in most of the world have already migrated to Google Classrooms. Reporters cannot always be present at crucial scenes. Ordinary people pick up their phones and record, tweet or livestream what they see and how they view it and share this with their global neighbours, through social media. The sudden change we face now, humanity’s collective virtual migration, is unprecedented in human history. The vehicles for this global change have been the proliferation and diversification of internet-enabled technologies and, alongside this, the ever-increasing integration of social media into people’s daily lives. Social media can be defined as a “broad category or genre of communications media which occasion or enable social interaction among groups of people, whether they are known to each other or strangers, localized in the same place or geographically dispersed. It includes new media such as newsgroups, MMORPGs, and social networking sites” (Oxford A Dictionary of Media and Communication). Studies on the use of social media in language education to date see these media as powerful drivers of change for language teaching and learning. In this chapter we will outline the various aspects of social media that make them useful, accessible and socio-pragmatically rich additions to the language classroom as it already exists today. Whilst social media has long been recognized as an essential aspect of modern living, the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in closure of workplaces, classrooms and international borders, has served only to prove the indispensable nature of online platforms as an arena for supporting productivity and learning. Social media have proved themselves not only ideal for maintaining contact between physically separated friends and family, but accessible and socially distanced theatres of learning. Although the educational aspect of social media has always been present, it is largely through the course of coronavirus lockdowns that its validity as a teaching and learning tool has been tested on a global scale. This chapter looks at five key aspects of the deployment of social media in the language classroom, as a language learning tool. Firstly, we will set

2  FIRST TIP: BRING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO TEACHING IN MEANINGFUL WAYS 

21

out the proposed ‘hybrid’ model of language teaching, in which socio-­ pragmatic language learning techniques, chief amongst which is the use of social media channels, are used hand-in-hand with more traditional textbook-­ based classroom methods, to achieve the perfect balance of rigour and interest for diverse learners. This is followed by an assessment of the social media activity amongst young people and the population as a whole, setting out figures that demonstrate the pervasive nature of social media within society and thereby demonstrate its potential to increase interest and encourage self-initiated language learning. Thirdly, we will discuss the potential of social media to provide ‘virtual immersion’. The immersion technique of language learning has long been heralded as the most natural and effective manner of building practical language skills, resulting in exchange programmes and years abroad becoming integral to medium- to long-term language courses. In this chapter we will propose the use of social media as a space for ‘virtual integration’, wherein students may achieve the similar goal of conversing with native-language speakers, in a more convenient and accessible manner. In the fourth section of this chapter, we will outline the specific benefits of social media as a teacher of pragmatics, which is difficult to illustrate effectively in the sterile environment of a textbook or classroom. The final section of this chapter focusses on the variety of language used on social media (such as slang and emojis) and its socially engaging nature, that makes it such a useful tool amongst teen and young adult learners. Ultimately, we will argue that social media, particularly as a result of the experience of the global population through COVID-19 lockdowns, should be considered a legitimate and valuable tool in the language classroom, providing students with an accessible and engaging manner through which to immerse themselves in the practical, everyday vocabulary and conventions of foreign languages. This chapter adds to existing literature on social media and language learning, which has until now primarily sought to understand current patterns of use, by taking a more conceptual and design-oriented approach. This constitutes an initial exploration into a more fine-grained understanding of social media in language learning and teaching, based upon an investigation of the use, implications and perceptions of their specific features and affordances (i.e. the perceived properties of technologies that suggest and indicate possible uses). To do this, we examine usage patterns and underlying assumptions and perceptions of individual features of social media technologies, in order to generate design recommendations for its incorporation into language learning. This chapter includes the

22 

L. MANN ET AL.

results of a former study into language learning methods. This study took the form of two workshops in a UK university, one workshop with learners of languages and one with teachers. In these workshops, participants discussed their use of social media in terms of individual features and services, as well as their assumptions and perceptions regarding their use in language learning, teaching and generally. We consult the results of this study throughout this chapter to inform our discussion of the potential uses of social media, alongside the existing traditional language classroom.

The Hybrid Model of Language Learning Language Learning in Lockdown As the COVID pandemic has spread across the world, language teachers and learners have had to adapt to new circumstances, both presenting challenges and leading to interesting pedagogical discoveries and opportunities. Many long to return to the pre-pandemic world, but when it comes to language learning, a new integrated style of online and offline learning could prove a game-changer, helping not only to increase absorption and retention of a language, but also to bolster enthusiasm for language learning, which is particularly important in the UK, where, as noted earlier, the study of foreign languages is in decline (Jeffreys, 2019). In this sense, COVID-19 lockdowns have forced widespread large-scale adaptability, teaching us a lot about new and diverse kinds of learning, including using online tools such as social media as a classroom resource. Firstly, in regard to the teaching of languages, lockdown classes have unveiled the pros and cons of using online platforms. In particular, screen fatigue is one of the biggest problems of online learning. After staring at a computer screen for long periods of time, the eyes may feel strained, resulting in headaches, sore eyes, blurred vision, and difficulty concentrating. Aside from screen fatigue, however, there are other problems, particularly associated with synchronous teaching methods. For instance, there is a lack of spontaneity and a momentary lag in transmission on online platforms, which can result in speaking and listening practice becoming awkward and stilted. Additionally, correcting pronunciation may prove difficult due to unclear audio. ‘Zoom fatigue’ is a term that was popularized during the shift to online teaching and learning as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, describing another form of fatigue induced by digital technology. Characterized by the anxiety, exhaustion and

2  FIRST TIP: BRING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO TEACHING IN MEANINGFUL WAYS 

23

listlessness that users in Zoom meetings feel, Zoom fatigue is aggravated by a number of factors including impatience in becoming accustomed to the platform, a depersonalization of communicative experiences, and unreliable or intermittent internet connection. Furthermore, the accessibility of the platform results in seemingly endless schedules of video conferences which blur the work-life boundaries that many need to help maintain a balanced lifestyle. In a workshop conducted with university language teachers, we asked participants to discuss what they considered to be the most pressing topics of conversation or issues, either positive or negative, that they had observed in the process of teaching online. The box below shows the conversation points that proved most popular amongst the teachers: 1. Screen fatigue (for both teachers and students) 2. Social media fatigue (for both teachers and students) 3. The usefulness of an online archive for passive (but not interactive) language learning 4. The difficulty of interactive feedback during online classes 5. The difficulty and time required to accurately teach pronunciation across online video teaching 6. The lack of spontaneity in feedback and student assessment, including the inaccessibility of programmes through which to achieve written back-and-forth commenting and feedback. 7. The difficulty of ensuring the integrity of student examinations conducted at home and online 8. The increasingly written nature of teaching and learning 9. The increasing use of innovative visual materials 10. The increased length of time required to prepare classes, for both students and teachers 11. The difficulty of photographing/scanning and uploading handwritten submissions 12. Issues relating to the organization or cancellation of years abroad, and how to replace them when necessary 13. Striking a balance between formal and informal language learning 14. The positive and/or negative influences of physical proximity on classes, and how this is changed in an online forum

24 

L. MANN ET AL.

Clearly, while tuition remains purely online, efforts have to be made to alleviate these difficulties and means sought to establish technologically sound and physically healthier learning environments. Students might need to be encouraged to take a break and time scheduled within the session for this, if necessary. Activities could be varied and perhaps included pen and paper work, which could be photographed and uploaded later. As tuition moves back to more face-to-face teaching and learning, an increased variety of activities, including working online, will cater for a diversity of students’ needs and learning and will naturally ease the problem of fatigue brought about through excessive exposure to synchronous online teaching tools. However, synchronous platforms, such as Microsoft Teams and Zoom, have also provided opportunities for innovation. For example, the option to share one’s screen has proved particularly useful when reading texts as a class. Instead of each student looking at their own copy of the text, sometimes struggling to work out which part is being discussed, teachers can directly highlight and indicate which part of the text they are referring to on their shared screen (see Fig. 2.1). Hence, students can engage with the text more easily. Moreover, the chat function of online video platforms has also proved beneficial, allowing teachers to quickly type new words into the chat for students to see. This is particularly useful for languages such as Chinese and Japanese, where specific Chinese characters or kanji need to be seen by students. Not only this, but these words are automatically saved in the chat, creating an archive of new words for students to use for their revision (see Fig. 2.2). Hence, when it comes to reading texts, even synchronous online learning can prove beneficial. Moreover, online platforms can deliver excellent supplementary materials for asynchronous online learning. For example, YouTube channels such as Chinese Zero to Hero and Learn Korean With Go! Billy Korean provide clear explanations of numerous grammar points ranging from basic to advanced level. These videos also present many example sentences with the selected grammar, by extension allowing the student to learn new vocabulary as well. Additionally, sites such as The Chairman’s Bao offer a range of exercises including reading and listening practice, which can help to increase exposure to the target language and aid practice for related examinations. Furthermore, the interactivity of the internet is a bonus and a vast range of highly interactive apps and websites have been created specifically with language education in mind. For example, HiNative allows language

2  FIRST TIP: BRING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO TEACHING IN MEANINGFUL WAYS 

25

Fig. 2.1  Screen-­ sharing can be useful to indicate specific parts of texts

learners to ask questions about their target language and its culture. Learners may ask questions such as “show me examples of sentences using ___”, and “does this sound natural?”. They may also respond to similar questions about their native languages. When asked for the differences between zhizuo 制作 and zhizao 制造, which both may be translated as “to make” in English, one user replied “zhizuo is mostly used for craftsmanship and creating works of art, while zhizao is used for production and the creation of new objects”, whilst another gave examples of usage such as using zhizuo for making lanterns, watches and handcrafts, and zhizao for making aeroplanes and cars. Additionally, students can partake in online language exchanges, either via video call or via a typed chat, allowing them to absorb the language in an interactive way. This can be easily done on apps like Tandem, where users can connect with each other to practise their desired language easily (see Fig. 2.3). For languages with speech levels, this can prove particularly

26 

L. MANN ET AL.

Fig. 2.2  Chats can be used by teachers to share new vocabulary and for students’ revision

useful, as students can learn how to interact informally with their peers— something that may not be achievable in a classroom setting. Nonetheless, even for languages without speech levels, this kind of interaction allows students to learn how to communicate with peers on social media. This is an important skill today, when so much interaction takes place online, including the organization of group events. Finally, online materials can help to boost interest in studying languages. In particular, watching TV shows and films, or listening to songs in the target language, can help students to understand real-life applications of the language in an enjoyable manner. This has been evidenced in particular by the rise of interest in the Korean language across the globe.

2  FIRST TIP: BRING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO TEACHING IN MEANINGFUL WAYS 

27

Fig. 2.3  Apps can easily be used to find language partners

As the popularity of Korean dramas and music has grown, interest in the Korean language has increased too. Korean dramas, music and variety shows are widely available on popular global video-hosting platforms, and by watching these, students become interested in the language and culture. They are also unconsciously taking part in embodied learning, absorbing vocabulary and pronunciation naturally and effortlessly, as well as learning about cultural customs and norms. In our study on online language learning, one student highlighted the benefits of learning Korean pronunciation through watching dramas, contrasting this with the stagnation that had occurred during synchronous class time: The natural back-and-forth exchanges of Japanese in my language classes is impossible to achieve over Zoom. In class, in order to avoid painful feedback loops and technical issues, we have to remain muted unless called upon, which means we aren’t able to express the usual natural interjection or commentary or offhand questions we normally would in a face-to-face setting (having to hit

28 

L. MANN ET AL.

the ‘raise your hand’ button, wait to be called upon (which disrupts the lesson in a way just interjecting with a question in real life would not), pray your mic turns on properly, hope your internet is strong enough to let your teacher hear your question, and then hope it’s strong enough to hear your teacher’s reply is a strong disincentive for asking questions!) In addition, skills that are already often-neglected (i.e. not outright taught or mentioned, so therefore skills you end up learning subconsciously via observation and practice) such as body language and tonal differences also get lost through the internet. Videos freezing or cameras being off add to the issue of only being able to see your teachers and classmates in 2D, which already restricts how much body language you can see compared to our 3D world. Stuttering audio, or a less-than-excellent internet connection, means understanding English is much harder than normal—let alone a second language you are actively trying to learn—and most in-built laptop microphones cannot convey the minutiae of the spoken language. An example of this is the Korean sentence ending particle ‘요’. When said with a flat tone, it is just a politer way to conjugate a verb, but when said with a rising tone it indicates a question. When my professor was first explaining this, I was completely unable to hear the difference between the two—even when he exaggerated it. However, the second I heard an example in a drama (with professional high-quality microphones), it was very easy to hear the difference. To add to this, lags and technical difficulties make co-watching media in class difficult, and as a result most of my classes have settled into simply reading the textbook together and answering questions—despite the best efforts of my teachers. This makes for a less engaging and less educational experience, as the very little immersion we were able to access before has been blocked off. Especially during lockdown, I have had to strive to maintain motivation for studying, and to find additional ways to re-light my interest and ability to be proactive in learning Japanese and Korean.

Overall, a combination of in-person and online learning is the future of effective and efficient language learning. In-person teaching provides invaluable interaction between teachers and students, allowing for ease of asking questions, correction of pronunciation and smooth interaction. In comparison, online language teaching offers innovative methods which may be particularly useful for teaching texts. Then, online resources can also be used to supplement classroom learning, with extensive free materials ranging from grammar exercises, to online interaction platforms, to popular culture audio-visual materials. Hence, we can begin to move beyond traditional methods of textbook-based language learning, to take

2  FIRST TIP: BRING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO TEACHING IN MEANINGFUL WAYS 

29

a more integrated approach, where in-person and online resources complement each other better in engaging the student and increasing their enthusiasm for language learning as a whole. Language students were also asked a series of questions along the lines of the issues raised by their teachers, as seen earlier. A selection of their responses is shown below:

Pace of Lessons: • My online lessons run at a slower pace In my experience I think this is a result of three factors. First is the lack of student engagement both inside and outside the lesson. The lack of engagement leads to long pauses and the need to cover material more thoroughly that students were meant to prepare for outside of the lesson. Second is the structure of the lessons. The language lessons operate nearly exclusively on a format where the teacher speaks through a text or exercise and asks questions one by one. That format means that any questions the students have completely halt the lesson … … Third is, of course, technical difficulties, but these have only become fewer. Tasks Set in Lessons: • There is a greater emphasis on language speaking than in inperson classes This difference is only minor but, because I am not spending much time doing exercises and because I cannot talk to other students very easily, I actually end up having more time speaking the language with my teacher. This might just be a result of the fact that the ‘question & answer’ lesson format is one that I take well to, pushing myself to answer questions. Probably too many.

30 

L. MANN ET AL.

• There is less emphasis on written work than in in-person classes This one is self-explanatory and is a result of the online format along with the Q&A lesson style. Interaction and Engagement: • I find it easier to disengage from online lessons I try to police myself on this one, but one way or the other my computer is a host of distractions. As mentioned above, the lessons work at a very slow pace without the need for me to engage apart from when the round of Q&A comes to me. This also depends on the teacher, so in Korean I find I disengage a lot more because a lot of it is spent reading through the textbook … There is very little need for me to engage so I often end up making vocab lists and doing future Korean homework during lessons. Teaching Style: • There is less diversity in the lesson type for online teaching Every lesson is in the same style and there is no differentiation for individual learning pace. Of course, a speaking and a writing class can be different, but I find that the writing classes all blend together as one, more than for in-person teaching. This is probably because introducing something new is harder with technological barriers or just because we are all a bit tired. Out of Class: • I have not noticed a significant difference in the amount of homework Marking and Feedback: • I have not noticed a significant difference in the amount of marking and feedback

2  FIRST TIP: BRING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO TEACHING IN MEANINGFUL WAYS 

I actually find I get about the same amount of marking and feedback and that it is better. In particular I find that my homework and Korean preps have more clearly accessible comments in the word document … Thoughts: • I am apathetic about the slower pace of the lessons mentioned above. It is not very annoying for me because I can always disengage from the lesson and read ahead. I generally like working by myself. Frustrations: • I find I am more nervous about sending off work online. I do not really know why this is, but I have done quite a few of my preps only to then worry that the language is not good enough or I should spend longer on it. This was not a problem before online teaching and might be related to my aversion to sending emails or contacting teachers. • I feel that the amount of work I put into the online lessons rarely changes how much I get out of them so I end up less motivated to put work into them. I generally make sure to do the work, but compared to the level of motivation I have reading for one of my tutorials I feel apathetic about my language lessons … • I cannot ask questions as informally as I would like or bother teachers outside of lessons as easily. Usually, I would like to ask teachers about odd things I had read that were confusing or interesting for me, perhaps in the corridor or in the few minutes after a lesson or when everyone was doing exercises. I understand that I could send an email online, but I am less comfortable doing that and the questions feel too minor. Honestly speaking, asking these questions was usually just a way to make me feel better and have some sense of feedback to the extra work I would do.

31

32 

L. MANN ET AL.

Benefits: • The increase in speaking for Japanese lessons that I mentioned above has been a benefit of online teaching, as has the clearer feedback on the writing preps that I do end up submitting. • There is no commute, and I can maximize the work I do at home far more easily. I love getting to do all my lessons from home, I make clear distinctions between workdays and weekends, and I find I only become more efficient and productive the more control I have of my time.

As is clear from the interviews above, students and teachers alike recognize that there are significant drawbacks in the use of synchronous online educational tools as a wholesale replacement for in-person language teaching. However, where benefits are noted, they tend to pertain to the clarity of feedback obtained in printed text and the convenience of being able to learn from home and within a comfortable setting. It is interesting to note that this student’s perception of online teaching and learning focusses on what he or she sees as increasing emphasis on speaking and listening, whereas teachers tended to highlight the written dimension of internet-­ based platforms for language learning. The student also hints at the problem of screen fatigue. His or her comments reflect an effort, on the part of the tutor, to replicate face-to-face teaching online, as faithfully as possible. The student’s response gives the impression that this effort has, in large part, failed. This is understandable, given that most of us have been launched wholesale into teaching through a medium of which, hitherto, we have had little experience. Here, as elsewhere, we are reminded of the need to think about the elements of our teaching that are successful and reconfigure these accordingly, to suit the environment in which we are working. This could include a hybrid model that brings together the benefits of well-planned in-person classroom teaching with the pragmatism and convenience of multimodal learning via social media apps and other online communication platforms. The lessons that teachers and students alike have been learning through their use of online educational materials can be taken and extended to

2  FIRST TIP: BRING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO TEACHING IN MEANINGFUL WAYS 

33

social media in general. The benefits of tools such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams outlined above, like being able to save and refer to specific phrases and orthographies used in class, as well as the interactivity of language tools such as HiNative and Tandem, can all be obtained through social media platforms too. Additionally, social media has a distinct advantage over these educational resources due to young people’s existing familiarity with and regular use of social media in their everyday lives, requiring very little conscious effort on their part to begin using them as an educational resource. As can be seen from the above discussions, it is clear that in-­ person classroom learning cannot be satisfactorily replaced by online learning. However, once the COVID-19 situation permits students across the world to return to in-person learning, the text-based side of online learning and social media language exchange can be used profitably to contribute to students’ overall language education and practical proficiency. It is for this reason that we propose the hybrid model of traditional classroom learning bolstered by social media channels. Social Media as a Language Learning Tool Understanding context is essential to understanding language and learning to do so is an essential part of language learning. Within scholarship on language, the effect of context has been managed under various headings, including “semantics” (Firth, 1935), “communicative competence” (Hymes, 1971) and many others. One of the most widespread of these is pragmatics, which has also been studied extensively in the context of language education. Research on teaching pragmatics has generally agreed that it is more effective when done explicitly, rather than implicitly (Moody, 2014, p. 40). This may have led to the assumption that classroom teaching is the most effective way to help students acquire knowledge of pragmatics. However, in fact, there are serious limitations to this approach that make themselves felt particularly keenly in a study of non-European languages which have very different fixed levels of politeness. In particular, the specific nature of the student-teacher relationship and its effect on language use in, for example, Japanese and Korean does not provide learners with the necessary range of contexts essential to explore diverse pragmatic skills, including honorifics. The same can be said for peer-to-peer classmate relationships. Even face-to-face teaching must therefore be complemented by more contextual, diverse interactions. Researchers in East Asian language education have already suggested the need to move

34 

L. MANN ET AL.

outside classroom settings to avoid this. Kambara (2011) suggests that because context is required to effectively teach pragmatics, in this case in Japanese, film clips can be used in the classroom (p. 147). Brown (2013) proposes teaching Korean pragmatics in a similar way, using clips from dramas to demonstrate pragmatic principles where “contextual factors are expected to be more complex than those encountered in fabricated dialogues” (p.  7). A recent study found that drama clips are successful in treating even obscure pragmatic elements like dialect and regional identity (Kiaer et al., 2019). Instead of worrying about how to offer feedback on language tasks through institutional virtual learning environments (VLEs) or video calls, simply allowing social media to present patterns of language use and contexts in which speech styles, address terms and nonverbal honorifics are used could help to teach learners explicitly to use pragmatic strategies. This could be a totally new way to think about explicitness in teaching pragmatics, particularly in socio-pragmatically rich languages. Immersion has generally been considered the failsafe method for learning pragmatics. In the age of COVID-19, however, opportunities for study abroad and immersive learning are even less common than they were previously. Rather than letting these limitations keep all learning in the classroom, however, educators can take advantage of virtual opportunities to increase range. Studies to date demonstrate the power of social media as a tool for language education. An in-depth understanding of the differences between social media and how they are perceived and used by learners and teachers is fundamental to creating successful teaching strategies based on those media. Previous research has highlighted disparities between teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of social media inside and outside education (2020) and demonstrated that most learners engage with digital technologies in “fairly simplistic” and “pragmatic” ways (Sharpe et  al., 2019). It is therefore beneficial to nurture simple and realistic engagements with social media technologies—which offer their own, unique set of pragmatic conditions for learners to navigate. One obvious means to do so would be to develop student-led, authentic models for social media integration and reflect these in assessments. Another priority in the deployment of social media recognized here is modelling an authentic communication flow. For example, AI-based social media, such as app technology, can be efficiently adapted to supplement classroom resources for the teaching and learning of pragmatics. In this case, especially in a world in which social media is increasingly ubiquitous in the lives of learners, an online learning approach combining social media interactions with

2  FIRST TIP: BRING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO TEACHING IN MEANINGFUL WAYS 

35

chatbots and AI technology could provide optimal conditions for L2 learners to develop a working understanding of pragmatics, because it would allow them to examine natural language use in context. Very often what has been taught in the classroom fails to represent diversity among interlocutors and their linguistic and cultural backgrounds. For instance, most interactions found in the textbooks for learning Korean focus on the standard language (close to Seoul Korean) if interlocutors are Koreans.1 Research shows that teaching about regional differences and ‘non-standard’ varieties of Korean increases learners’ confidence in pragmatic interactions (Kiaer et al., 2019). The textbooks frequently used rarely show this kind of diversity. They also rarely show how speech styles are shifted through negotiation to reflect intimacy or respect, even though this competence comprises an important part of pragmatic knowledge for Korean as a Foreign Language (KFL) and Korean as a Second Language (KSL) learners. As educators diversify the methods they use, the range in which language learning takes place and the variety of content taught, learners can be better equipped with pragmatic competencies. Hence, adding social media to the current status quo of traditional textbook-based learning only serves to diversify students’ learning, maintaining interest and bolstering real-world practical language skills in a way that classroom learning alone cannot.

Social Media Active Population The most obvious, and indeed most important, reason for which we propose social media as a valuable part of language learning amongst young people is the simple fact that it already makes up a significant portion of teenage and young adult learners’ everyday lives, thereby making it convenient and easy for users to incorporate its use in other languages. Whilst there appears to be a distinct gap between the online language learning activities of young British people and the desire to study languages in school, the incorporation of social media into the language classroom presents an interesting and relatively low-effort method of encouraging young people in more formal language education. In 2016, Ofcom reported that 49% of people in the UK aged 8–15 had their own tablet computer, 79% of people aged 12–15 had their own  This is explored in Study Abroad in Korea: Korean Language and Culture (Kiaer, 2020).

1

36 

L. MANN ET AL.

smartphone and most people aged 5–15 years old owned three or more electronic devices (60% of 5–7-year olds, 82% of 8–11-year olds and 96% of 12–15-year olds). More recently, in 2017, the Office for National Statistics reported that 79% of 16–24-year olds use the internet ‘daily or almost every day’. These statistics, although not specifying social media itself, demonstrate the regularity and ease with which young people in the UK revert to online platforms as a pastime, knowledge source and method of communication. Based on these data, it is clear that the use of social media as a language learning tool will appeal strongly to digitally engaged young people, enabling them to combine their daily use of social media with the need to learn foreign languages in a practical and useful manner. In the 2020s, older people are also becoming increasingly engaged with social media and internet-enabled technologies, and as they do so, modes of online language learning based on such technologies will increase their appeal for those groups of learners too.

The Year Abroad and Language Immersion as an Educational Tool A common element of many foreign language degrees is the Year Abroad: an entire year dedicated to immersing oneself in the target language and culture, which has proven to be very effective. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic however, the Year Abroad has been subject to new limitations with physical movement restricted and travel bans in place. However, even pre-COVID, the Year Abroad posed financial challenges and, even with grants and bursaries, can be very expensive when considering differences in cost-of-living, alongside transportation and accommodation fees. In face of these challenges, more pronounced since the pandemic restricted movement, attitudes to the Year Abroad have changed. In the future, attitudes could shift still further against widespread student travel for the purposes of Year Abroad programmes, due to considerations of climate change and institutional policies concerning cutting carbon emissions. Moving forward, we must address the need for more accessible, sustainable and effective ways students can learn a language without the Year Abroad in circumstances where it is not possible. A multimodal approach to language education would be one step towards reaching a viable alternative to the Year Abroad, including the

2  FIRST TIP: BRING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO TEACHING IN MEANINGFUL WAYS 

37

integration of features of social media. It is common for foreign language learners to participate in particular online chatrooms, discussion boards and groups, to find a community of people who use the target language with whom they are able to interact. In fact, there are even apps and other online platforms where one can find native speakers of the target language who are willing to help them on their language learning journey. Apps such as FluentU, where subscribers have access to thousands of hours of foreign language video content from which to learn, market themselves entirely on ‘language immersion with real-world videos’, thereby very much setting themselves out as a lower cost and more convenient alternative to travel. On social media, one can find language partners—whether intended or by chance—facilitating a sort of virtual immersion at a much lower cost than the Year Abroad. As the COVID-19 pandemic has forced many to effectively relinquish their opportunity to travel abroad, a significant proportion of students have opted to stay in their home country and seek digital and online language learning resources instead. Through the consideration and development of online exchanges with language partners, social media can be a useful tool and, perhaps, even a more sustainable alternative to the Year Abroad. In the future, creating an immersive virtual experience with help from social media and other digital platforms may well be the way forward, should students aiming to undertake a Year Abroad be prevented from doing so by personal circumstances or unprecedented scenarios of any type. These circumstances could be long term, such as care responsibilities or environmental concerns, or more sudden, such as an accident or public health emergency. In this sense, social media represents a far more accessible method of giving a wider breadth of students, whether engaged in formal education or not, the low-cost opportunity to access language immersion, as part of their language learning journey. The following student’s comments throw light on the benefits of online language exchange, as a means to develop language and culture skills analogous to those acquired during a Year Abroad programme: The benefits of a language exchange [online], particularly during the coronavirus, are immeasurable. Having been scheduled to go to Korea in summer 2020, which was of course cancelled, and then in summer 2021, unlikely because of Korea’s current quarantine procedures, and now hoping to make it there in December 2021, my language exchange partner has been my only method of obtaining exposure with a native speaker of my own age. Furthermore, it is also

38 

L. MANN ET AL.

my only interaction with a native Korean speaker outside of a classroom environment, which allows a much wider range of non-directed conversations as opposed to a syllabus-led classroom conversation, especially at my university which predominantly focuses on reading comprehension at the expense of other language skills. Speaking to someone my age also allows me to pick up on more of the slang and conversational terms used by people my age (my language partner is also a female university student), as well as filler words, and over the past 8 weeks or so of participating in my language exchange I’ve begun to see my Korean gradually pick up a more ‘native’ sound—absorbing some of my language partner’s phrases and verbal habits, and having my pronunciation corrected by her too. Because we’re both university students, we spend a lot of time talking about university, so I’m picking up some cultural points too—like some Korean universities having midterms, which I’m grateful we don’t have at Oxford! Another benefit is that I know when I finally make it to Korea, I now have a friend in Seoul to show me around! It’s nice to feel this more ‘real’ connection to the country whose language I’m studying, because apart from my teachers and media I consume, all of which takes place in the UK or over the internet, having someone actively in Korea and feeling that connection is surprisingly an aid to my motivation and to feeling a bit more connected, especially during Covid. On my language exchange partner’s side, having spoken to her, she emphasised the benefits of understanding English culture more through our exchange thus far. In particular, we have spoken on English vs Korean feminism, the vaccine progress (in fact, this was how I decided to postpone my summer trip to Korea—knowing that the vaccination rate was quite slow and that women under 30 had been banned from it, it seemed unlikely they’d completely open up by summer), and life at Oxford. We’ve spoken at length on ‘youth culture’ in England and in Korea, including the cram school system in Korea and British drinking culture, and nightlife in both countries, and this information has been so useful to both of us, both in terms of understanding each other better, learning the relevant slang, and being more thoroughly equipped when we eventually travel to each other’s countries. It also helps minimise misunderstandings—knowing about radical feminism in Korea and therefore that the term is understood by certain people to be more ‘militant’ or extreme than the UK’s more benign perception of the feminist movement means I’m far less likely to judge someone in Korea for not identifying as a feminist, and be less likely to think that they hate women (which I would probably do if an English person said they weren’t, because feminism has a different interpretation here).

2  FIRST TIP: BRING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO TEACHING IN MEANINGFUL WAYS 

39

Teaching Socio-pragmatic Content Through Social Media Pragmatics, discussed briefly above, is cited by language learners as one of the most difficult and nuanced aspects of a language—and one with which they struggle. It is even more problematic for those learning languages with different fixed levels of politeness, such as Japanese and Korean. One of the major drawbacks of a wholly traditional approach to language learning is that it tends to be heavily reliant on grammar books and other types of textbooks, which can result in students feeling as if the material they engage with is not relevant to real life; language learning becomes focussed on verb conjugations and spelling, rather than more spontaneous dialogues that take into account pragmatic elements. With the COVID-19 pandemic limiting the classroom language learning experience mostly to the (synchronous) online realm, impromptu conversations to practise the language in lessons have suffered a serious blow. Social media, however, may be the solution to the problem. One notable aspect of many of the features of these online platforms is spontaneity. For example, users are able to text, send voice messages or play games, which lead to less stilted and rehearsed interactions that make use of the target language. What students tend to learn in the classroom, whether online or offline, is the formal side of a language, with minimal opportunity to appropriately use slang or more colourful expressions. However, informal language is just as valid as its formal counterpart in terms of real-­ life use and social media comprises one of the authentic spaces in which multiple registers can be used and adaptability to varying levels of formality can be tested. For foreign language learners, many features of social media will be useful in developing their figurative ear for pragmatic cues. Furthermore, whereas social media could be considered a proxy for real-life pragmatic discussions, we would instead argue that social media is real life. It is one of the most common arenas in which people, both strangers and friends alike, come into contact, as part of their everyday lives. As such, for people learning to communicate in a foreign language, becoming confident and effective when using online platforms such as social media is, of itself, an important aspect of modern language ability. Therefore, incorporating social media into the language classroom not only helps students’ overall abilities but also builds their confidence in learning certain types of language that are widely used by the ‘native’ language community online.

40 

L. MANN ET AL.

Making Language Learning Fun Over the years, the UK has seen a decline in the number of students opting to take a foreign language as one of their General Certificates of Secondary Education (GCSEs). According to the British Academy report of 2015, one of the main reasons that learners are put off is that language learning is perceived to be difficult and disconnected from ‘real life’; many feel as if they are rehearsing the language instead of actually using it to carry out authentic real-world actions with a tangible end product. From this, we can gather the following core problems: a lack of engagement and inauthenticity. However, this can be fixed—not necessarily as an overnight change, but with the implementation of particular aspects of social media in the teaching and learning experience, language learning can be fun! Younger people are in general adept at and active on social media platforms, meaning that they are familiar with and accustomed to its many and varied features (see Table 2.1). As one of the interviewed students mentioned, one issue with online lessons is the lack of diversity in the teaching style: ‘every lesson is in the same style and there is no differentiation for individual learning pace.’ This is a real problem which engenders demotivation, as students have reported that they also find it easier to disengage from online lessons. Yet this cycle of monotony can be broken with the integration of well-­ known social media features. Lambton-Howard et al.’s study (Lambton-­ Howard et  al., 2020) found that social media allowed for a focus on authentic communication flow, as conversations utilizing direct text messages, for example, permitted students to practise their language skills in a less formal and rigid classroom setting, at their own pace. Another way in which one can make use of social media functions to diversify the language learning experience is through playing games. On a number of social media platforms, such as Facebook, users are able to take part in games with another person, whether asynchronous or synchronous. This element can be used alongside more traditional methods to allow for more dynamic and interactive education. For many people, interactions on social media are not limited to one medium and instead branch out to multimodal communication. Alongside the digital texts, for instance, part of students’ language learning experience involved sharing emojis and stickers (Lambton-Howard et  al., 2020); this integration of visual language is worth considering in the innovation of teaching methods, for it offers another real-life way in which people communicate. This

2  FIRST TIP: BRING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO TEACHING IN MEANINGFUL WAYS 

41

Table 2.1  Social media functions Feature

Description

Direct text message Audio message Audio call

Asynchronous primarily text-based communication between one or more people, for example, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp chats Asynchronous audio communication between one or more people, for example, Facebook Messenger record audio, WhatsApp record audio Synchronous audio communication via social media application between one or more people, for example, WhatsApp call, Skype call Video Asynchronous video communication between one or more people, for message example, Instagram/Snapchat video, WhatsApp video record Video call Synchronous video communication between one or more people, for example, Skype video call, WhatsApp video call Stories Asynchronous presentations of video, image, text and audio vignettes. Typically, with 24-hour life spans and only visible to friends or followers, for example, Instagram stories, Snapchat stories Comments Publicly visible text messages related to, and usually positioned beneath, an article of media, for example, Instagram comments, YouTube comments Feeds Asynchronous presentation of public or pseudo-public multimedia content generated by users, for example, Twitter feeds, Facebook feeds, Instagram feeds Chatbots Automated conversational agents, typically with natural language inputs, for example, Bots on Messenger, Slack, Twitter (not Siri/Google Assistant, etc.) Game playing Asynchronous or synchronous game playing with another person, embedded within a social media technology, for example, Facebook games, WeChat games

can enhance a learner’s experience when used in tandem with other media. It must be stressed that this line of argument does not intend to pit social media against traditional methods; social media is not in competition with it. Instead, we advocate for a combination of the two, in order to reap the best results. Where textbooks and lectures fall short, features of social media may rise to fill the lacuna.

Conclusion Recent circumstances have compelled communities around the globe to switch to online learning, working and socializing. In this chapter, we have discussed how the lessons of the pandemic can be applied to the language classroom going forward, with relation in particular to the use of social

42 

L. MANN ET AL.

media in the teaching of foreign languages to diverse groups of learners. In summary, here are eight ‘sub-tips’—the main points that we would like you to take away from this chapter: 1. Synchronous online learning that tries to reflect the face-to-face classroom too faithfully runs into all sorts of problems—which have been noted by teachers and learners alike. 2. To overcome these, we need to build a model of online teaching on a solid foundation of essential elements of teaching and learning (skills, knowledge and objectives) that takes advantage of the resources for language learning that the internet has to offer, notably social media. 3. Social media constitute an essential arena for communication and are characterized by emergent patterns of language use. For language learners, they offer a medium through which socio-pragmatic language can be learned via conversations with native speakers anywhere in the world and at any time. Social and digital media help language students to learn in a fully contextualized manner, which can help them to learn vocabulary and remember patterns more effectively. Social media can also introduce students to slang and shorthand that only exists in informal online communications. 4. Many textbooks and formal language learning resources present only standardized forms of language; this can affect a learner’s confidence in real-life settings where regional accents and slang are frequently encountered. Pragmatic language use is also often missing from language teaching. The use of digital media as a teaching tool can help students become accustomed to regional language variations and accents. 5. For languages which have different registers of formality, it can be difficult to practise certain ways of speaking in a classroom setting. Digital media can help students observe how speech patterns change in different situations, even if they themselves cannot experience the situation naturally in real life. 6. Though problematic, even straightforward synchronous platforms have some advantages over face-to-face teaching. For example, the share-screen function in technologies such as Zoom is useful for lessons based on a reading text, allowing the class to move through it together, without anyone losing their place. Saveable chat boxes in synchronous

2  FIRST TIP: BRING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO TEACHING IN MEANINGFUL WAYS 

43

meeting applications allow for the real-time collation of communal vocabulary lists. 7. If and when we see a return to more face-to-face teaching, we propose a hybrid learning model, in which traditional classroom learning is complemented with the use of social media. Exposure to social media has the potential to make language skills learned in the classroom more well-rounded and applicable to the real world, as well as to help to bolster interest in formal foreign language learning amongst students in the UK—which is currently in decline. 8. The accessibility of social media and online tools for language exchange allows a wider pool of students to achieve ‘virtual immersion’, thereby offering a cheaper and more convenient alternative to Year Abroad study. This digital immersion will be a viable option for many students, going forward, when faced with restrictions on travel for financial, public health, environmental and other reasons. We hope that the discussions presented in this chapter help contribute to the widespread acceptance of social media-based language learning and ‘virtual immersion’ as valid and indispensable tools, within language classrooms across the globe. Our next tip will deal with one way of implementing social media-driven online teaching—in this case, to develop a more diverse curriculum.

Useful Resources You may find the following resources helpful when thinking about incorporating social and digital media in teaching: Aloraini, N., & Cardoso, W. (2020). Social media in language learning: A mixedmethods investigation of students’ perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Akbari, E., Naderi, A., Simons, R. J., & Pilot, A. (2016). Student engagement and foreign language learning through online social networks. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(1), 1–22. Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Chasing the butterfly effect: Informal language learning online as a complex system. Language Learning & Technology 22(2).

44 

L. MANN ET AL.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2019). Riding the digital wilds: Learner autonomy and informal language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 23(1), 8–25. https:// doi.org/10125/44667 Navarro-Pablo, M., López-Gándara, Y., & García-Jiménez, E. (2019). The use of digital resources and materials in and outside the bilingual classroom. Comunicar. Media Education Research Journal, 27(1). Mısır, H. (2018). Digital literacies and interactive multimedia-enhanced tools for language teaching and learning. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 5(3). 514–523. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/ view/178/250 Reinhardt, J. (2020). Metaphors for social media-enhanced foreign language teaching and learning. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 234–242. Reinhardt, J. (2019). Social media in second and foreign language teaching and learning: Blogs, wikis, and social networking. Language Teaching 52(1). Wong, L., Sing-Chai, C., & Poh-Aw, G. (2017). Seamless Language Learning: Second Language Learning with Social Media. Comunicar Media Education Research Journal 25(1). Zheng, B., Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Social media in the writing classroom and beyond. Teaching Writing.

References Brown, L. (2013). Teaching ‘casual’ and/or ‘impolite’ language through multimedia: The case of non-honorific panmal speech styles in Korean. Journal of Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26, 1–18. Firth, J.  R. (1935). The technique of semantics. Papers in linguistics: 1934–1951 (pp. 7–33). Oxford University Press. Hymes, D.  H. (1971). On communicative competence. In C.  J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford University Press. Jeffreys, B. (2019, February 27). Language learning: German and French drop by half in UK schools. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-­47334374 Kambara, W. (2011). Teaching Japanese pragmatic competence using film clips. L2 Journal, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.5070/L23210001 Kiaer, J. (2020). Study abroad in Korea: Korean language and culture. Routledge. Kiaer, J., Park, M., Choi, N., & Driggs, D. (2019). The roles of age, gender and setting in Korean half-talk shift. Discourse and Cognition, 26, 279–308. Lambton-Howard, D., Kiaer, J., & Kharrufa, A. (2020). ‘Social media is their space’: Student and teacher use and perception of features of social media in language education. Behaviour & Information Technology. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/0144929X.2020.1774653

2  FIRST TIP: BRING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO TEACHING IN MEANINGFUL WAYS 

45

Moody, S. (2014). Should we teach rules for pragmatics? Explicit instruction and emergent awareness of Japanese plain and polite forms. Japanese Language and Literature, 48(1), 39–69. Sharpe, R., Qi, W., & Pavlakou, M. (2019). Exploring patterns of technology use in UK college students: A cluster analysis of learners’ digital practices. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 24(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13596748.2019.1584436

CHAPTER 3

Second Tip: Diversify the Curriculum

Abstract  This chapter offers language teachers a second tip when working online: to take advantage of the internet as a vehicle for increasing curriculum diversity. After briefly examining the strategic and pedagogic imperatives for enhancing diversity in language curricula, the discussion builds on points made earlier concerning the use of social media to model pragmatic strategies, context-dependent communication and other features of natural language for students, highlighting the unique potential of social media and fandom language communities to (a) help learners form a more nuanced awareness of diversity in the target language and culture and (b) appeal to a wider range of interest groups among learners themselves. To illustrate this, this chapter introduces the case study of the use of a fandom text about Japanese hip-hop, sourced from social media, to teach Japanese-English translation. The conclusions of this research point towards the possibility of increased student engagement and a potential way into what have been traditionally conceived of as higher-order thinking skills, such as analysis and reflection. The notion that ‘authenticity’, a term often invoked in strategies related to curriculum diversity, can extend beyond the introduction of materials not designed for educational purposes, to include the involvement of learners in emergent research and other real-world professional activities, is reinforced throughout this chapter and the case study.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 L. Mann et al., Online Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91418-9_3

47

48 

L. MANN ET AL.

Keywords  Curriculum • Diversity • Authenticity • Decolonization • Social media • Fandom • Pragmatics • Translation • Rap

Emcee Battles in Japanese Outline This chapter presents an opportunity offered by the shift online in language education—to diversify the curriculum. Since digital diversification often depends on multimodality and social networks, this chapter follows on nicely from Tip#1’s focus on the need to bring multimodal social media platforms and other digital technologies together in new programmes of online language education. Here is how this chapter will proceed. First, we will outline the need for curriculum diversity and what this means for language teachers. Second, we will discuss how digital technologies support curriculum diversity and how this intersects with the issue of digital inequalities. Third, we will take a look at how digital curriculum diversity could actually work in the online language classroom, by means of a case study of teaching rap and hip-hop within East Asian studies. This section is written from the perspective of the teacher who carried out the design and delivery of the curriculum. Finally, as in the last Tip, we will assemble the key points for you to think about in your own practice and a small selection of additional sources which might prove useful when you do. What Is Curriculum Diversity, and Why Do We Need It? These days, ‘diversity’ is a term that teachers encounter daily. In order to do our jobs, it is essential to recognize the variety that exists within the material we present to our students, as well as within the backgrounds and learning styles of the students themselves. The notion that we have a responsibility to ensure the accessibility of the content we provide, and the methods by which we provide it, is now well entrenched in our theory and in our practice. In that case, why should curriculum diversity deserve particular attention? The answer lies in the notion that, as well as establishing the parameters for learning in the first place, culture may have the potential to affect how teachers judge the ongoing efficacy of a curriculum. If, for example,

3  SECOND TIP: DIVERSIFY THE CURRICULUM 

49

a teacher has no experience of the cultural context in which a particular book was written, he or she might be less inclined to judge it worthy of inclusion in an ‘English Literature’ programme or see the aspirational benefits it might bring to certain students. When he or she raises the matter with colleagues with similar backgrounds and perspectives, they, too, are less likely to see the pedagogic potential of the alternative material. Institutional and cultural inertia may further discourage the overhaul of curricula. The long-term cumulative effect of these phenomena is that the academic community risks perpetually reinforcing the ‘canon’ of knowledge and learning its community has brought into being. There is, however, some cause for hope. For one thing, it is very clear that appreciation of cultural value does not exclusively correlate with cultural background. If such a pessimistic scenario were true, there would be little point in teaching literature at all, since it is a rare thing for the cultural background of either students or teachers to correspond precisely with those of the characters in a work of fiction, or even with their authors. Under the same hypothesis, it would also be particularly difficult to motivate students working with material in a different language—as language teachers must—since new linguistic contexts inevitably bring with them alternative perspectives and values that can be, in some cases, very different from a student’s own. Furthermore, L2 learners and teachers are a diverse group of people to begin with. The community of language teachers in higher education (HE) contains a large component of native-­ language teachers and instructors, whose job it is to teach their own language to L2 learners and who, inevitably, end up demonstrating aspects of their own culture in the process. They are joined by colleagues who have different native-language backgrounds and disciplinary interest. Their students are similarly heterogeneous, displaying a wide range of socio-economic and educational backgrounds—as in other departments— but also differing in terms of their own native-language background and degree of familiarity with L2. Diversity is, in these respects, built into the languages classroom. The unique potential of languages departments to lead the diversification of teaching and learning in universities is a matter to which we will return at several points throughout this chapter. First, let us look briefly at some of the principal arguments that are put forward in support of curriculum diversity across the HE sector.

50 

L. MANN ET AL.

‘Decolonization’ of the Curriculum: Missing Knowledge Among the most commonly cited and easy to understand examples of curriculum diversification is what is often called the decolonization of the curriculum. This is where universities and other HE institutions, in regions of the world that have actively participated in colonial projects over the last several centuries, revisit the materials they teach, across a range of subject areas, to ascertain the extent to which those curricula have been defined by the philosophical and ideological imperatives driving colonialism. Importantly, this does not just mean removing openly imperialist or racist content that has been around since the colonial period or even just supplementing this with later material that problematizes it—though this might be an important part of the process. To decolonize a curriculum means to recognize the philosophical limitations of that curriculum dictated by the colonial or post-colonial cultural context in which it was created. As they have influenced how we write, colonial forces have also influenced how we teach and study. Michael Peters, writing in 2015, characterized this philosophical limitation as a major difficulty facing teachers working at western universities that impinges on their ability to decide if a curriculum is diverse enough or not. Peters argues that “the curriculum … [is composed of] … ‘white ideas’ by ‘white authors’ and is a result of colonialism that has normalized whiteness and made blackness invisible. This is a fundamental educational challenge that has not been addressed by the educational establishment, nor by the majority of philosophers including philosophers of education” (2015, p. 641). Aside from any moral imperative to write the perspectives of black and other minority ethnic communities into academic discourse—and, by extension, taught curricula—a strong argument for monitoring and modifying the curriculum, to ensure its attention is not held exclusively by subject matter and modes of enquiry defined in the philosophical context of colonialism, lies in the latent knowledge that we miss if we do not do so. As recent academic responses to the Black Lives Matter movement have demonstrated, ‘white’ history has left many stories untold. These stories contain new data and new frameworks of enquiry to move our cumulative understanding forward. They may also contain elements that help to motivate our students and help us to teach more effectively. As with issues of diversity more generally, language teachers are arguably in a stronger position than most to decolonize their curricula. The cross-cultural nature of the discussions taking place in language classrooms

3  SECOND TIP: DIVERSIFY THE CURRICULUM 

51

lends itself well to the introduction of post-colonial narratives. Taught content, itself, regularly intersects with colonialism in sufficiently complex ways as to make a wholly one-sided, ethno- and Euro-centric perspective difficult to uphold. This is particularly the case for the teaching and learning of non-European languages at university. It is difficult to conceive of a modern Arabic literature course, for example, that did not engage in some way with the dynamics of European colonialism in the Middle East and North Africa. Although such courses are becoming increasingly rare, a very traditional course in French literature, on the other hand, could in theory shoot through all the greats, from Moliere to Jean-Paul Sartre, without thinking at all about the relationships between French literature and the perspectives and identities forged by France’s interactions with its colonies elsewhere in the world. This latter type of languages curriculum clearly requires more reworking, if it aims to become ‘diverse’. Similarly, the disciplinary breadth of language common in language classrooms might be advantageous from the point of view of decolonizing the curriculum. In many subjects, it can be difficult to unpick the fine stitching that gives shape to the mantle of university education, since teaching portfolios are largely dictated by disciplinary boundaries and these have themselves been sculpted by the cultural context of western modernity (and, in many cases, colonial heritage). However, for language teachers and, once again, particularly for those of us working in non-­ European traditions, the area studies focus encouraged by institutional subdivisions such as a Department of German or a Centre for Chinese Studies, often permits us comparative freedom—or even compels us—to experiment with our teaching loads, blurring disciplinary boundaries in the process. My own teaching and assessment activities over the past year have scoped over classical and modern Japanese language, literature, linguistics, translation studies, history, social anthropology and, once or twice, even Korean. These parameters may or may not be unusually wide, but it is undoubtedly the case that university departments working with languages and area studies are commonly called upon to teach across a wide range of topics that, if not contained within that particular regional focus, would otherwise fall under a range of subdivisions of the university: history, linguistics, literature, film studies, sociology, and so on.  AME Underachievement and ‘Widening Participation’ B Another issue that intersects with the recent impetus to diversify curricula is that of BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) underachievement in

52 

L. MANN ET AL.

the HE sector. The overall picture is complex but at least some groups of BAME students do not achieve the same high rates of academic success in university as their white counterparts. This is partly related to underachievement earlier in their schooling; however, given the philosophical underpinnings of the white curriculum outlined above, it is hardly surprising that white students appear to be at an unfair advantage, when compared to their BAME peers. Proponents of a diversified curriculum argue that this could help to address this inequality of achievement, as well as providing a learning environment that is more conducive to success for students across a broad spectrum of community background: “A diversified curriculum with more books and journal articles by BAME authors can help, and in any case developing more inclusive curriculums is good for everyone” (Adebisi, 2019). Teachers of foreign languages have the potential to be in the vanguard of this movement, since the materials they use are often intersectional in nature and the translingual and cross-cultural modes in which students are asked to interact with them (translation, multilingual comprehension exercise, analysis, discussion, etc.) encourage the development of inclusive, non-canonical frameworks of understanding. As before, this trend is arguably all the more pronounced in the case of the study of non-­European languages and literatures, which naturally shifts perspectives away from a wholly ‘white’, Eurocentric view of the world, to one in which the ‘other’ not only exists but also creates cultural output worthy of careful thought and academic scrutiny. Saidean critiques notwithstanding, the potential of language study to facilitate greater diversity in higher education curricula, with the objective of increasing participation and success for BAME students, is beyond question. However, the drive towards inclusivity in the curriculum clearly has ramifications beyond the dynamics of race and colonialism. A broad spectrum of inequality faces the university sector and this is reflected in underachievement across a similar variety of communities. Efforts to increase educational participation and achievement rates among these groups are commonly grouped under the heading ‘widening participation’—now a familiar phrase in university access and student recruitment policy. When creating, revising or overhauling curricula, it is clear, therefore, that we must consider the positive and negative effects our choices may have across a diverse range of student groups. Despite rarely appearing in formal ‘widening participation’ agendas, the most underachieving group of all is that of white, working-class men.

3  SECOND TIP: DIVERSIFY THE CURRICULUM 

53

Across the developed world, men, in general, now fare worse than women in university entrance rates. In the UK, they are also more likely to drop-­ out early in their programme of study (8% for men vs. 6% for women) and less likely to gain the highest-ranking degrees (2:1 or above, 69% of men vs. 73% of women; Hillman & Robinson, 2016, p. 24). This trend becomes still more pronounced when socio-economic background is taken into consideration; among school children receiving free-school meals, girls are 51% more likely to progress to higher education than boys (p. 17). Just as the opening up of curricula to include materials and perspectives from BAME communities is now widely recommended as a means of improving educational outcomes for young people from those communities, effort therefore needs to be made to refine curricula in such a way as to incorporate material that promotes the participation of young men from less privileged socio-economic backgrounds. The question of how to achieve such a target might not be immediately transparent for teachers of modern foreign languages and is one to which we will return later in this chapter.  uthenticity and Student Outcomes A Authenticity is another term that we sometimes encounter in relation to the diversification of curricula in universities. In this context, authentic learning means learning that has, or is perceived as having, real-world applications. This differs from ‘practical’ learning in that it also scopes over theoretical and academic knowledge, such as ‘authentic’ research methodologies (often introduced as part of research-led teaching programmes). Authentic modes of learning have been linked to higher levels of student motivation. In language teaching, the use of authentic materials, defined as “materials that are not written for language students … found in the real world and brought into the classroom”, that contain “rich cultural and linguistic components that the average native speaker uses” (Jernigan, 2016, p. 287), has been linked to the generation of a more relaxed environment for learning and increased student motivation (ibid., p. 291). In a similar vein, a recent resource document issued by the University of Oxford states that academic assessment is “particularly meaningful, engaging and motivational for students when it develops skills and practices which academics or professionals use, in other words, when it is ‘authentic’” (Diversifying assessment, n.d.). The demand for authenticity has fuelled the demand for new modes of curriculum and assessment design which, in turn, provides academics with the fresh opportunities to think about diversifying their teaching. The question of authenticity is central to

54 

L. MANN ET AL.

many of the core debates of this chapter, including the development and success of East Asian rap culture featured within the teaching discussed later. Strategic Demands Theoretical justifications aside, curriculum diversification is now a practical necessity for many working in higher education in the UK and elsewhere—and this includes language teachers. Across the sector, diversity is very much on the agenda at a strategic level, with many institutions issuing guidance to staff concerning the need to overhaul curricula to make them more inclusive, as well as tips on how to go about doing so. Founded as it was on principles of inclusivity and accessibility, the Open University is a good example of one institution that has ramped up its strategic push towards curriculum diversity and widening participation in recent years. In its consultative document Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in the Curriculum: Guidance for faculties and approval bodies (2008, revised 2018), the university outlines its commitment to maximizing curriculum diversity, with the aim of improving student outcomes and participation rates: We are committed to providing high quality university education to all who wish to realise their ambitions and fulfil their potential; to widen participation; and to meet the needs of diverse groups of students. Creating an inclusive, relevant and accessible curriculum will contribute to attracting and retaining our target groups, equipping students to respond to increasingly diverse environments and will assist us in achieving our strategic objectives. (p. 4)

The document further stresses that the issue of curriculum diversity, which it sees as an important element within a larger framework of inclusivity and equality, should be tackled through existing faculty processes, rather than outside them. This makes it very much the responsibility of all academics with a role in teaching and assessment: Equality, diversity and inclusion issues can sometimes be seen as something additional to core work. Integrating equality considerations throughout existing processes at qualification and module levels will ensure the work is an integral part of these processes and will add real value by improving the quality of decision making. (p. 5)

3  SECOND TIP: DIVERSIFY THE CURRICULUM 

55

It is often possible to integrate the strategic aims expressed in institutional documents within everyday teaching and learning activities without too much disruption to existing curricula or teaching schedules. The focus for teachers should therefore be on ensuring that diverse student needs are being catered for, rather than unnecessarily adding to their workloads with complete overhauls of programmes of learning that might already be working well. The shift to online teaching offers a great chance for us to think about ways of adjusting our teaching in efficient ways. Diversity and Language Teaching As briefly touched on above, there are several ways in which a foreign language curriculum could be conceived of as intrinsically more ‘diverse’ than one that is tied closely to cultures associated with the language of instruction or the region in which an HE is located. The cultural model of language teaching capitalizes on this important aspect of language learning and makes discussion of the cultural differences encountered in an L2 environment central to the learning process. This background puts language teachers in a stronger position than many regarding curriculum diversity but should not be used as an argument against thinking critically about curricula as they currently stand. No region of the world is free of cultural biases and canons can be carried across from the L2 material covered. If not executed carefully, and with thought given to the internal diversity of a given region, any approach to L2 teaching centred on the communication of culture risks giving the impression that all L1 speakers of a language share a homogenous common culture. In the case of L2 teaching material aimed at beginners (CEFR A1–2), it can be particularly difficult to address internal diversity within a language or culture with a sufficient degree of nuance, when working entirely with grammar, vocabulary and usage familiar to learners at such an early stage in their studies of the language. For example, it is common in many early stage materials for university learners of Japanese (Japanese as a Foreign Language; JFL) to focus on constructed conversations between L2 learner characters (often exchange students or company employees) and Japanese characters, on topics related to the cultural differences that exist between Japan and those learners’ home countries and regions. The most successful of these touch on aspects of culture that transcend stereotypes or one-to-one associations of language and culture; however, many run the risk of underrepresenting the

56 

L. MANN ET AL.

diversity of life in Japan and other Japanese-speaking regions. Japan itself is home to a splendid diversity of minority cultures and communities, to say nothing of the Japanese diaspora spread throughout the rest of the world. Digital Diversity Versus Digital Inequality In the online space, diversity has taken on new meanings. As discussed elsewhere in this volume, online technologies have opened up new channels and modes of communication—and this is having a substantial effect on how languages are used (and, by extension, taught). After achieving truly global reach, social networking services and social media platforms have both been credited with democratizing the communication of ideas and criticized for the spread of ‘misinformation’. The year 2020 was one in which the internet truly revealed itself as the central venue for debates on the use of language, as well as freedoms of speech and publishing. As language teachers, we arguably have a responsibility to help our students navigate these emergent dynamics. Certainly, if we are to attempt to make our teaching ‘authentic’, as discussed above, we need to grapple with the question of how to teach languages in ways that also help students comprehend the diversity of communicative modes and language communities encountered online and, ultimately, become functional members of those communities themselves. There are various obstacles that teachers must overcome on the way to achieving this goal for their students. To begin with, any rapid development in the modes and idioms in which communication takes place necessarily brings challenges of communicative competence for all language users, but especially L2 learners who are still at an early stage in their journey towards fluency. Just as language textbooks centred on the communication of cultural information run the risk of oversimplifying discussions of culture to fit the parameters of learners’ development in L2, so do attempts at increasing learners’ awareness and understanding of social media communication risk underrepresenting the complexities of such arenas of language use and creating an artificial impression of the ease with which it is possible to communicate in social media environments. Another obstacle facing teachers aiming to create a digitally diverse learning environment through engagement with social media is the extent to which learners compartmentalize their technology use. While teachers commonly believe that students are all highly technologically engaged,

3  SECOND TIP: DIVERSIFY THE CURRICULUM 

57

‘fully-immersed’ users of social media, studies have observed that this is not always the case. Rather, there exists, among students, a spectrum of social media technology users, ranging from highly active and innovative users, who are more likely to mobilize a range of digital resources at their disposal, to ‘fairly simplistic’ users, who respond to specific instructions to use a particular technology in support of their learning but who, otherwise, do not experiment in this way (Sharpe et  al., 2019). As a whole, students tend to use one platform for one form of communication and change to another when the type of communication or intended audience or interlocutor varies (ibid). This insight is fascinating from the perspective of internet pragmatics—and would seem to support the contention that the internet is home to a diversity of new modes of language use. However, it also implies that it could be challenging to create authentic learning experiences within social media for students who would otherwise tend to limit their interactions with such media to predefined (usually extra-curricular) purposes. Despite its positive nuance, diversity is, in many environments, accompanied by inequality. As in the physical world, disparities of access and achievement exist across digital spaces. During the COVID-19 pandemic, inequalities of access to devices and learning technologies among students were cited frequently by politicians and the media in the UK as a source of growing inequalities of attainment among students prevented from attending classes in person by the pandemic crisis. Such material needs, where they exist, are only part of the problem. As the paragraphs above outline, there are a number of other factors that contribute to the diversity of students needs that must be met by online and blended language teaching. A key objective of all such teaching should therefore be to minimize digital inequality. While this might not always be possible, or easy to achieve, it should at least be possible to think about how to avoid reinforcing existing inequalities when refining curricula for online teaching. It is vital that new models of online teaching approach curriculum design carefully to avoid compounding structural inequalities with digital inequalities. This point has been stressed by, among others, Advance HE, the organization responsible for providing professional accreditation for HE teachers in the UK (Moody, 2020).

58 

L. MANN ET AL.

Case Study: Teaching Rap and Emcee Battles in East Asian Studies In this section, I (the teacher practitioner) will introduce a case study of digital curriculum diversification from within my own professional practice, in the form of a short series of three translation tutorials centred on fandom material related to hip-­hop in Japan. The series was designed as an informal pilot for Japanese studies, during a period of entirely online teaching resulting from public health restrictions. However, it was conceived of with broader applications in mind—particularly potential uses within Korean and other East Asian studies programmes. Background of Classes The series was designed to be rolled out within an existing series of tutorials entitled ‘Modern Japanese Text Reading’, aimed at third-year undergraduates on the BA in Oriental Studies (Japanese) programme at the University of Oxford. The tutorial series, which runs for one eight-week term (October to December), is designed to give students, returning from a Year Abroad in Japan with solid intermediate to early advanced (CEFR B2) language skills, an opportunity to broaden and deepen their familiarity with Japanese vocabulary, grammar and usage. Tutorials, each one hour in duration, centre on a core text of some kind in Japanese, which students are asked to translate and comment on in fine detail. In class, they are offered oral corrective feedback (CF) from the tutor, as well as peer feedback from their colleagues. The ‘Text Reading’ series has been in existence since 2011, when the BA curriculum underwent its last major redesign—and has proved popular with students over that time. It runs alongside and complements another long-standing series of classes entitled ‘Modern Japanese: Unseen Translation’. The latter is considered to be a ‘lecture’ and is delivered to all the students in the third year simultaneously (which, in practice, means a group of 10–12 students). The tutorials, following Oxford conventions, are even smaller, consisting of groups of three to four students. Since the objectives of the text-reading tutorials and the translation lectures are similar, I had previously endeavoured to align the materials and approaches adopted in both, to ensure that the programmes of teaching complemented each other. For example, in 2019, I introduced readings in translation studies within the text-reading series and, in 2020, organized a short follow-up translation seminar series that would run

3  SECOND TIP: DIVERSIFY THE CURRICULUM 

59

alongside the translation lectures, after the text-reading series had come to an end. This concluded with a guest lecture from a translator and scholar of translation studies, whose work the students had translated in advance, for discussion with the professional. These small refinements to the curriculum moved it more in a direction of integrated, or joined-up, learning, as well as adding to its ‘authenticity’ through direct links with professional translation activities. Furthermore, other than the addition of a few follow-­up sessions, there were no substantial changes to modes of teaching delivery—and the scale of the changes that were made was small enough that lengthy periods of planning were not required. Considering the two series in parallel was particularly straightforward for me since, over time, I have been responsible for teaching both. In 2020, a decision was taken that all teaching for this area of the course would be moved online, using a combination of the MSTeams platform for synchronous sessions alongside an institutional version of Canvas, an online learning management suite. For me, this initially seemed that it would entail rather more work than had my earlier updates to the curriculum, since I felt that it was important to try to make up for the lack of wide-ranging student-led discussion that characterizes the tutorial system when operated in face-to-face environments. The related issues of audio time delays in video-conferencing and the pressure felt by some students when being called on to give individual responses in virtual settings are discussed elsewhere in this book—as are some suggestions for how to minimize the impact of those problems. At the time, though, my first thought was how I could motivate students to engage in the kind of academic discussions we had in our previous tutorials, while both they and I were grappling with the complexities of a new environment and the mix of synchronous and asynchronous digital tools at our disposal. It was at this point that I started to think about diversifying the curriculum. I dentifying ‘Diverse’ Learning Materials To decide to diversify a curriculum is one thing. To actually go about doing so is another. Presuming, as in this case, intended learning objectives and overall outcomes are already dictated by the parameters of an existing programme of learning, the first task that greets teachers, in practice, is to decide on a choice of materials and mode of delivery. I will return to teaching delivery later. First, let us consider how to identify ‘diverse’ materials.

60 

L. MANN ET AL.

Curriculum diversity is sometimes linked to HE marketing. The latter is itself linked to diversity within the student body, either as it stands currently or, in the context of student recruitment, how that might develop, as a result of inclusive recruitment policies. A logical first step when considering content for a diversified curriculum is, therefore, to consult the student body to gather their opinions regarding what to include. Especially where large student numbers are involved, it might seem troublesome to conduct regular student opinion-gathering and evaluation exercises. In smaller scale teaching set-ups, however, this is much less of a problem— particularly since the shift online has given us access to sophisticated survey software that, in some cases, is fully integrated within our online ‘classroom’ platforms. In my case, after an initial synchronous conversation, I decided to ask my students about their preferences concerning the genres of text they would like to see included in a revised curriculum. They were instructed to provide their answers through MSForms, a survey package that is included with the Office365 package through which university email and other services are provided. The results of that poll were as follows (Fig. 3.1). As this graph shows, students in the group expressed most interest in learning more about Japanese poetry and song—a result which confirmed the impressions I had formed through earlier informal talks with them about the content of our classes. Qualitative responses to a teaching evaluation exercise conducted earlier in the term also led me in the direction of a more diverse range of Source Texts, including popular music lyrics. In

Genre of text for study

Which genres of text appeal to you most? Video Content Blogs Essays Songs Poetry Novels 0

1

2

3 4 Number of selections

Fig. 3.1  Using MSForms poll to select text genre

5

6

3  SECOND TIP: DIVERSIFY THE CURRICULUM 

61

response to the question, “Is there anything you would like to learn more about, through this term’s online teaching?”, one student responded: I would find it interesting how poetry is translated as a lot of poetry is meant to be subjective and to the readers interpretation as much as the authors. Also the translation of song lyrics could be interesting to learn more slang and common place phrases used casually between people.

Another student noted that the ‘content’ of texts (presumably including its wider implications or significance) was of interest, even in the context of translation tutorials: The more different kinds of writing styles we can look at, the better. Also, though I understand that translation is the focus, it would be interesting to spend a bit more time thinking about the content of the writing, as well as figuring out what it means.

Asking students is generally the best place to start when thinking about improving or changing the content or delivery of teaching. Clearly, though, the information I obtained by means of this small evaluation exercise was not enough, on its own, to tell me exactly which materials to include in my new curriculum design. Rather, it helped me to narrow my search. The decision to choose rap and hip-hop was supported by a number of factors, as discussed further in subsequent paragraphs. To begin with, though, it is important to note that I already had experience working with rap songs through my own research in poetic sound textures in Japanese and other languages and that this fact played a substantial role in my selection. Leaving aside the recent experiments with authentic learning based on research discussed above, a lot of regular university teaching is traditionally research-driven—and there is no need to alter this in the process of diversifying curricula. For those of us whose jobs include research, it is sometimes possible to identify synergies between our research interests and ‘diverse’ areas of teaching and learning to explore, when designing curricula. The great thing about approaching design in this way is that teaching can then feed back meaningfully into research, as university teaching is traditionally supposed to. Additionally, thinking about the potential of our research to span diverse materials and topics could be useful when considering how to reach a wider audience—which is often of

62 

L. MANN ET AL.

strategic importance to institutions and fundamental to career development for academics. My own interest in Japanese hip-hop centres on the nature of sound textures in rap songs and their relationship with more widespread features of the language. In 2020, this interest was at an early stage of development. However, a small number of existing studies (in particular Kawahara, 2007) convinced me that rap in Japanese was of particular interest in regard to its relationship with phonology and phonetics. I was also aware of the large volumes of freely available online content related to rap, which scopes over the songs themselves, transcriptions of lyrics and a huge array of fandom and related social media discourse. At the stage of considering a new ‘digitally diverse’ curriculum, therefore, it was not a stretch for my thoughts to fall to rap, as a potential tool for language teaching. A step away from the acoustic makeup of the lyrics, rap has unquestionably also demonstrated its linguistic powers, in the realms of what could be described as the pragmatics of authenticity. What I mean by this is the power of lexical choice to establish and maintain authentic identities among practitioners of rap. As I read more about it, I discovered that this both intersected with my own interests in acoustics, by way of debates over the ‘creation’ of rhyme in Japanese, and, furthermore, seems to have held particular relevance for Japanese and other East Asian rappers and jazz musicians—separated, as they are, from the diverse cultural contexts in which those genres were forged by gulfs of geography and language (Condry, 2006). Judging by some of their responses, issues of authenticity seem also to have been involved in students’ experiences of the rap-related material we studied. These responses are discussed further below. A final factor in the choice to study rap was its recent use in therapeutic contexts. A number of inspirational studies have situated the creation, interpretation and appreciation of hip-hop songs as potent tools for improving the mental health and well-being of young people from highly disadvantaged backgrounds. As a therapeutic tool, rap has been deployed, in particular, to support the needs of socially disadvantaged young men—a group that is grossly underrepresented in higher education, as noted earlier. Researchers of rap therapy have highlighted the potential of the genre to break the cycle of disadvantage that leads to those low participation rates: [Rap] provides an outlet for expression and offers possibilities … Hope is critical for a young person surrounded by despairs and constant reminders

3  SECOND TIP: DIVERSIFY THE CURRICULUM 

63

of failure. Without hope, youth from communities of concentrated disadvantage are more likely to become discouraged and as a result more vulnerable … (Alvarez, 2011, p. 123)

In such environments, rap has been found to link to greater self-­expression, higher levels of motivation and other therapeutic successes, the causes of which are less clear but still expressed in terms that link to the affective potential of language, such as “satisfying music-making”, for example (Lightstone, 2011, p. 219). It is therefore not a stretch to imagine that rap could bring about increases in motivation and self-esteem among students, if introduced in educational settings.  hoosing the Source Text C It was from among the therapeutic deployments of rap that I discovered the sub-genre of the ‘emcee battle’. This is a form of rap that emerged early on within the hip-hop tradition in the United States, in which two or more participants verbally wrestle with each other, usually in ‘free-style’, a highly improvised form of rapping. The overall effect is that of antiphony, though therapists have also observed what they describe as “rhetorical battles”—raps that retain “the flavor of a battle because the rapper was communicating insults … but … in the context of a solo performance or group performance with no clear target of who was receiving the verbal attacks” (ibid., p. 227). The origins of the form have been linked to the phenomenon of “ritualized insults” in African American oral culture (ibid., p. 229). Like other verbal art forms emerging from heavily oral cultures, the emcee battle is linguistically engaged to a high degree. Interestingly, this engagement extends to the meta level, by virtue of the content of the insults which often either focus on, or in some way reference, the opponent’s facility with language or ability to form aesthetically acceptable sound textures (i.e. ‘good rhymes’). The example below is taken from a therapy session and was composed by a patient: Bang, the mothafucker’s down on the groun’ You hear the sound of the gun shots hittin’ his frown I said the guy thought the mothafucker was checked Thinks he can Leave ‘me in the park His rhymes are wrecked (From a battle between “Mel” and “Eddie” see: Lightstone, 2011, p. 227)

64 

L. MANN ET AL.

Investigating the phenomenon of emcee battling in Japanese, I discovered that it was a fecund repository of rhetorical language and that among its practitioners were some of the most celebrated rappers in Japan, including artists whom I had encountered previously in my own studies of rhyme in Japanese. Despite being divorced from the original context of ethnic and socio-economic marginalization, Japanese emcee battles retain the close ties to language and, if anything, seem particularly focussed on the formation of linguistically virtuosic insults (and responses to insults) that criticize opponent rappers’ abilities to make rhymes or, in other ways, improvise a rap song that fulfils the linguistic requirements for ‘authenticity’. This is also the case in professionalized and even televised emcee battles. Here is an example of such an insult that was included in our tutorials: o-mae sokkyo ̄ ja ne ̄ na neta o maru-anki? 

 hat’s not improv’ bro—you T just learnt it, yeah? maru de yasumon no mekki          Just like cheap bling trash Donki no Aruma ̄ni           Armani from Don Qui[jote]1 furı ̄sutaira ̄ toshite aru majiki ko ̄i      Unforgivable for a freestyler

A Google search revealed a fandom repository, hosted on the Japanese blogsite HatenaBlog, containing emcee battle highlights, focussed on lyrics the author considered to contain the best rhymes by the Osaka rapper R-Shitei (puppykun 2019, see Fig.  3.2 for screenshot and ‘Useful Resources’ for link). R-Shitei is one Japanese hip-hop star, recognized for his virtuosity, whom I had encountered in my work on rhyme and rhetoric. As soon as I read puppykun’s blog, I immediately knew that I wanted to use it in class. The following areas, in particular, appealed to me about this text: –– It focusses on the relationship between language and affect. The emotional effects of rap documented by the research in rap therapy detailed above appear, from the researcher’s descriptions, to link closely to language. That impression is reinforced by the blog, since puppykun’s descriptions of R-Shitei’s rap rhymes are so emotionally charged. At several points during the responses to the material, the fan writes that a rhyme makes him unaru (in this case meaning: ‘to groan, howl or shout in admiration’). The phrase unaru shika nai (I / you can’t help  A chain of discount stores in Japan and elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region.

1

3  SECOND TIP: DIVERSIFY THE CURRICULUM 

65

Fig. 3.2  Fandom blog selected for hip-hop translation classes

but howl) has become common in the context of internet fandom communication, to refer to content (food, sport, music, etc.) that is awesome or amazing in some way. The excitement expressed in the blogger’s lexical choices was mirrored in several of the student responses, as discussed below. –– It effectively links diverse content (in the form of rap), with its fandom reception, in a social media environment. This is particularly relevant to language students today, given the recognition of social media as a space in which innovative and “distinct” language types are developing, as noted in the previous chapter (Lambton-Howard et  al., 2020). Although relatively few students expressed an interest in studying blogs when surveyed, the content of this particular blog was primarily related to songs in Japanese—which constituted one of the two most popular categories of text. –– It contains digitally enriched text, with links added to multimodal material, including video content and social media posts. In an online classroom environment, this was ideal to introduce students to the variety of communicative modes that coexist to create the Japanese language internet. After being briefed on the content during synchronous

66 

L. MANN ET AL.

sessions, students were all able to access the blog asynchronously through links posted in the virtual learning environment (VLE) and, from there, were able to explore the external sites in their own time. –– In its focus on rhyme, it links closely to my own research interests on the relationships between form and meaning in Japanese oral genres. This gives the text another layer of authenticity, in the sense that, through participation in the classes, students are able to become involved directly with new scholarship and contribute to a developing understanding of the topic. This extra layer reinforces the notion that there are various types of authenticity and that it is not confined to the use of materials not designed for language learning—which, arguably, lose some of their authenticity for learners at the point they are introduced, in any case. Format of Lessons When designing the tutorials, one of my biggest concerns was the difficulty of the material. As noted elsewhere in this book, there is a high bar for L2 learner comprehension of social media-sourced materials, especially at CEFR B2. Each tutorial was therefore structured to offer students as much feedback and assistance as possible in the time allowed, without overloading them with information or allowing teacher-led discussions to dominate the process. Like many online classes, the tutorials contained synchronous and asynchronous elements that fed into each other, as follows: 1. Selected pre-reading/viewing of multimodal content, linked through VLE (asynchronous) 2. Informal metacognitive exercise—“what do you know about this topic so far” (synchronous) 3. Teacher-led discussion focussed on the choice of material, encouraging students to think critically about the processes by which their curriculum is formed (‘negotiated learning’). Teacher introduces the background of the material, models key points for discussion and learning objectives/expectations of learners (synchronous) 4. Student-led responses to 2 (synchronous) 5. Student-led translation and discussion of Source Text (synchronous) 6. Informal metacognitive exercise—“what did you learn today?” (synchronous) 7. Further student preparation and discussions (asynchronous)

3  SECOND TIP: DIVERSIFY THE CURRICULUM 

67

. Translation and other collaborative activities (asynchronous) 8 9. Repeat The points above constitute a rough guide to the order of classes as planned, rather than a precise summary of the execution. During the classes themselves, we were guided, in large part, by the Source Text under consideration—and student responses to it. The contiguous pattern of synchronous and asynchronous learning did, however, ensure that tutorials following on from the first session were effectively ‘flipped’, that is, material was provided in advance of the synchronous session. As in other tutorials of this type, dialogic interactions between students, the tutor and the material occupied the majority of the synchronous sessions. Discussions of this sort help to highlight students’ areas of strength and weakness and allow for ample peer feedback and metacognitive reflection. In accordance with existing learning objectives, and the broader framework of the degree, students were helped to build their vocabulary and broaden their exposure to a range of Source Text types. They also learned about the praxis of translation through individual role taking, as well as group discussions on various linguistic issues, including, syntax, pragmatics, stylistics and translation. Students drafted and redrafted their translations during and after the synchronous sessions, based on the discussion submitting it to tutor for further feedback. During the discussions and feedback exercises, we talked a lot about the processes of translation, including workflow, audience and other issues relevant to professional translators. This was intended to keep the series of tutorials close to the overall ‘authentic learning’ agenda mentioned above. S tudent Responses and Evaluation As a first attempt to diversify the translation curriculum for the BA in Japanese at Oxford, this series of tutorials was, I felt, generally successful. During synchronous sessions, students were visibly more engaged than previously. They presented as happy and interested and, from time to time, positively excited about the material we covered. Their oral contributions supported this general impression. Several students expressed an interest in rap. One student, in particular, was enthused about the material to the point that she was visibly struggling to contain her excitement. She later informed me, during one of the informal feedback exercises, that she had ‘never been so engaged with anything’ before in her academic career to date. In general, all tutorial participants actively engaged with the

68 

L. MANN ET AL.

material, which provoked in-class discussions that ranged across a number of topics within language and linguistics, including translation studies and internet pragmatics. Below follows a selection of the questions that arose during those discussions (with thanks to the students who asked and answered them): –– I feel it is really important to rhyme in our translations, can I do that? –– Can we translate ㅁ as an emoji because we feel LOL has some negative nuances. Maybe the most appropriate is , but this is actually typed using the word 汗. Also we were thinking about LMAO for ㅁ, because this might be more appropriate than LOL in this context? –– Is it ok to use very colloquial language? Can we use bad language? We believe that lexical choice is important to the expression of emotion. –– Is such complex language rare in the rap of other regions? –– Is it ok to replicate the gaming reference in rasubosu in the Target Text? –– What does batoru wa raimu mean exactly? (This question led onto a broader discussion of pragmatics-driven critiques of descriptions of the boku wa unagi da construction in Japanese). –– Are emcee battles a form of metalinguistic discourse? Verbal attacks are opportunities for a display of linguistic virtuosity. The combination of synchronous and asynchronous learning, which has constituted the basis of all my teaching delivery since the move online in 2020, worked satisfactorily in this case too. Students were well prepared for synchronous sessions and able to move rapidly between lower and higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (1956)—that is, from remembering and recalling vocabulary and grammar to analysis, (self-)criticism and other metacognitive processes. The multimodal interactions offered by combined synchronous-asynchronous approaches cater for a diversity of student learning styles and other needs. Experimenting with different technologies and platforms is sometimes possible and often beneficial, as noted elsewhere in this book, but the online environment, in general, is diverse enough to encompass the variety of student needs normally encountered in the course of our teaching. As Sarah Liu has written, “A variety of learning styles are represented in your classroom, and the resources available on the internet can cater to them all. This diversity makes individualized instruction much easier and more effective since each student can learn using the medium that they understand best” (2016).

3  SECOND TIP: DIVERSIFY THE CURRICULUM 

69

A perennial issue facing language teachers in my department is that very small class sizes necessitate a reliance on qualitative and anecdotal data concerning learner outcomes and experiences. In order to verify the positive outcomes observed during this exercise in curriculum diversification, there is therefore an ongoing need to deploy similar diverse content and methods of teaching delivery in other contexts within East Asian studies— particularly at institutions with larger cohorts of students. Another regret, during this series, was that I did not find enough time to encourage asynchronous student discussion by setting up and monitoring a purpose-built discussion forum (such as is available through Canvas). In future incarnations of this micro-curriculum design, I should also like to set aside time to use online post-it board tools such as Padlet. These can be used just as easily in the physical classroom as in a synchronous online session and, since students post responses and ideas anonymously, offer opportunities for CF that do not carry the stigma of singling out individual learners.

Conclusion: How Should We Diversify Our Curricula Digitally? This chapter has suggested that it is possible to combine the shift to online education with the diversification of the curriculum, within language courses at university. Through discussion of the arguments for curriculum diversity, the role of language teachers, the particular intersects and challenges of the online space and a micro-curriculum design in East Asian studies, it has suggested a number of possible avenues leading towards greater diversity in online language teaching. Let us recap some of the main sub-tips: 1. Special attention should be paid to diversity in the curriculum, across a range of subject areas in higher education. This is because failure to do so perpetuates existing canons of learning and because this fact is sometimes not immediately obvious to teachers and others in positions of responsibility within the system. 2. Choosing more ‘diverse’ teaching materials could help to boost student motivation, increase student perception of teaching as ‘authentic’, encourage greater participation from traditionally underrepresented groups and help teachers to meet institutional strategic targets. 3. ‘Authentic’ teaching and learning of languages in an online environment should be set up in such a way as to help students comprehend

70 

L. MANN ET AL.

the diversity of communicative modalities and language communities that exist on the internet, with the objective of ultimately becoming functional members of (at least some of) those communities. 4. The internet is a place of diverse modes of communication that are rapidly changing. This makes the construction of online curricula an ideal point at which to consider how to incorporate material or delivery methods that meet the needs of the increasing diversity of students. However, the rapidity of developments in online communication brings with it a number of challenges, not least managing the needs of early stage L2 learners, for whom much of the grammar, vocabulary and usages they encounter might be new to them. 5. When considering content for a diversified curriculum, it is a good idea to ask your students what they think—but this process might not deliver all the information you need to set up a curriculum that meets required standards of curriculum diversity, Intended Learning Outcomes or other institutional targets. It is therefore necessary to think carefully about the selection of material, considering a range of factors that could combine to produce positive outcomes for students. 6. Research-based teaching can coincide with curriculum diversity. It is a good idea to think carefully about the ‘diverse’ potential of your own research, if you are a researcher. This can not only help with choosing a curriculum for teaching but could be useful when thinking about how to present your research to a wider audience or for meeting public engagement targets. 7. Teachers should not shy away from including aspects of popular culture in their curricula. In the case study, the teacher observed apparent improvements in student engagement and outcomes after the introduction of online hip-hop fandom material into a Japanese translation curriculum. The discussions that developed out of the new material were linguistically engaged and involved a lot of what is loosely termed higher-order thinking skills. 8. When designing any online curriculum, it is useful to think about the coordination of asynchronous and synchronous learning. This helps with efficient time management and caters for a diversity of student needs.

3  SECOND TIP: DIVERSIFY THE CURRICULUM 

71

Some of the above tips might also be helpful for teachers working in physical classrooms—or the large number of us who have to combine face-­ to-­face format with online teaching, in blended approaches. The next chapter, Tip#3, will look at the possibilities for language teachers’ professional development when navigating further towards online spaces.

Useful Resources You may find the following resources helpful when thinking about curriculum diversity in online teaching: Condry, I. (2006). Hip-Hop Japan: Rap and the paths of cultural globalization. Duke University Press. Lambton-Howard, D., Kiaer, J., & Kharrufa, A. (2020). Social media is their space’: Student and teacher use and perception of features of social media in language education. Behaviour & Information Technology. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/0144929X.2020.1774653 Liu, S. (2016, June 15). Embracing digital diversity in modern teaching. teach. com. Retrieved February 1, 2021, from https://teach.com/blog/ embracing-­digital-­diversity-­in-­modern-­teaching/ Peters, Michael. A. (2015). Why is my curriculum white? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(7), 641–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857. 2015.1037227 Open University. (2008, revised 2018). Equality, diversity and inclusion in the curriculum: Guidance for faculties and approval bodies. Retrieved February 1, 2021, from http://www.open.ac.uk/equality-­diversity/sites/www.open.ac.uk. equality-­d iversity/files/files/EDI%20in%20the%20curriculum%20final% 20-­%20Julie%20Young-­28Feb19.pdf Sharpe, R., Wu, Q., & Pavlakou, M. (2019). Exploring patterns of technology use in UK college students: A cluster analysis of learners’ digital practices. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 24(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13596748.2019.1584436

References Adebisi, A.  E. (2019, May 2). As a black student, I know why our grades are worse: Universities don’t listen to us. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/02/as-­a-­black-­student-­i-­know-­why-­our-­grades-­ are-­worse-­universities-­dont-­listen-­to-­us

72 

L. MANN ET AL.

Alvarez, T. (2011). Beats, rhymes and life: Rap therapy in an urban setting. In S. Hadley & G. Yancey (Eds.), Therapeutic uses of rap and hip-hop (pp. 99–114). Routledge. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. David McKay Co Inc. Centre for Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Diversifying assessment: A resource booklet for the University of Oxford. CTL, University of Oxford. Condry, I. (2006). Hip-Hop Japan: Rap and the paths of cultural globalization. Duke University Press. Hillman, N., & Robinson, N. (2016). Boys to men: The underachievement of young men in higher education—And how to start tackling it. HEPI. Jernigan, C. (2016). Authentic learning and student motivation: Building instructor and student confidence through genuine interaction and authentic classroom materials. In R. Breeze & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Essential competencies for English-medium university teaching (pp.  281–294). Springer International Publishing AG. Kawahara, S. (2007). Half rhymes in Japanese rap lyrics and knowledge of similarity. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 16(2), 113–144. Lambton-Howard, D., Kiaer, J., & Kharrufa, A. (2020). ‘Social media is their space’: Student and teacher use and perception of features of social media in language education. Behaviour & Information Technology. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/0144929X.2020.1774653 Lightstone, A. (2011). Yo, can ya flow! Research findings on hip-hop aesthetics and rap therapy in an urban youth shelter. In S. Hadley & G. Yancey (Eds.), Therapeutic uses of rap and hip-hop (pp. 211–251). Routledge. Liu, S. (2016). Embracing digital diversity in modern teaching. Teach.com Blog. https://teach.com/blog/embracing-digital-diversity-in-modern-teaching/ Moody, J. (2020). Moving assessment on-line: Key principles for inclusion, pedagogy and practice. AdvanceHE Webinar. Open University. (2008, revised 2018). Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in the Curriculum: Guidance for faculties and approval bodies. Peters, M. A. (2015). Why is my curriculum white? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(7), 641–646. Sharpe, R., Qi, W., & Pavlakou, M. (2019). Exploring patterns of technology use in UK college students: A cluster analysis of learners’ digital practices. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 24(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359 6748.2019.1584436

CHAPTER 4

Third Tip: Find Self-Generated Opportunities for Professional Development

Abstract  The third tip, offered in this chapter, shifts the focus away from enhancing student learning, towards the development of opportunities for continuing professional development (CPD) for language teachers. This chapter argues that, although pandemic conditions have limited physical interactions between colleagues, the rapid shift to online environments encountered by many language teachers during the pandemic has also offered rich opportunities to explore adventurous, self-generated modes of CPD—in particular practitioner research. The case study introduced in this chapter demonstrates the power of such modes of exploratory practice to facilitate complex processes of reflection and, through sharing with colleagues, overcome difficulties posed by new working practices or institutional factors, to boost personal and professional well-being. Finally, this chapter directs readers towards the huge potential of the internet and social media themselves to provide arenas for self-generated CPD. Keywords  Continuing professional development (CPD) • Action research • Exploratory practice • Teacher reflection • Self-generated • Teacher beliefs • Personal and professional well-being

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 L. Mann et al., Online Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91418-9_4

73

74 

L. MANN ET AL.

Initiating Positive Change Through Participation, Action and Reflection In this book so far, we have aimed to demonstrate how widespread disruption, caused by the coronavirus pandemic, has instigated a need for rapid and sometimes challenging changes in our methods of delivering language teaching. In particular, we have highlighted the benefit of inspecting the building blocks of our curricula, with a view to reassembling them in ways that are more suited to our circumstances and which give agency to a diverse range of learners in their interactions with socio-pragmatically rich repositories of language online. Overall, then, the focus has been on how, within the parameters of our experience, the shift online has shaped learning and what, we believe, the virtual space could offer in this regard, going forward. Teaching and learning processes—or how we help our learners learn—should always be our first priorities, so it seemed natural for us to begin our discussion in this way. However, when faced with any new environment or set of challenges, it is also important not to lose sight of the fact that, as teachers, we form our own personal and institutional networks practice, and of practitioners. Many discussions that we have had with colleagues during the COVID pandemic, often through the same platforms we have turned to for teaching, have highlighted the ‘problems’ the shift online has brought about for teachers—and, while by no means all, many of these relate to the seemingly herculean task of recreating classroom teaching in the virtual space. The lack of physicality, the problems of giving feedback the increased workload involved in preparing materials— again and again the problems and obstacles of which we hear give the distinct impression of teachers’ feeling at a loss of how to apply their existing knowledge and experience in unfamiliar circumstances, feeling isolated and alone, or feeling that they have a responsibility to ensure that they can teach students what needs to be taught. These feelings themselves are both valuable and heuristic for anyone thinking about how to organize learning in an online world. Modes of teaching and learning that result in greatly increased workloads for teachers or that isolate and exclude teachers who lack particular skills or expertise are likely to be just as detrimental to successful outcomes as one that excludes certain groups of students. It is thus vital that discussion of online teaching and learning, in every discipline, involves communities of teachers every step of the way. In the next two chapters, we will attempt once more to flip a negative into a positive by highlighting the power of marrying existing research in

4  THIRD TIP: FIND SELF-GENERATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL… 

75

language pedagogy and teacher training with practitioner community discussion of the nuts and bolts problems facing language teachers navigating a shift online, including the ever-present question of how to deal with feedback and assessment. In this chapter, we turn our attention to the potential of a rapid change in approaches to teaching delivery to create opportunities for continuing professional development (CPD) among language teachers. Language teachers have had to quickly attain an understanding of sometimes unfamiliar technological means for online or digital delivery, while responding to logistical challenges, as well as exploring different approaches to language teaching and learning, and making the necessary adaptions to their syllabi. Institutional demands for a smooth shift to online teaching have sometimes put pressure on teachers to respond quickly to their new educational environment. As Maslach and Leiter (1999) put it, teachers are the most valuable part of the educational system and so their professional well-being must be a priority. The more traditional opportunities for training and CPD such as live seminars and workshops have, of course, met with the same difficulties as those of face-­ to-­ face teaching. Instead, other tools for professional development, including practitioner research and scholarship, have come into their own. In this chapter, we will introduce a recent case study from the Faculty of Oriental Studies at the University of Oxford in light of frameworks for professional development such as action research (AR) and exploratory practice (EP), while stressing the importance of understanding teacher psychology when building strategies to support communities of language teachers working online. Finally, while in general we have avoided recommending particular technologies or online resources in this book, we feel that it would be remiss of us not to mention that opportunities for teachers’ CPD through social media such as Twitter are huge—and ever-growing. If you have not done so already, you might find that involving yourself in such an online community could be the thing that makes the biggest difference to how ‘included’ you feel in the constantly changing world of online teaching and learning. Continuous Professional Development and Teacher Psychology In this book, we use the terms professional development (PD) and continuing professional development (CPD) interchangeably.

76 

L. MANN ET AL.

Professional development is defined by Day (1999 in Hayes, 2014, p. 7) as follows: Professional development consists of all natural learning experiences and those conscious and planned activities which are intended to be of direct or indirect benefit to the individual, group or school, which contribute, through these, to the quality of education in the classroom. It is the process by which, alone and with others, teachers review, renew and extend their commitment as change agents to the moral purpose of teaching; and by which they acquire and develop critically the knowledge, skills and emotional intelligence essential to good professional thinking and practice with children, young people and colleagues throughout each phase of their teaching lives.

Guan and Huang (2013) point out that PD for language teachers entails many specific details: Language teachers’ professional development emerges from a process of refreshing and reshaping teachers existing knowledge, beliefs and morals, and practices and reflections rather than just simply imposing fresh language teaching theories, methodologies and teaching materials on teachers. Thus, language teachers’ professional learning is a complex process which requires knowledge in varied disciplined fields of psychology, sociology, methodology, etc. Besides, teachers’ cognitive and emotional involvement individually and collectively, the capacity and willingness to examine teachers’ professional convictions and beliefs, and the strong eagerness for professional improvement and change are all needed in the process of language teachers’ professional development. (p. 211)

It is generally believed that a better understanding of teacher psychology and their circumstances can help us identify what support language teachers need, in order to flourish in their professions, to benefit themselves and their students. Mercer and Kostoulas (2018) highlight the importance of further research in teacher psychology by explaining their aim of their study in the following terms: We wanted to draw attention to teachers as valuable individuals across the professional lifespan and encourage a greater understanding of the issues facing language education professionals across the globe and across different career stages. We also believe in the central importance of teachers as key

4  THIRD TIP: FIND SELF-GENERATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL… 

77

stakeholders and one of the most influential factors in successful learning (Hattie, 2009); understanding them as a population and as individuals must become a priority for the field if we wish to have a comprehensive understanding of processes of language learning and teaching.

Kumaravadivelu (1994, 2006) argues there is a need for a change in the foundations of pedagogic action by teachers. It is more than just integrating research into existing practice but involves the transformation of the curriculum by teachers, according to their needs and those of their students. Kumaravadivelu further suggests three Ps for effective practice. Lessons and programmes should build on the particular needs of the students; what is practical in the context and what is possible in the task of securing greater engagement and success in language learning. We believe that this is especially true for the current circumstances and will remain so in whatever blend of online and face-to-face tuition will be appropriate in the future. The application of the three Ps can be revisited through various continuing professional development (CPD) initiatives, in the light of the changing situations in which each teacher has found himself/herself. Thus, the availability and accessibility to CPD activities have proven to be crucial. Where traditional methods of staff training and sharing best practice prove difficult, the onus falls on the individual teacher to develop his/ her practice through reflection and research and to find new methods of disseminating her findings. Slimani-Rolls and Kiely (2019, p.  30) argue that CPD “should not just be responsive to individual teachers’ needs only; it should also support the needs of the workplace in which teachers operate and their wider role in realising, institutionally and nationally, the educational expectations of the school system,” and they continue by saying that current offers for language teachers in terms of CPD have either some insufficient characteristics; or are top-down or inadequate, mainly ignoring teachers’ own “capacity and responsibility” for their own development (p. 33). There has been a wide literature on how teachers can and should actively be involved in their own development with the notion of ‘reflective’ practitioner (Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1987; Farrell, 2001; Lee, 2007). Schön (1983) introduced two concepts to refer to different aspects of reflection in teaching: knowing-in-action and reflection-in-action. The former, a “repertoire of examples, images, understanding and actions” (Schön, 1983, p. 138), which may be largely intuitive, is something that teachers draw on when confronted with an experience which is new or

78 

L. MANN ET AL.

surprising, giving rise, in turn, to reflection-in-action. Schön described a final aspect of the reflective process, which he called reflection-on-action. Watanabe (2016) argues that today we use the term ‘reflection’ primarily in Schön’s sense of reflection-on-action which describes a considered and deliberate going back to past events, actions and feelings with the aim of improving future actions. This is also called reflection-for-action (Farrell, 2014). Using practitioner research, to understand what is really happening in the learning process, teachers can contribute by providing an account of their practice, to complement the theory-based accounts of academic researchers. Action Research Action research (AR), as a tool for professional development, occurs when teachers are encouraged to carry out small-scale research in their own classrooms and thus undertake a role as teacher-researcher (Atay, 2006, 2008; Burns, 2010; Edwards & Burns, 2016; Wyatt, 2011). Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) distinguish action research from the normal practice of teaching and point out that action research includes both problem posing and problem solving, and is a type of research that helps to change and improve a situation. Thus, practitioners can make conscious pedagogical changes and improvements by implementing AR in their professional development. As we modify our curricula and their delivery to accommodate the shifting sands of the pandemic and its aftermath, so we must search for methods to conduct action research outside the traditional classroom and carry out our investigations through online or digital means or via a combination of both. Action research practitioners need to reflect on their actions to enhance their practice, and improvements happen as a result of reflection and greater understanding of the initial problem (Schön, 1983; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Selener, 1997; McNiff, 2002). Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) emphasize that action research is designed to embed an ongoing process of reflection and action through the different stages such as: reflect, plan, act, observe and reflect. Later, we see that Kemmis et al. (2014) expand this approach, explaining that educational practices are characterized by assemblages of not simply ‘doings’, but also language (‘sayings’) and relationships (‘relat-ings’),

4  THIRD TIP: FIND SELF-GENERATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL… 

79

and the particular conditions within which they develop and which help to constitute them. Satariyan and Reynolds (2016) propose a five-phase reflective process within the action research cycle, which can be seen in Fig. 4.1. Action research is about practitioners engaging in critical reflection. In this way, practitioners can review applications, determine their effectiveness and make decisions about future revisions and implementations. When teachers, for example, think about an initial lesson plan, it is important for them to first reflect on topics or issues of concern needing improvement. Next, during the planning process, they need to reflect on a plan to

Fig. 4.1  Satariyan and Reynolds’s reflective model for action research (2016)

80 

L. MANN ET AL.

deliver. During the next phase, teachers need to reflect on and monitor their practice in action. After the teaching session is over, they must reflect again on the implementation of their plans and assess the effect on students’ progress. To complete this action research cycle, teachers need to reflect for the future and consider refinements or to reaffirm their practice (Satariyan & Reynolds, 2016, p. 23). The same authors suggest the following specific questions for each stage of the cycle which we believe is very useful in terms of starting to work on a teaching and learning-related issue, puzzle or topic. 1. Reflection about an issue or topic • Think broadly about different issues or topics of concern or needing improvement. • Narrow this thinking and identify an issue or topic of importance. • Consider reasons for choosing this issue or topic. • Research the issue or topic. • Identify questions or actions. 2. Reflection on the design (plan) • Who will be involved? • Think about methods/tools to collect the data. • Organise resources to use. • Consider a timeline. • Ensure ethical matters. 3. Reflection in action (implement/act) • Monitoring the research in action. • What is working well? • How can I do this differently? • What else can I do to make this more effective? 4. Reflection after the action (interpret/evaluate) • Could I be more effective in analysing the data? • Have I generated sufficient evidence from the data? • Are my data robust?

4  THIRD TIP: FIND SELF-GENERATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL… 

81

• Revisit your research questions or hypotheses. • Think about the overall quality of the research. 5. Reflection for future improvements (changes/recommendations) • How do I continue to improve what I have done? • What questions emerged from the data? • How can I further develop my practice? • How do my conclusions differ from what I thought I would learn? • What actions could I implement for the future based on my findings? • How do I share my learning, and why is it important to share it? • How can I inspire others to do the same? How may I influence their learning? Being aware of these steps and being able to ask the right questions at every step help teachers to investigate their beliefs, their pedagogical principles and practices, not only for the past and current practices but also for future sustainable practices. Exploratory Practice Exploratory practice (EP) is a form of practitioner research that centres both on the teachers and students. Over the past 25 years, the developments of principles which underpin exploratory practice have been developed with and for practitioners in language education (Allwright, 2005; Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Hanks, 2017). Allwright (2006) proposes EP as “a professionally viable alternative research paradigm” (p. 5) emphasising the importance of student inclusion in the search for a better understanding; an aspect that distinguishes EP from AR. Principles of Exploratory Practice 1. ‘Quality of life’ for language teachers and learners is the most appropriate central concern for practitioner research in our field. 2. Working primarily to understand the ‘quality of life’, as it is experienced by language learners and teachers, is more important than, and logically prior to, seeking in any way to improve it.

82 

L. MANN ET AL.

. Everybody needs to be involved in the work for understanding. 3 4. The work needs to serve to bring people together. 5. The work needs to be conducted in a spirit of mutual development. 6. Working for understanding is necessarily a continuous enterprise. 7. Integrating the work for understanding fully into existing curricular practices is a way of minimising the burden and maximising sustainability. Allwright and Hanks (2009, pp. 149–154) Slimani-Rolls and Kiely (2019) highlight four principal reasons why the EP framework could be a potential tool for effective and sustainable CPD. First, it is an approach located in the specific context of language classrooms, and built on the complexities of practice in that context. Second, it emphasises engagement with the social and emotional aspects of effective language teaching, and as a teacher development initiative, it starts with a fundamental concern, a teacher’s puzzle. Third, it is inclusive and envisages teacher learning which involves listening to, working in collaboration with, and learning from students. Fourth, it comprises an ethical and sustainable way of supporting practitioner research: as the research process is based on and integrated into the activities of the curriculum, and the goal is understanding this curriculum, there is little risk of class time being used for non-­ teaching purposes, or for trying out innovations which do not align with the practices of students and teachers. (p. 14)

Teachers are always in a good position to develop a better understanding of what is happening in their daily interaction with students, even in these unexpected times or, perhaps, more so, as circumstances force us to take stock and reconsider our practice. Allwright (2005, p. 358) describes it as “we needed to bring understanding back to the foreground in our work, to insist that we were dealing with the notion of understanding, not problem-solving … an important distinguishing feature of EP (especially in distinguishing EP from Action Research)”. To support this, EP proposes that teachers integrate the search for understanding into their normal teaching activities by using Potentially Exploitable Pedagogic Activities (PEPAs) to investigate a ‘puzzle’ in the classroom. Slimani-Rolls and Kiely (2019) give a series of examples of previous studies that show how theory and practice are combined. Moreover, Dikilitaş and Hanks (2018) share stories of language teachers, teacher educators and curriculum developers who have been involved in the processes of planning, implementing and evaluating EP as part of continuing professional development (CPD).

4  THIRD TIP: FIND SELF-GENERATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL… 

83

Clearly, EP is an amalgam of pedagogy and research which helps teachers form a deeper understanding of their daily teaching routines. Thus, we believe EP can be an important tool for CPD, through which teacher learning is encouraged and teachers, students and institutions can benefit from immensely.  ase Study: Professional Development and Language Teaching C in the Faculty of Oriental Studies The Faculty of Oriental Studies at the University of Oxford is one of the world’s leading centres for research and teaching on the languages, history and cultures of Asia and the Middle East. Among subjects in the humanities, Oriental Studies is unique in introducing students to civilisations that are radically different from the Western ones that form the basis of the curriculum in most British schools and colleges. As noted in the Introduction, the courses offered by the Faculty of Oriental Studies cover a wide range of topics including history, literature, material culture and religion, but in all cases are built around the teaching of languages. This means that language teachers within the Faculty are central to all its teaching activities. The role of language teachers has been especially large during the COVID pandemic, when face-to-face teaching had to be moved online almost overnight—and having knowledge and experience of professional development and reflective practice proved to be vital in this regard. As noted earlier, many CPD approaches are designed to support the teacher to achieve a better understanding of the teaching and learning process whilst working with students to create an efficient learning environment in the classroom. This time, the challenge was to transfer these skills to investigate and understand a digital language teaching environment and not the usual classroom setting, besides coping with IT and the acquisition of related skills. Language Teachers’ Committee We, the language teachers at the Faculty of Oriental Studies, attach strong importance to professional development, which we believe is best achieved through teacher-led activities and reflective practice. Indeed, the promotion of best practice was the rationale behind the formation of our Language Teachers’ Committee (LTC) in 2006. This committee meets once every term and the chairperson reports to, and is a full member of,

84 

L. MANN ET AL.

the Faculty Board, the principal governing body of the Faculty. It organises workshops to support teaching, by sharing language-related research, experience and skills. The purpose of the LTC is to help the spread of techniques geared to good practice of language instruction, throughout all the different languages taught by the Faculty, and to act as a means by which language teachers can make requests to the Board. The duties of the committee are to: 1. discuss, share, identify and promote good practice in language teaching; 2. identify issues and concerns affecting the teaching of languages in the Faculty; 3. consider faculty-wide norms for language teaching across the various courses; make recommendations to the Faculty Board on any of the above (LTC Standing Orders 2019–2020). As part of the LTC, two colleagues act as co-organizers and arrange LTC workshops termly, to facilitate the dissemination of aspects of good practice in language pedagogy throughout all languages taught by the Faculty, and to act as a means of communication between the language teachers and relevant bodies in the faculty governance structure. After the shift to online teaching in spring 2020, nobody expected that the new academic year in the autumn would continue online or on a hybrid basis, that is, a combination of face-to-face and online teaching. Thus, we decided to focus, in our November 2020 LTC workshop, on what the language teachers had already learnt about online language teaching and learning and asked them to reflect on their experiences. The workshop was attended by eighteen language teachers (including teachers of Arabic, Persian, Japanese, Chinese, Turkish, Korean, Hebrew, Tibetan and other languages), five colleagues with other teaching responsibilities within the Faculty, the Chair of the Faculty Board and IT specialists from the Faculty and the wider university. Accounts from this diversity of participants both form the core of this case study and illustrate the various stages of practitioner research as a part of CPD. These include initial reflection, having a puzzle or problem to solve, understanding a challenge generated by the current situation, researching, gaining insights, eliminating negative practice and focussing on and sharing good practice, with the intention of gaining valuable insights for the future. It was an online meeting for about two hours and the attendance was very high. Reasons for the

4  THIRD TIP: FIND SELF-GENERATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL… 

85

high attendance might have been the fact that the topic of the workshop was very relevant to the situation we were in and the opportunity for sharing experiences during such a challenging time proved invaluable. We believe that another reason for high attendance was the underlying principle of these workshops that they are not top-down CPD activities and, on this occasion, all related parties (language teachers, faculty chair, academic colleagues and IT experts) were invited and present in order to share, listen and reflect on each other’s experiences with the mutual goal of easing the process of delivering excellent education during the pandemic. The aim of the LTC workshop online learning and teaching was: • to create a platform to share and reflect on what we have learned about online teaching. • to create a support bubble to enable participants to discuss anything about online teaching even if we think it is not very ‘meaningful’ • to encourage teachers, faculty chair and other participants to engage in reflective practice, providing examples and discussions from real practice and to support each other • to form a sustainable and collegiate route to understanding more clearly what happens in our (digital) classrooms and develop our pedagogy accordingly. • to enhance the understanding of practice in our new virtual or hybrid teaching environment, to raise awareness and to see if any similar experiences or relevant research exercises exist, carried out by peer colleagues or researchers and to create a readiness to try out new practical teaching-learning techniques Accordingly, in order to raise awareness and to give colleagues who wanted to provide written feedback the option, we sent out a questionnaire (see Appendix) two weeks before the workshop. The aim of the questionnaire was also to give teachers the opportunity to start reflecting on their own teaching. Teachers’ responses in the questionnaires were collated and summarised thematically. This was achieved by first transcribing comments made during the workshop verbatim and then analysing and coding transcripts to identify any emerging themes revealing teachers’ beliefs regarding their online language teaching experiences; the challenges they have had and any reflections they wanted to share. Here are some examples of teacher reflections, regarding how they have responded to and learnt from online teaching, from the initial move to online

86 

L. MANN ET AL.

teaching in the Spring of 2020 until the November of that year (almost four to five months of an intensive instruction): T1: I’d like to ask everyone about their experiences with feedback—is there a difference depending on the way you carry it out? What is the difference between online and offline feedback and is it more work? T2: I find giving feedback is a lot easier in a classroom setting. The dynamic is different. In particular with, say, pronunciation, because of the glitches in the technology—we say something, and it takes a few seconds. In the classroom I can correct students when they say something wrong immediately. T3: I feel, overall, online teaching is less effective. But it differs in terms of what kind of class you are teaching. Language is more challenging than set text. You are actually enabled to give more feedback in the online environment; however, if you give them large volumes of written feedback, students will stop asking questions live because you already told them a lot. There needs to be a balance between giving enough feedback and too much supplementary information. Also, … touched on this before, but there is a huge divide between people in terms of technology, such as access to apps and so on. For example, there is huge amount you can do if you have access to the full … software but it is so expensive. Besides, students actually do get really tired of looking at the screen all the time and are not as steeped into social media as we think. T4: I find in general it takes much longer to get through the content especially handwriting and pronunciation. Luckily, the sophisticated stylus and tablet pen I have been given works well—but students’ devices don’t always work in the same way (compatibility issues). Online, I definitely rely more on written communication. Maybe more chances to interact “say” more but in different ways (e.g. chatbox,). Students prepare more. Easier to do flipped teaching. T5: I agree with …. what he says about pronunciation. Reading in class is a good opportunity to repeat and say what students said. Also, under normal conditions, I like to talk about their life to practice vocabulary, for example what did they do on the weekend—the problem is that they don’t do anything now! One further point is that, while we do miss the physicality of teaching, for me, I teach in very small groups and actually this is more intimate when

4  THIRD TIP: FIND SELF-GENERATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL… 

87

online—with small groups (in larger rooms in real life), so sometimes there is the opposite effect to what we think. T6: I question the validity of language exams when open book system is used. I hope online teaching is not here to stay, full stop. [Disruption because of connection problems] T7: We have had discussion in our subject group about exams and we have not come to any decision, but it is worth noting that even asking students to write an open book essay rather than a closed-book in person essay is in fact a huge upheaval to our assessment system. So, I guess I am not convinced that language assessment is a special case? T2: Absolutely. There is no problem with open-book language exams or translation—it actually makes no difference. People who are already adept waste their time by using dictionaries. The real problems come with set texts. T8: Actually, in-class examinations are a problem for me. I find that in normal times, it would be inspiration or a catalyst for students to study. Especially for students in the first year, they don’t have the motivation necessarily if they are able to look things up. I think using dictionaries, etc. in the final year is no problem because it is similar to real-life situations but I do miss being able to do the tests in class earlier on because they can be inspirational. Faculty Chair: Just earlier this week, we had a discussion with the Chairs of Examinations—about what will happen if we plan for face-to-face exams and then we have to go online again. For language exams, it might not be a big issue—for set-texts, it is more of a problem because students can just copy and paste their answers. We could include more questions about grammar or content, to counterbalance that, if we do go online. Modern Languages have decided to have more assessments throughout the year. We have not had decided this as a Faculty but it is something to discuss. T9: Yes, I agree with …. I actually changed the rubrics myself last term, to cut down on the translation and include more other kinds of exercises, e.g. précis and comprehension. This encourages students not to use the dictionary but rather what they used throughout the year. I have prepared lots of written things—hand-outs, prepared steps for everything. Technology does not really

88 

L. MANN ET AL.

help us, as language teachers, as much as it does help those people teaching ‘content’, or whatever you want to call it. We can’t record our lectures and so on. So, it was very difficult at first. It is getting a little bit easier as we get used to it and I think next term will be better. Also, I got feedback from my colleagues and the students were happy. I feel it would be good if we can find out if there are any decisions made about how exams are working early, so we can keep that in mind if there are any big changes. T10: When technology started to be used in the classroom people said “rather than choosing a technology to teach, we should think about how to teach using technology” but maybe we actually need to think about both. When I first started to teach online, I initially tried to make my teaching as natural as possible (i.e. as much like one classroom as possible) but I am not convinced that it works now. Regarding assessment, I think that the nature of acquiring information has changed. Anyone can find out anything anytime now using the internet, so the nature of assessment also needs to change—from testing whether students have acquired knowledge to how or how well they are able to acquire it. In …. we do lots of continuous assessment, not formal assessment. If these become a proper formal assessment this might be a good thing—students might actually study harder. T11: What I feel would be most useful for our students in this kind of situation (Covid-19) would be an archive—an archive of materials they can access at any time. But we need support from the IT staff. IT staff member: We are here to support you … let us please know what exactly you want, and we can work on it together. T12: I try to integrate some creative methods to make my online lessons more interesting, for example; an element of surprise such as starting the online lesson with music but no camera on …. or I put a picture with a message in the target language during the break and before everybody is back and we can start with the next lesson, students have a moment to reflect. T13: I like that idea, adding fun elements even during the online teaching. However, I feel teaching online requires much more preparation … and occasionally I feel overwhelmed …

4  THIRD TIP: FIND SELF-GENERATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL… 

89

T14: During my face to face teaching, I have always felt that I have a good rapport with my students. Now, I have lost that side a little …. I sometimes feel lost and that I do not get through to my students … We have grouped all the responses into themes and tried to summarize how the teachers have responded to each ‘problem’ (challenge). We listed the immediately required skills and then summarised lessons learnt before giving tips, advice and suggestions, for future reference. Themes: • Importance of student feedback. • Use of technology. • Teaching pronunciation and speaking. • Assessment (online exams). • (New/innovative) Teaching methods for online teaching. • Preparation for the lessons (interaction patterns: pair work, group work). • Rapport (difference between face to face and online). • Student beliefs versus teacher beliefs. • Professional development support bubble. • further challenges of online teaching: Screen fatigue, setting house rules (camera on/off, muted), teaching a language with a different script, handwriting practice, alternative white board usage, changes in the methods to teaching, changes to learning goals and outcomes, formal/informal language learning and teaching, less involvement of the five senses, such as writing from the board (mainly visual), students need to be very organized and require self-regulated learning more. Challenges encountered in summary: • A sudden shift to online teaching. Almost no preparation. • Getting used to working from home (juggling with other responsibilities). • Arranging the necessary equipment. • Technical uptake (Zoom, Teams, Canvas) and practice. • Limited colleague discussions/lack of peer support bubble. • Lesson planning for online lessons/preparation time too long. • Constantly working (lesson preparation, following and answering emails from the institution and students).

90 

L. MANN ET AL.

• Monitoring student progress remotely. • Establishing house rules (camera on/off). • Establishing levels of engagement with students/RAPPORT. • Making sure students actively engage during the lessons/motivation. • Dealing with a substantial amount of written work to mark/feedback. Immediately required skills: • Initially, a decent amount of computer skills. • Later, greater emphasis on IT skills and making use of creative ways of presenting material. • Logistics, organisation and planning are all more important than ever. • Arranging a timetable for students from different time zones. • Having the skills and confidence to speak on screen and give the students the confidence to speak in an online class. • The awareness that online teaching is different from face-to-face teaching; thus, giving yourself (and the students) a break when it is too much. • Establishing a different but healthy rapport with students (they might feel lost too). • Be professional but share emotions too. • Constant adaptability, empathy and compassion. What we have learnt and some tips: • You will eventually get used to technology and might even become an expert. If any person can do it, YOU can do it as well. Be patient. • Share with your students the fact that this is a different way of learning and teaching and together you will find what works best for all of you. Don’t forget you will base it on your professional knowledge. • Your intuitions are important. • Make the most of the online lesson times. If necessary, ask the students to prepare a reading comprehension text or a translation exercise (if pedagogically meaningful) beforehand so that active online lesson time is not wasted. • Be aware that lesson planning for online lessons is different from face-to-face lessons. Allow extra time. Things can often take longer. But also have backup plans such as a song, video clip, a story to tell, a question for a debate, a news extract.

4  THIRD TIP: FIND SELF-GENERATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL… 

91

• Not everything is bad. Enjoy the autonomy you have with your lesson and catch-up lessons. • Keep things simple and don’t over complicate using different applications. Choose what works best for yourself and your students. • Communicate with the students before, during and after the synchronous sessions. • Building rapport is even more crucial than ever. Spend some active time in your online lessons to genuinely talk to your students using eye-contact and facial expressions. • Provide all necessary hand-outs before the live online session on a joint platform for all students to review before/after the lesson. • Learn from your mistakes, be patient and adapt. • Trust yourself and work/reflect on your challenge. You can make use of action research or exploratory practice as a tool for CPD. You can write about, present or share your experiences with other colleagues on different platforms/conferences. • Form a peer support bubble to discuss any issue or best practice for reflection. Your colleagues are ready to help. • Become member of any national or international teaching associations to reflect on updates in the field. You are not alone in this. One of the topics brought up in the LTC workshop was the challenge with online rapport building. Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2012) stated the following general characteristics for a teacher to have in order to build a good rapport with students; they are “Disclosure, honesty and respect”, “Recognizing the person/individual”, “Interacting socially”, “Caring and bonding”, “Supporting and monitoring”, “Sharing, mirroring, mimicking, matching”, “Availability, accessibility, and responsiveness” and “Communicating effectively” (pp. 172–173). Although there are many studies on rapport in the classical context, relatively few studies have assessed the relationship between student and teacher during online courses. Lammers and Gillaspy (2013) suggest the following strategies, stating that they can be applied in both traditional and online lessons. These may include such strategies as “learn names quickly, provide students with some level of control, show students that you care about them and their learning, treat students with respect, never put down a student with a negative comment, be approachable and available, treat all students equally, and have realistic expectations” (p. 8).

92 

L. MANN ET AL.

Conclusion The challenges of the pandemic have demonstrated that teachers who understand the importance of professional development have the tools to deal with unexpected challenges. They will have built and continue to build, during their career, a bank of sustainable resources. They will have been better equipped in coping with the unknown and moreover, will have been more able to develop constructive approaches in their teaching, which will stand them in good stead for future challenges. Simply making technologies accessible cannot guarantee effective learning outcomes without facilitating its usage with online pedagogic purposes (Liu et al., 2007). Furthermore, Delahunty et al. (2014) indicate that readiness to embrace online education may be strong at the bureaucratic level, however this might not necessarily be the case for those at the face of implementation. Thus, teachers at the front line might feel a lack of support affecting their beliefs and attitudes towards the necessary changes in their teaching practice. In our workshop, we could clearly see how teachers combine personal reflection, research and practice in addressing online teaching and learning challenges. Our case study shows how individual teachers employed diverse ways to understand their students and themselves and transformed their usual classrooms into online learning environments, while providing rich accounts of their teacher beliefs within the wider concept of CPD. Here are some more sub-tips for you to take away from this chapter: 1. We especially believe that different cycles of AR and EP as tools for CPD can help language teachers to continuously reflect on their practices, monitor their progress and help with their decision-making processes before, during and after their teaching. 2. Institutional support, peer support and teacher reflection have proven key for overcoming challenging times like those experienced during the pandemic. The general atmosphere within each institution is important but, in particular, relationships with colleagues are seen as having a considerable motivational effect (Cowie, 2011), notably in stressful circumstances. 3. We encourage every teacher to conduct systematic mini research projects in their online, or offline, classrooms. The shift online is currently providing many opportunities for new research of this type.

4  THIRD TIP: FIND SELF-GENERATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL… 

93

4. We further encourage them to share their findings with colleagues, both within the same institution and more widely, through publications but, most importantly, to reflect on their own findings, to develop and grow as practitioners and, in the process, boost their personal and professional well-being. 5. We encourage all teachers to get involved in online communities dedicated to CPT in our sector (such as @CPD4T on Twitter). Following groups such as this can be an excellent way to feel included in the broader online teaching community and can boost confidence and professional well-being immensely. This ties in closely with an important part of the rationale for this book—to help practitioners understand that they are never alone.

Useful Resources Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An introduction to exploratory practice. Palgrave Macmillan. Delahunty, J., Verenikina, I., & Jones, P. (2014). Socio-emotional connections: Identity, belonging and learning in online interactions. A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(2), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1475939x.2013.813405 Guan, L., & Huang, Y. (2013). Ways to achieve language teachers’ professional development. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(11), 2112. Howard, S. K. (2013). Risk-aversion: Understanding teachers’ resistance to technology integration. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 2–16. https://doi. org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.802995 Hayes, D. (Ed.). (2014). Innovations in the continuing professional development of English language teachers. The British Council. Kemmis, S. et al. (2014). The action research planner: doing critical participatory action research. Springer. Mercer, S., & Kostoulas, A. (Eds.). (2018). Language teacher psychology. Multilingual Matters. Murphy, E., & Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. (2012). Rapport in distance education. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13, 167–190. Satariyan, & Reynolds (2016). In S. Fan & J. Fielding-Wells (Eds.), What is next in educational research? (pp. 21–28). Sense Publishers.

94 

L. MANN ET AL.

Slimani-Rolls, A., & Kiely, R. (2019). Exploratory practice for continuing professional development: An innovative approach for language teachers. Palgrave Macmillan. Watanabe, A. (2016). Reflective practice as professional development: Experiences of teachers of English in Japan. Multilingual Matters.

References Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research: The case of exploratory practice. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 353–366. Allwright, D. (2006). Six promising directions in applied linguistics. In S. Gieve & I. K. Miller (Eds.), Understanding the language classroom (pp. 11–17). Palgrave Macmillan. Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An introduction to exploratory practice. Palgrave Macmillan. Atay, D. (2006). Teachers’ professional development: Partnerships in research. TESL-EJ, 10(2), 1–15. Atay, D. (2008). Teacher research for professional development. ELT Journal, 62(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl053 Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. Routledge. Cowie, N. (2011). Emotions that experienced English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers feel about their students, their colleagues and their work. Teaching and Teacher Education., 27(1), 235–242. Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. Falmer Press. Delahunty, J., Verenikina, I., & Jones, P. (2014). Socio-emotional connections: Identity, belonging and learning in online interactions. A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(2), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1475939x.2013.813405 Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. D.C. Heath and Company. Dikilitaş, K., & Hanks, J. (Eds.). (2018). Developing language teachers with exploratory practice: Innovations and explorations in language education. Palgrave Macmillan. Edwards, E., & Burns, A. (2016). Language teacher action research: Achieving sustainability. ELT Journal, 70, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv060 Farrell, T. S. C. (2001). Tailoring reflection to individual needs: A TESOL case. Journal for Education for Teaching, 27(1), 23–38. Farrell, T. S. C. (2014). Reflecting on practice. A plenary session on 23 November 2014 at JALT Conference. Guan, L., & Huang, Y. (2013). Ways to achieve language teachers’ professional development. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(11), 2112.

4  THIRD TIP: FIND SELF-GENERATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL… 

95

Hanks, J. (2017). Exploratory practice in language teaching. Puzzling about principles and practices. Palgrave Macmillan. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Hayes, D. (Ed.). (2014). Innovations in the continuing professional development of English language teachers. The British Council. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Deakin University Press. Kemmis, S. et al. (2014). The action research planner: doing critical participatory action research. Springer. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27–49. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59–81. Lammers, W. J., & Gillaspy, J. A., Jr. (2013). Brief measure of student-instructor rapport predicts student success in online courses. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2), Article 16. https://doi. org/10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070216 Lee, I. (2007). Preparing pre-service English teachers for reflective practice. ELT Journal, 61(4), 321–329. Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J, Bonk, C. J, & Lee, S. (2007). Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9–24, 87–88. Charlotte. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M.  P. (1999). Teacher burnout: A research agenda. In R. Vanderberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 295–303). Cambridge University Press. McNiff, J. (2002). Action research: Principles and practice. Routledge Publishing House. Mercer, S., & Kostoulas, A. (Eds.). (2018). Language teacher psychology. Multilingual Matters. Murphy, E., & Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. (2012). Rapport in distance education. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13, 167–190. Satariyan, & Reynolds (2016). In S. Fan & J. Fielding-Wells (Eds.), What is next in educational research? (pp. 21–28). Sense Publishers. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. American Educational Research Association. Selener, D. (1997). Participatory action research and social change. Cornell Participatory Action Research Network, Cornell University.

96 

L. MANN ET AL.

Slimani-Rolls, A., & Kiely, R. (2019). Exploratory practice for continuing professional development: An innovative approach for language teachers. Palgrave Macmillan. Watanabe, A. (2016). A reflective continuum: Development of reflection. Current Issues and New Thoughts on Reflective Practice, 53, 103–133. Wyatt, M. (2011). Teachers researching their own practice. ELT Journal, 65(4), 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq074

CHAPTER 5

Fourth Tip: Think Carefully About Assessment

Abstract  This chapter engages with the interactions between the online language learning and assessment practices. Although the questions raised here pertain principally to the shift to online learning environments during the pandemic, similar questions will continue to be raised in relation to language assessment in the future, as internet translation technologies improve and digital alternatives to traditional face-to-face and closed-book assessments become the norm, as we believe they will. Foregrounding the special status of assessment within educational settings more broadly, this chapter argues that the strength of online teaching and learning for languages lies partly in the many outlets it provides for less formal feedback and dialogue between various participants in the learning process. The conclusions of this chapter mirror earlier discussions in highlighting the opportunities for reflection offered by a shift in assessment environment from face-to-face to online, as well as the need for careful planning and preparation. Also as previously, this chapter argues for the need for flexibility and willingness to discuss issues with students, in order to avoid compounding existing inequalities. Keywords  Assessment • Feedback • Formative • Informal • Formal • Quality assurance • Corrective feedback • Dialogic • Feedback conversation • Inclusive assessment

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 L. Mann et al., Online Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91418-9_5

97

98 

L. MANN ET AL.

Exams, Learning Objectives and Feedback in the Online World Outline This is the final tip in this book. Previous chapters have discussed the need to think carefully about moving materials and modes of teaching delivery online. This chapter will focus on the vital role played by assessment in tying all the other strands of online learning together. Its primary objective is to help language teachers think about how different types of assessment support learning—and how these can work online. This chapter will be made up of four sections. The first outlines the centrality of assessment to higher education. The second is a short discussion of the complex relationships between formative assessment, feedback and learning. The third introduces some of the particular challenges in moving formal university assessments online, as well as some potential solutions. There will also be room to discuss some of the opportunities offered by online assessment here. Finally, as before, the last section will be dedicated to summarizing the key points, to help you think constructively about your own experience and practice. Should We Care About Assessment? The straightforward answer is yes. We must care about assessment. Assessment is an essential part of education and an essential part of our system of education. However, assessment itself is anything but straightforward. It is one area of education that is so fundamental to how we work—and woven into other aspects of teaching and learning in such complex ways—that it can never be completely erased from our minds and, perhaps for this reason, it seems unable to escape controversy. Most people we encounter in our daily lives as teachers seem to believe that we care about assessment too much, rather than too little.  oo Much (or the Wrong Kind of) Assessment? T Back in 2007, Boud and Falchikov famously announced that: “We are now in a position to step back and challenge the controlling effect of assessment that focuses students on the performance of assessment itself, rather than on what studying in higher education is arguably for, that is, providing a foundation for a lifetime of learning and work in which there

5  FOURTH TIP: THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ASSESSMENT 

99

is little formal assessment or formal instruction” (2007, p. 6). This statement was written towards the beginning of what can justifiably be described as an explosion in research on assessment techniques for higher education. Writing in 2016, Galvez-Bravo noted the exponential growth in research on assessment in higher education that had taken place over the previous decade or so (p. 94). During that period and since, researchers have gathered a large pool of empirical data on the relationship between assessment and student attainment, intended to inform HE policy-makers and lead them in directions that are better suited to the long-term needs of learners. In general, this means that over-doing assessment is not good. A number of studies have concluded that “a large number of assessments … may be over-doing the time spent measuring performance and can lead to surface and partial learning, rather than focusing on deeper learning or real attainment of knowledge and learning outcomes” (ibid., p. 95, quoting from Boud 2007; George, 2009). The question of how much assessment is too much is a subjective one but it is clear that assessment procedures focussed primarily on student performance, traditionally held to be ‘rigorous’—and including some still in use within the university sector today—risk being seen as detrimental to real student outcomes and levels of attainment. Teachers are also sometimes inclined to see assessment—particularly formal assessment—as less valuable than other aspects of learning and, at worst, as an over-bureaucratized process that exists primarily to waste their time. Assessment often takes second place to teaching methods in teachers’ reflections on their practice (ibid., p. 94, quoting Price et al., 2011; Gibbs & Simpson, 2004). The NASUWT, a major teaching union for school teachers, is critical of what it sees as the excessive burden placed on its members by systems of assessment currently in place in English schools: “Teachers have identified assessment as one of the most significant drivers of excessive teacher workload and many practices do not provide effective assistance to pupils’ learning” (Assessment in England, n.d.). Those of us working in universities will no doubt also have experience of examination marking and other areas of assessment becoming sources of workload anxiety; either our own experience or that passed onto us from colleagues. While challenges to formal assessment are sometimes seen as a part of a progressive agenda within educational discourse in the twenty-first century, arguments over assessment undermining the centrality of other aspects of teaching and learning have a long history. Already by the 1870s, after a substantial growth in student numbers and the introduction of

100 

L. MANN ET AL.

written examinations, some at the University of Oxford were already concerned about the detrimental effect formal assessment was having on the much-lauded ‘tutorial system’: The colleges are, in fact, so many rival schools, the main object of which is to beat one another in the competition for the classes. Hence the teaching is subordinated to the examinations, instead of the examinations to the teaching. The aim of the undergraduate is not so much to acquire a knowledge of his subject as to gain a place in the class list. And the object of the tutor is not so much to teach as to gain a class for his college. (Thomas Fowler’s report to the Selborne Commission, in Brock 2000, p. 35)

 ssessment and Quality Standards A Though widely critiqued, higher education assessment is seldom, if ever, deemed worthy of total abolishment. The pedagogical benefits of assessment procedures for learners and teachers are noted in particular by the accrediting bodies responsible for the development and maintenance of professional and quality standards for higher education. For example, the Irish National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education highlighted the following benefits of assessment as: –– to —demonstrate learning achievements at points in time. This is assessment as staff and students usually describe it; –– to get and give feedback that is timely, actionable (feed-forward) and useful to students to improve their learning; –– to give feedback to staff to improve their teaching; and –– to empower students to self-regulate their learning and critically evaluate their performance now and throughout their lives. In a similar vein, the QAA, the body responsible for quality assurance in higher education in the UK, states: Assessment is a fundamental aspect of the student learning experience. Engagement in assessment activities and interaction with staff and peers enables learning, both as part of the task and through review of their performance. It is a vehicle for obtaining feedback. Ultimately, it determines whether each student has achieved their course’s learning outcomes and allows the awarding body to ensure that appropriate standards are being applied rigorously. Deliberate, systematic quality assurance ensures that

5  FOURTH TIP: THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ASSESSMENT 

101

assessment processes, standards and any other criteria are applied consistently and equitably, with reliability, validity and fairness. (QAA, 2018, p. 2)

Crucially, assessment procedures are also central to the QAA’s scrutiny of institutions on behalf of the Office for Students, and the allocation of Degree Awarding Powers DAPs. Such scrutiny is effectively an assessment of assessment—or ‘meta-assessment’. –– Assessment information for staff and students for the proposed programmes including assessment arrangements (for example, policies, procedures and regulations) for marking, moderation and feedback; proposed arrangements for external input on standards; academic malpractice arrangements; recognition of prior learning. –– Examples of assessment information produced for staff and students for the proposed programmes including examples of assessment details for the first/next cycle of delivery (for example, briefs, specifications, marking criteria/rubric). … –– Material that shows how the provider sets academic standards for its awards and uses academic standards in curriculum planning and in the summative assessment of students for awards and credits. (QAA, 2019, pp. 43–44) While highlighting the benefits of assessment, overall, accrediting bodies such as these also argue that greatest benefits of assessments for students are to be expected in environments where assessment procedures are closely aligned with teaching and learning, as discussed further below. Another important intersect between assessment and HE quality assurance relates to academic dishonesty. Given the QAA description of assessment above, as something which “Ultimately … determines whether each student has achieved their course’s learning outcomes … Deliberate, systematic quality assurance ensures that assessment processes … are applied consistently and equitably, with reliability, validity and fairness”, it is obvious to even a casual observer that widespread cheating within assessment exercises has the potential to undermine the national and international standing of institutions of higher education, as well as having a detrimental effect on the well-being of staff and students. It also seems clear that students’ conceptions of what constitutes dishonest practice are likely to be affected by the form in which assessment takes place. In a world

102 

L. MANN ET AL.

without individual assessment at all, it would be effectively impossible for a student to cheat. In environments where formal assessments yield to growing numbers of informal assessments based on collaborative engagement, there appears to be a knock-on effect on students’ understanding of cheating, as Passow et al. (2006) reported: we found that students don’t see cheating as a single construct and their decisions to cheat or not to cheat are influenced differently depending on the type of assessment. Therefore, faculty and administrators should carefully define for students what does and does not constitute cheating for each type of assessment, such as exams, home-work, term papers, projects, laboratory reports, and oral presentations. Explicit definitions of “cheating” seem especially appropriate because of the recent emphasis on collaborative learning, which communicates to students that working together is often encouraged by faculty. (p. 679)

It is important to note, however, that university departments and even individual academics have a role to play in the development and maintenance of structures of assessment. As significant as national and international quality assurance guidelines may be for establishing the academic credentials of an institution, there is generally sufficient scope within the frameworks they create to allow for adjustments for subject specialization, institution-specific concerns and, pertinently here, the question of face-to-­ face versus online teaching environments. Indeed, barring certain exceptions for courses such as medicine and architecture, the format and scope of assessments are two elements over which university policy-makers, including teachers themselves, generally have significant autonomy when mapping their qualifications to regulatory frameworks set by national or international accrediting bodies. Getting to grips with how to assess our subjects in ways that are sector appropriate is a challenge that requires thought for all academics—and particularly those new to teaching and new to higher education in the UK, as Byrne and Butcher (2020) have noted (n.p.). Meeting the sector’s quality standards is one of the several challenges discussed later in this chapter. First, though, let us look at the relationships between assessment, feedback and learning.

5  FOURTH TIP: THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ASSESSMENT 

103

Assessment, Feedback and Learning Types of Assessment The remainder of this chapter will explore the relationship between assessment and the shift to online teaching and learning for languages programmes at university. To make that exploration clearer, it is worth dedicating a few lines at the outset to remind ourselves of the different types of assessment with which we work. The following paragraphs are dedicated to this, but come with the caveat that specific assessment procedures are spread across a spectrum, rather than a taxonomy of discrete groups, and may contain features of more than one of the descriptions below. –– Formative Assessment This is the sort of assessment that is designed to monitor students’ progress through a given programme of study. The important first step in bringing about formative assessment is to determine a student’s base-­ line—the starting point of knowledge and skills from which a student begins his or her programme of learning. This is often formal—such as a reading test. The UK’s National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) offers an excellent description of this type of assessment, as follows: Formative assessment takes place on a day-to-day basis during teaching and learning, allowing teachers and pupils to assess attainment and progress more frequently. It begins with diagnostic assessment, indicating what is already known and what gaps may exist in skills or knowledge … As the learning continues, further formative assessments indicate whether teaching plans need to be amended to reinforce or extend learning. Formative assessments may be questions, tasks, quizzes or more formal assessments. Often formative assessments may not be recorded at all, except perhaps in the lesson plans drawn up to address the next steps indicated. (An introduction to formative and summative assessment, n.d.)

–– Summative Assessment Every lesson has to have an element of summative assessment; otherwise moving on will create confusion among learners. This is the type of assessment that tests students’ ability to recall and use knowledge that they

104 

L. MANN ET AL.

have acquired during the entirety of a particular course or module of study. Again, the NFER description is worth quoting at some length here: Summative assessment sums up what a pupil has achieved at the end of a period of time, relative to the learning aims and the relevant national standards. The period of time may vary, depending on what the teacher wants to find out. There may be an assessment at the end of a topic, at the end of a term or half-term, at the end of a year or, as in the case of the national curriculum tests, at the end of a key stage. A summative assessment may be a written test, an observation, a conversation or a task. It may be recorded through writing, through photographs or other visual media, or through an audio recording. Whichever medium is used, the assessment will show what has been achieved. It will summarise attainment at a particular point in time and may provide individual and cohort data that will be useful for tracking progress and for informing stakeholders (e.g. parents, governors, etc.). (An introduction to formative and summative assessment, n.d.)

–– Informal Assessment Informal assessments are assessments that are centred on content and individual student performance (Weaver 2020). In essence, they concentrate on individual students’ performance in reference to a particular task or aspect of learning and should be “used to inform instruction”, rather than, for example, “to compare a student’s performance with others at their age or grade” (ibid.)—the latter being the domain of formal assessments. Another important feature of informal assessment is that it is often integrated into other teaching and learning activities and is often used as the basis from which formative feedback is offered to learners (Wright, n.d., p. 1). In this respect it is closely tied to formative assessment, discussed above. We will return to its usefulness in informing other aspects of teaching and learning later in this section. –– Formal Assessment Formal assessments are systematic tests or other structured assessment procedures aimed at gathering empirical data to identify students who have reached a particular milestone or benchmark in their level of knowledge or skills. They are thus closely aligned to the idea of ‘standardized measures’ (Weaver 2020). In the modern period, standardization has in

5  FOURTH TIP: THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ASSESSMENT 

105

many instances broadened to form the basis of national or international standards, which themselves underpin the quality assurance standards for universities discussed previously. This also ties formal assessment to the notion of summative assessment—which is also commonly dependent on, and historically related to, standardized measures. In the United States, the development of standardized assessment measures for schools is closely tied to the work of Horace Mann, in the 1830s–40s (Buckendahl 2016, p.  457). During this period, students’ results were published in newspapers for the scrutiny of society at large— underscoring the ‘public’ nature of this sort of testing. Much the same can be said of the system of degree examinations at Oxford and Cambridge, both of which have, at various points in history, involved the open publication of results. In Cambridge the system of degree classifications based on examination has its origins as far back as the sixteenth century, with the practice of ranking “the highest achieving BAs of each year” in the so-­ called Ordo Senioritatis, “an order of merit … to facilitate succession to university posts” (Stray 2001, p. 36). The public ranking of candidates by performance in formal assessments (known as ‘the Cambridge system’) was much slower to catch on at Oxford—even after examinations were formally introduced by statute in 1800 there was reticence to permit the public shaming of low-performing candidates (p. 43), as well as general uneasiness concerning intensive ranking that discouraged the use of numerical marks (p. 44). –– Low Stakes and High Stakes Another distinction between forms of assessment made by some teachers and researchers is that of high versus low stakes. Building on the general principle that the process whereby students verbalize nonverbal knowledge is a formative one, Peter Elbow (1997) highlighted the benefits of developing a ‘low-stakes’ approach to assessing learning across a wide spectrum of subjects. Some of these benefits intersect with the general characteristics of ‘formative’ assessment or ‘informal’ assessment, outlined above. However, others are more distinct; for example, that low-stakes writing enables students to engage meaningfully with a discipline before they have access to all the discipline-specific language and tools of analysis found in fully fledged students and researchers:

106 

L. MANN ET AL.

Low stakes writing helps students involve themselves more in the ideas or subject matter of a course. It helps them find their own language for the issues of the course; they stumble into their own analogies and metaphors for academic concepts. Theorists are fond of saying that learning a discipline means learning its discourse, but learning a discipline also means learning not to use that discourse. That is, students don’t know a field until they can write and talk about what is in the textbook and the lectures in their own lingo, in their informal home or personal language—language that, as Vygotsky famously observed, is saturated with sense or experience. (Elbow 1997, p. 7)

These comments have particular significance for the online environment. As discussed in Tips#1 and 2, the internet is a haven for new modes of communication, which bring with them opportunities for L2 students to engage in ‘authentic’ communication in the target language. This communication can—and in some contexts must—take place in everyday, non-­ scholarly language and, thus, fits in well with the definition of low-stakes writing outlined above by Elbow. While there is often a high bar to engagement in these arenas for students in terms of language proficiency, with the right guidance, they are able to participate in a diversity of emergent linguistic contexts that transcend traditional classifications of formal or informal. Crucially, this low-stakes learning (assessed by low-stakes assessment) can support student success in more formal contexts: Low stakes writing improves the quality of students’ high stakes writing. By assigning frequent low stakes pieces, we ensure that students have already done lots of writing before we have to grade a high stakes piece—so that they are already warmed up and more fluent. Their high stakes pieces are more likely to have a clear, alive voice. And it’s no small help to their high stakes writing that we have seen a number of their low stakes pieces. For then, when they turn in a high stakes essay that is awkwardly tangled or even impenetrable, we don’t have to panic or despair; we can just say, “Come on. You can say all this in the clear, lively voice I’ve already seen you using.” (ibid.)

Overall, Elbow advocates “inviting students to use low stakes writing to fumble and fish for words for what they sense and intuit but cannot yet clearly say”. In the online environment, it is possible to prepare students using low-stakes writing organically, since the online discussion tools (such as those built into Canvas) mimic existing casual communication

5  FOURTH TIP: THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ASSESSMENT 

107

platforms familiar to students. The challenge is encouraging students to use these in the less familiar context of higher education. A similar concept, particularly relevant to the teaching and learning of languages in higher education, comes in the form of ‘generous reading’, developed in the context of English as a second or additional language classrooms. Generous reading is a type of assessment based on ‘uncritically reading’ students’ written submissions as “a bridge to more formal writing” (Spence 2010, p. 634). Where multiple languages and cultures come together, as they often do in the languages classroom, one approach is to undertake a sort of literary analysis of students’ written work and, rather than judging it according to any single standard, try to make sense of it on its own terms: Students who speak more than one language draw from multiple cultures and language practices as they write (Coady and Escamilla 2005), which influence choice of topic, words, organization, and many other aspects of writing. Most methods of writing assessment assume a homogeneous context for every piece of writing, yet in our increasingly diverse student population this is not a valid assumption. Students bring many, varied contexts into their writing and until their context is recognized, assessing their writing using predetermined criteria is counter-productive and discouraging. (ibid., pp. 634–635)

Physical distance separating teacher and learner is often thought to be an obstacle to the construction and maintenance of a good rapport between the two. However, the non-traditional, multimodal environments offered by the internet and VLEs are complementary to varieties of assessment, such as ‘low-stakes writing’ and ‘generous reading’, which understand students’ written responses as highly context-dependent. If teachers can successfully capitalize on students’ familiarities with certain online environments and communicative idioms, they should be able to create effective lower stakes assessment tasks through which to boost students’ communicative skills and confidence levels. Alignment Researchers of assessment in higher education are in broad agreement that assessment leads to better outcomes, if and when it is in alignment with learning objectives and other aspects of learning (Biggs 1999, 2003; Race et al. 2005; Boud & Falchikov, 2007; Galvez-Bravo 2016). Assessment,

108 

L. MANN ET AL.

many authors argue, is much more beneficial when it has ‘clear goals’ and is conducted in close alignment with specific targets identifying ‘skills and competencies’ we wish our students to acquire (Angelo & Cross, 1993, p. 8). Clear alignment of goals, methods, assessments and feedback also underpins so-called assessment for learning, or AFL (see Gardner 2012). Such an approach clearly requires teachers to think about learning outcomes when designing assessments. This is not as simple as it sounds. At the time Angelo and Cross were writing, university teachers still often expressed “their instructional goals in terms of course content”, in vague terms such as ‘linear algebra’ or ‘introductory-level Japanese’ (ibid.). While it seems to us that things have moved on since then, particular institutional circumstances still mean that, from time to time, assessments are not clearly aligned with learning objectives—or that learning objectives are so vaguely expressed as to hinder the development of any impression of alignment with assessment. In our own professional lives we have encountered substantial resistance to the written formulation of learning objectives and rubrics. In universities this is sometimes because it is seen as a box-ticking exercise that restricts academic freedoms and is generally unbefitting the breadth and rigour of higher education. However, school teachers addressing online forums have expressed similar concerns about the limiting effect of learning objectives—see, for example, Mr. Pink (@ PositivTeacha)’s article ‘Learning Objectives: a waste of time’ (2017), or Andrew Jeffrey’s ‘Is it time to re-think the use of Learning Objectives?’ (n.d.). Whether we choose to write them down or not, as individual teachers, we nearly always have a clear understanding of what we want our students to learn and how competent we would like them to become, from the level of the individual class, right up to the level of summative assessment and awarding of qualifications. So long as academics and teachers retain the ability to create, modify and, if necessary, re-create learning objectives, any feeling of being trammelled by them should be put aside. Rather, we should make it one of our core tasks to think frequently about what we need our students to learn and how to go about assessing it. This is all the more true when previously face-to-face assessment is moved online, as discussed below. Online Alignment The task of aligning learning objectives and assessment tasks online brings with it its own challenges and opportunities.

5  FOURTH TIP: THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ASSESSMENT 

109

The first major challenge for sudden shifts of assessment exercises from face-to-face to internet-based environments—such as those some universities experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic—comes in the form of the same kinds of institutional inertia that discourage overhaul of the curriculum, as discussed in Tip#2. In the case that learning objectives are already set at the beginning of a programme of study, there is a strong argument that learners have ‘signed up’ to those learning objectives as part of their choice to pursue that university course. If the learning objectives change substantially while students are on course, they may have grounds to complain that the degree they will receive was not the one on which they had initially enrolled. This is a point that was raised as a matter of concern for HE teachers’ professional practice by Advance HE in 2020 (Moving assessment on-line). Pedagogically speaking, it could also be confusing to learners to rapidly change learning objectives when they are in the middle of a programme of study. This applies whether or not they are fully informed of the nature of the learning objectives, since any substantial changes to learning objectives will naturally alter the content of classes. Other causes of institutional resistance to changing learning objectives include staff workload and another issue falling under the term ‘alignment’—in this case the strategic alignment of curricula and assessment procedures across departments and divisions of the university. There is often a need to align learning objectives between, for example, different languages within ‘Modern Languages’ programmes at a particular university. Furthermore, in some cases, this even extends beyond a single institution where the aforementioned standardized measures (e.g. CEFR) are involved. In such cases, even excluding the role of external examiners and other quality assurance apparatus, learning objectives are effectively standardized between higher education qualifications, as they are between different languages taught for GCSE, A-Level, International Baccalaureate and so on. Another major challenge in the alignment of learning objectives and assessment online has to do with the transposition of certain physical and sensory capabilities that accompanies the shift from face-to-face to digital learning. It is fairly obvious that, just as in teaching generally, there are some tasks that cannot be effectively carried out by students working online—and there are others which they can do very much more easily. It is for this latter reason that the move online in terms of assessment brings many opportunities for language teachers. We will think more about some of these later in this chapter.

110 

L. MANN ET AL.

Given that it can be so problematic to completely overhaul learning objectives to incorporate them within a new programme of online learning and assessment, one thing teachers can do is to think carefully and critically about the learning objectives that are currently in place and to what extent they can be properly measured by any online assessment tasks under consideration. When they run into an objective that is difficult to measure through an online assessment, they could consider amalgamating that objective with another one (ibid.), dividing it up into different sub-­ objectives or assessing it through a different type of task altogether. An example that recently crossed our desks was that of how to judge whether students can translate fluently and accurately from the non-­ European languages we teach, to English, under timed and closed-book conditions. It is virtually impossible to assess this online in the same way that we formerly assessed it in person, since we have no way of controlling access to dictionaries and other online language resources, for students working electronically offsite. We spent a lot of time and energy discussing how to overcome this problem. However, the problem in this case is similar to that raised above by Angelo and Cross, about learning objectives being defined in terms of the scope of an entire course and, therefore, being too vague in relation to the skills and knowledge to which they correspond. Rather than worrying about how to assess whether students can translate texts fluently and accurately, in a form similar to in-person translation examinations that no longer exist, it is thus better to think critically about the learning objective itself. It does not need to be deleted or altered in essence but could it be split up? What are the key skills of translation that were actually being assessed in the face-to-face exercise? If there are difficulties testing under examination conditions online, could some of it be brought into in-class assessment or, if that is not possible, measured within other areas of the formal assessment cycle? If in doubt, it is probably better to err on the side of more in-class and qualitative assessment. Qualitative and metacognitive assessment exercises—such as asking students how they have translated a text— not only supply us with important data on whether learning targets are being met, when other avenues are closed; they might also seem less threatening for students. Where we are asking our students to adapt to new assessment environments from face-to-face to online, it is only fair that we give them as much reassurance as we can that this will not result in worse outcomes for them, or the need to work harder than they did previously.

5  FOURTH TIP: THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ASSESSMENT 

111

 eedback and Formative Assessment F Both the Irish National Forum and the UK QAA guidelines cited above justified the need for assessment, among other things, in terms of the opportunities it can provide for feedback. Feedback—referring to the entire spectrum of responses, corrections and constructive suggestions passed on from teachers to students after work has been assessed—is closely linked to assessment since it depends upon it to exist. As Yuan and Kim (2015) have put it: “Those who provide feedback are assessors, and those who receive feedback are assessees” (p. 409). Traditionally associated more with formative or informal assessment than summative or formal assessment, the provision of feedback is now often desirable, or even mandatory, across a wide range of HE assessment exercises. Feedback, itself, is now well-trodden ground within research on teaching and learning and has attracted its own polemics. As briefly touched upon in the Introduction to this book, researchers in the past have harshly criticized certain traditional modes of feedback in language education as ineffective or, worse, harmful to student progress (Truscott, 1996, in Eslami 2014, p. 445). While later studies of Corrective Feedback (CF)— which lets learners know, in some way, that they have used the Target Language incorrectly—are, on the whole, more supportive, they are still far from agreed on the most effective means of offering feedback on language work to L2 learners (Boggs 2019, pp. 1–2). Possible causes of contradictory findings concerning the efficacy of feedback of this kind include differences in the ‘philosophical’ approaches adopted by different groups of studies, as well as essential differences between varieties of CF—namely direct CF, indirect CF and metalinguistic CF (ibid). The first of these points out mistakes in Target Language usage and corrects them. The second lets students know that there is a mistake but does not correct it. The third points out the mistake explicitly and offers information on the nature of the mistake—why it is wrong. Surprisingly, even the additional information supplied by this metalinguistic does not guarantee better outcomes for students, as Boggs notes: “studies comparing metalinguistic CF to other forms often fail to find significant differences between treatment groups” (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, 2009a, 2009b) (ibid., p. 2). Other studies invoke yet another distinction in types of feedback, implicit and explicit. Implicit includes “‘no overt indication that an error has been committed’ … whereas explicit feedback does” (Ellis 2007, quoted in Yoshida 2010, p. 293). Recasts of students’ responses by the

112 

L. MANN ET AL.

teacher are examples of ‘implicit’ feedback, whereas metalinguistic explanations, in this case, fall under the category of ‘explicit’ (ibid.). Various studies have indicated that, unsurprisingly, the effectiveness of both varieties is dependent on teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of feedback, including such basic questions as whether students have noticed that feedback has taken place and whether teachers have noticed that students have noticed (Kartchava 2019 dedicates space to a review of the history of scholarship in this area, citing Mackey et al., 2000, 2007; Moroishi, 2002; Roberts, 1995; Yoshida, 2008, 2009, 2010; and, ultimately back to, e.g., Schmidt, 1983, 1990). Similarly conflicting messages have, over time, emerged out of research on areas of feedback outside applied linguistics or language teaching. An example cited by Shute (2007), in her famous and then-comprehensive review of research on feedback, was that of ‘elaboration’, or the explanations that accompany feedback when it is delivered to students. At the time, there was no agreement concerning whether it was beneficial to students to explain why their responses were correct or otherwise: consider the hundreds of research studies published on the topic of feedback and its relation to learning and performance during the past 50  years … Within this large body of feedback research, there are many conflicting findings and no consistent pattern of results.

Consider just one facet of feedback: elaboration (i.e. explanatory information within a feedback message). Some studies report that elaborative feedback produces significantly greater learning among students compared with feedback containing less information (e.g. Albertson, 1986; Grant et al., 1982; Hannafin, 1983; Moreno, 2004; Pridemore & Klein, 1995; Roper, 1977; Shute, 2006). However, other studies show that increasing the amount of feedback information has no effect on learning or performance (e.g. Corbett & Anderson, 1989, 1990; Gilman, 1969; Hodes, 1985; Kulhavy et al., 1985; Merrill, 1987). Academic scrutiny of competing types and formats of feedback has provided teachers with a wealth of data with which to inform their practice. However, it is easy to see why teachers could be overwhelmed by the variety and complexity of studies, as well as the conflicting conclusions they have produced. For one thing, the precision of terminology concerning types of feedback that is required to design studies is not always necessary, or practically useful, for language teachers working in everyday

5  FOURTH TIP: THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ASSESSMENT 

113

situations. It is also important to remember that there is a broad spectrum of learners and learning styles; so perhaps, with inclusivity in mind, we should be thinking about how many alternative forms of feedback and assessment we can provide, rather than which ones are best, or most effective. Anecdotally, among our departmental colleagues and elsewhere, we have observed language teachers who seamlessly shift between and combine all the types of assessment and feedback mentioned in the last few paragraphs, within their day-to-day practice. The ‘feedback conversations’ that are produced in this way bring learners and assessors closer together. We envisage this process as follows. Such seamless conversations have a lot in common with Yang and Carless’ (2013) description of dialogic feedback, as: “more than conversation or exchange of ideas, it involves relationships in which participants think and reason together … Our emphasis on dialogue is an explicit attempt to circumvent the limitations of one-way transmission of feedback which frequently arises from the dominant structural constraint of written comments on end of course assignments” (p. 286). This in itself is linked to the notion of sustainable feedback—“dialogic processes and activities which can support and inform the student on the current task, whilst also developing the ability to self-regulate performance on future tasks” (Carless et al., 2011, p. 397). Forming an essential component of teaching (as famously suggested by Bransford, Brown and Cocking 2000), these feedback conversations also integrate elements of reflective self-evaluation by students, discussed extensively by Carless et  al. (2011, passim)—but importantly also students’ evaluations of other aspects of the learning process, such as teaching, which is rarely a main focus within studies of feedback. In the case of non-anonymized feedback exercises, peer feedback may also be included in this sort of dialogue. As can be seen in Fig. 5.1, multiple modes of feedback, themselves dependent on the existence of a respectful working relationship between teacher and learner and a ‘trusting atmosphere’ (Carless, 2013), can be integrated within a single dialogic feedback exercise. The same general format can apply as easily to synchronous online learning as it can to physical classroom environments and, indeed, even “in virtual spaces created using various technologies” (Yuan & Kim, 2015; based on Carless et al., 2011). To give an example, in flipped Japanese text-reading and translation classes at CEFR B2-C1, we have observed a number of synchronous online feedback exercises in the academic year 2020–21, following the

114 

L. MANN ET AL.

Evaluation of teaching

Teacher assessment & feedback

Learners--FEEDBACK CONVERSATION--Assessors

Student self-evaluation

Peer assessment & feedback

Fig. 5.1  Feedback conversations in language teaching

assessment of a student’s asynchronously submitted assignment, which correspond to the pattern of the dialogue below: Teacher: This sentence was very good—but why did you say “can eat” here? (Indirect) Student: Because it is potential form. Teacher: Is it potential form? (Indirect) Student: No. It is passive. But it looks the same. Teacher: Correct. It is passive. Student: So, it means “eaten”? Teacher: No. It means “eat” (Direct) Remember that one of the uses of the passive form in Japanese is to denote honorific speech (Metalinguistic) Student: Oh. It is honorific. So the subject was the man after all, but I thought it was potential because it looks the same (Self-­ reflection / evaluation). We didn’t spend as long going over honorifics as some of the other areas. Could we do some more practice? (Evaluation of teaching) Teacher: Yes. We will build some of that into what we do in future weeks. As noted in an earlier section, HE researchers are in general agreement that assessment should be aligned to learning objectives. Since feedback develops out of assessment exercises, it should therefore follow that the alignment of feedback with intended outcomes for learning should also be desirable—and, whether online or offline, assessments and feedback should be considered in terms of their alignment across an entire

5  FOURTH TIP: THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ASSESSMENT 

115

programme of study and beyond, towards related areas of study and long-­ term goals. As Boud and Falchikov (2006) put it: “such an approach cannot be pursued by attention to assessment activities alone, the influence of this way of thinking needs to permeate all aspects of teaching, learning and assessment. A careful planning of activities is needed not only so programs work towards fuller application of these ideas, but that at all levels significant engagement with each is required” (p. 410). This integrated approach is well-suited to online language education. The Opportunities and Challenges of Moving Formal Assessments Online During the COVID-19 pandemic it became essential for all HE institutions in the UK to move assessments online. As with online teaching generally, though, there was a wide spectrum of previous experience with online assessment across the sector. Long before 2020, many institutions had rolled out online assessment as part of their strategic policy commitments for a variety of other reasons including increasing numbers of students in employment, inclusivity, environmental concerns, as well as efficiency and administrative rationalization. Online assessment certainly offers significant opportunities in the last two of these areas—and the more institutions that move over to regular internet-based assessments, the less likely it is that the genie will ever get back into the bottle. A recent conversation with the Chair of Final Honours School Examiners about the sudden move online within our Faculty at Oxford in 2020 yielded the following comments: “There are advantages of online exams. Most students and assessors are more comfortable with typed writing than with handwriting. Electronic communication also makes papers instantly available to the various markers and externals while postal mail may produce delays … Now we do not have to worry about such things … [It] also bypasses logistic challenges of organising the travels and stay of external examiners” (Bangha, I. personal communication). The remainder of this section is dedicated to the challenges of moving formal assessments online, along with some potential solutions to the challenges. Since formal and summative assessments tend to operate within parameters set in alignment with institutional and even sector-wide frameworks, it should go without saying that what can be said for assessments in general apply, in large part, to language assessments too.

116 

L. MANN ET AL.

–– Challenge 1: Disruptions to formal assessment resulting from moving to online learning The extent to which formal assessment is built into the structural integrity of education system—as well as the power that structure has over individual learners—was underlined in the UK, in 2020, by the A-Level results crisis. The cancelling of formal examinations for GCE A Level as a result of the COVID-19 brought with it a panoply of worries for all participants in the teaching and learning process. Universities simultaneously worried that not enough new students would take up their places (Coronavirus: Universities ‘face collapse in student numbers’ 2020) and that the replacement of in person external assessment with teacher assessment would result in rampant grade inflation—and massively over-­ subscribed undergraduate courses (Coronavirus: What’s happening with university admissions? 2020). Schools and teachers worried about the content they needed to cover and the extent to which their recommendations would be followed. Most of all, students and their parents worried about the effect the Ofqual algorithm would have on their results, university places and the rest of their lives (Kolkman 2020). Within universities themselves, the public-health-driven interruption of the ‘normal’ system of formal assessment in 2020–21 has been at the heart of a lot of anxiety. Earlier in this chapter we noted that rapid changes in learning objectives while students are on course can result in anxieties— and worries about assessment are central to this. Students are rightly concerned about the effect cancellations and changes to assessment arrangements, alongside other disruptions to learning, have on their academic outcomes. In the case of online assessment, digital inequality is also a concern, as it is in other areas of internet-based teaching and learning. The Russell Group Student Unions wrote a joint letter to Vice-Chancellors in January 2021, urging them to take a holistic approach to formal assessment that does not penalize students for their relative level of preparedness in an online-offline environment where learning and assessment have fallen out of alignment. Their message is clear. Disruption is damaging and any changes to assessment can result in unfairness. It is, however, our belief that no detriment policies are not simply about algorithms resulting from banked assessments, but are a collection of policies that ensure the full magnitude of the pandemic and its effect on education are fully considered. The integrity of all academic standards and outcomes should be upheld. No student should be disadvantaged by the

5  FOURTH TIP: THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ASSESSMENT 

117

impacts of COVID-19. No student should be disadvantaged by any mitigating measures introduced. All students should, as much as possible, have a level playing field to demonstrate their academic achievement (2021). If universities are not seen to ensure that assessment and learning are aligned, even during periods of substantial disruption to face-to-face contact, they risk growing dissatisfaction and, even, legal action from student bodies. Successful management of online assessment could help to mitigate this. –– Solution: Flexibility and precision with regard to learning targets Part of the challenge outlined above is really the need to convince major stakeholders of the potential effectiveness of online learning and assessment, even in formal contexts. Formal assessments would have encountered far less disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic, had they been administered entirely online, as part of online or blended programmes of study. Resistance to change in general is discussed further below. However, there are also real challenges faced by institutions aiming to move from offline to online assessment. Since assessment and learning are so closely linked, even small changes to one can affect the other—and it is particularly problematic to make substantive changes to learning objectives while students are on course. As we saw in the case of the translation examinations earlier, thinking carefully about alignment can be the key here. If teachers and assessors are open minded about how to link assessment tasks with learning objectives, a lot can be achieved in a short time. Since languages themselves are complex and varied phenomena, with equally complex arrays of pathways to acquisition, language teachers, in general, already have the flexibility they need for this. However, before beginning the process of thinking about and discussing this with colleagues, they must already have clear perceptions of precisely what they want their students to learn. In the end, we all want them to have acquired the degree of fluency across all four skills in the target language defined by the programme of study, but we have our own ways of working towards this. With a clear plan and a precise understanding of the knowledge and skills our teaching is designed to develop—and we need these to design curricula in the first place—we are much better placed to think about the effects of the removal of a physical examination environment on our ability to assess them. This mixture of flexibility and precision enables us, as seen

118 

L. MANN ET AL.

earlier, to combine or separate learning objectives, in order to ensure that we assess what we want our students to learn—which is also what we have agreed to teach them. All of the above is in the domain of university teachers who also design assessments. However, the process clearly also necessitates discussion between key stakeholders, including non-assessing teaching staff (where they exist), policy-makers and quality-assurance bodies and, particularly, students. Discussion, negotiation and informed consent are important— and it should help to minimize student anxiety and dissatisfaction with the process. As discussed above, when creating online assessments, it should be our goal to adjust how we assess learning objectives in the new environment and not to adjust the learning itself. When in doubt, though, it is better to err on the side of compassion and understanding for our students—for whom any adjustment can be stressful. A slight shift in emphasis from one learning objective to another is unlikely to bring about a significant decline in standards. In fact, simply having the opportunity to think critically about the alignment of assessment and learning objectives could help us to align them better. Better alignment can be linked to better outcomes. Handling changes to assessment with thought and understanding thus has the potential to kill two birds with one stone—protect students and universities from the effects of disruption in the present and improve teaching and learning for the future. –– Challenge 2: Resistance to change Within departmental and subject group discussions at our own institutions, we will all have had experience of making adjustments to modes of assessment. Within such discussions, we will probably also have encountered resistance to change in some form or another. Resistance to change, including bureaucratic inertia, is arguably a force for good. It protects institutions from the effects of rash decision making and minimizes the disruption to learning caused by sudden systemic change. However, excessive resistance to change, in forms such as the rigid adherence to face-to-­ face examination regulations in online settings, is not helpful—and it seems to be a particularly serious problem in the area of formal assessment, as discussed below. Though organizational structures vary between institutions, changes to teaching and learning frequently come into being through horizontal and vertical discussions within and between stakeholder groups. This is the right way to approach the changes to assessment

5  FOURTH TIP: THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ASSESSMENT 

119

procedures necessary to make them suitable for online deployment since, as seen in Challenge 1, robust discussion and informed consent are helpful to avoid misalignment of assessment and learning objectives and, ultimately, to mitigate the effects of disruption for learners. –– Solution: Convince your colleagues of the importance of alignment Close alignment of assessment and learning objectives, along the lines of Biggs’ (1999, 2003) ‘constructive alignment’ is not only part of an evidence-driven approach but also makes good practical sense for teachers, who need the feedback that well-aligned assessments produce, to hone their teaching over time. One of the major features of the University of Oxford’s teaching and assessment regimes, across a range of subject areas, including languages, is the notion of ‘set texts’. These are texts that learners study in fine detail, usually in tutorials, and that they are later required to analyse, translate or otherwise comment on, in an examination setting. The origins of this system are in the systematic study of classical languages and literatures, out of which many of Oxford’s interpretative and pedagogical traditions have grown. Set-text examinations have taken place, since the nineteenth century, mostly in a closed-book format, in formal, supervised settings. Asking students to take the same examination but in an online, open-book format, amounts to asking them to copy and paste their own notes in the box provided. Although it looks like the same examination, it is clear that this new task does not assess the same learning objectives the previous one did. On the surface, sticking close to existing procedures might seem easier, or friendlier to students; however, this might not be beneficial in the long term. Besides the lack of useful data it provides for assessors, this degree of poor alignment is liable to leave students feeling that the work they are doing is pointless, or take the pragmatic choice not to work too hard on that area of their learning (see Biggs 1999, 2003). So how do we remedy this? One simple method is to shift emphasis, including assessment weighting, to another area of the existing examination syllabus. This was quickly discussed and adopted within our working groups, as an interim measure. However, leaving any sort of set-text translation question in place in an open-book online examination, alongside a set of rubrics and learning objectives designed with closed-book assessments in mind, is clearly not a long-term solution. What is really necessary is a language assessment that builds on existing learning objectives and

120 

L. MANN ET AL.

finds ways to judge if they have been met by students that are appropriate to the online context. There are many possible alternatives that could be considered here, such as a digital humanities approach requiring students to develop knowledge of coding and mark up texts for digitization, using the various types of information they have accrued about those texts. This approach would incorporate skills that academics and professionals use in activities that extend beyond pedagogical settings—and, thus, tend towards the sort of ‘authentic’ learning outlined in Tip#2. Larger changes of this sort require time for planning and discussion with stakeholders and informed consent of students, as well as time to embed themselves, as noted below. –– Challenge 3: Grade inflation This is a concern that lies at the heart of the previous two challenges. Organizations such as the QAA and others that promote quality-assurance in formal assessments do so, in part, by ensuring that academic standards do not decrease over time. Concern about grade inflation was one of the causes of the adoption of the algorithmic method for assessing A-Level students in 2020—and it is a cause of anxiety and debate for universities too. –– Solution: Inclusive Assessment As we have argued already, change does not need to accompany a decline in standards or grade-inflation; on the contrary, if we do not change enough when we need to (such as when converting our assessment tasks for deployment online), we risk inadvertently ending up in a situation where we are no longer testing what we aim to teach, thereby decreasing the standard and quality of our languages degrees. Invalidating assessments—by, for example, sticking rigidly to earlier examination formats when moving online—is one of the best ways to ensure that our qualifications are not worth what they used to be. For a number of years, University of Plymouth has taken a leading role in implementing programmes of inclusive assessment—or a “flexible range of assessment modes made available to all” (p. 15). In essence, this means the extension of alternative assessment practices designed to cater for a diverse student body to the entire cohort of learners, rather than just to those with documented special circumstances. Waterfield and West, writing on behalf of Plymouth, frame their arguments for inclusive assessment

5  FOURTH TIP: THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ASSESSMENT 

121

in precisely the terms outlined above concerning validity, laying part of the blame for resistance to change at the door of quality-assurance bodies: traditionalism in assessment practice, reinforced by agencies such as the QAA, privileges the notion of the reliability of procedures, and therefore robustness is pursued at the expense of fully considering the validity of assessment in meeting the task of testing skills and knowledge. The risk, as Elton (2005) has observed is of “doing the wrong thing righter”, and as such missing the opportunity to actually enquire into what is being assessed or indeed, what is worth assessing. (2006, p. 14)

In practical terms, inclusivizing assessment need not involve wide-ranging changes to existing practices (although this will depend on the procedures in place in a given university or department). It could mean something as simple as offering a choice to all students to offer their work for assessment in a different medium, or in a multimodal portfolio (online assessments make this much more achievable). We can also loosen time constraints or adopt a more qualitative approach to assessing certain areas of the curriculum. A number of flexible approaches adopted in Plymouth met with considerable success, in terms of overall student performance and staff satisfaction (see pp. 217–262). By way of example in our own practice in non-European languages at Oxford, some of us have adopted elements of flexible assessment within the so-called collections system. Collections are college or faculty-based formal assessments at Oxford, traditionally operated termly, which combine elements of summative and formative assessment. Online platforms, such as Canvas, combined with productivity tools like Office 365, have enabled us to offer flexibility, while retaining a ‘set-text’ approach. Students are still required to develop a deep familiarity with one or more texts in the Target Language. However, we can now offer them a wider choice of procedures and exercises with which to assess that familiarity, incorporating approaches that fit a range of learning styles and needs. Multiple choice and digital word-matching or cloze procedures can be juxtaposed with longer writing tasks, including collaborative writing tasks using document sharing, essays and grammatical commentaries. When this was put to the test in a college collection, in 2020, the results were impressive. The small group of students exceeded the teacher’s expectations in their ability to navigate the tasks offered and came out with excellent final grades. We did not offer optional audio-visual, or combined multimodal submission

122 

L. MANN ET AL.

pathways, though these are being adopted within other areas of the university (e.g. the Centre for Teaching and Learning). If the sort of flexibility outlined above is offered to all students at the stage of formal assessment, this can minimize unfairness for students caused by disruption to assessment procedures, as well as potential administrative cost savings for institutions. It must nonetheless be monitored and administered with students in mind, and with a view to minimizing digital inequalities. –– Challenge 4: Uncertainty and the need for blended online-offline assessment When asked about the main challenges of the period 2020–21 for assessment, the Chair of the Examiners for Final Honour Schools in Oriental Studies at Oxford reported: “The major challenge with the exams is the fluidity of the situation. In the autumn we were hoping that all or part of the exams can be held in person but it turned out by February that it is very uncertain so we just plan as [sic] everything will be online.” These comments reflect a common anxiety felt during the COVID-19 pandemic in education—that of uncertainty. Schools have had to create programmes of learning that cater for students that are unable to pursue their education at home, alongside those that are being taught exclusively online. –– Solution: Move the Classroom Online? There is no easy solution here, since changes to assessment inevitably take time and effort to implement. However, as in the case of inclusive assessment, matters will improve as online systems bed themselves in—and both students and teaching staff become more familiar with them. In this book we are not arguing that all teaching and learning should take place online in future. As we saw in the Introduction, some education professionals feel very strongly that online learning can never replace classroom interactions and the traditional hard work of teachers. As effective as the rhetoric of juxtaposition can be, in reality, there is no need to contrast online teaching and classroom teaching, since they are far from mutually exclusive. As seen in Tip#3, the two can be made to complement each other well, within programmes of blended language education, given appropriate thought and planning. Many online tools, such as Padlet (discussed briefly in Tip#2), work just as well in face-to-face environments. As regular

5  FOURTH TIP: THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ASSESSMENT 

123

classroom-­based teaching and learning takes further inevitable steps in the direction of digital networking and social-media (see Tip#1), the real impact of public-health crises and other disruptions to learning and assessment arrangements will be lessened, as well as the psychological effects for participants, should some degree of physical distancing become necessary.

Conclusion: Plans for the Future? Assessment is an essential element of teaching and learning. Despite attempts to reform or remove it, formal assessment is still a major feature of higher education, across a range of subject areas, including languages. As in other areas of teaching and learning, the shift to widespread online assessment, accelerated by the COVID-19 crisis, has offered language teachers a special opportunity to think about their practice. This could be a great advantage to both teachers and learners after the pandemic is over. Here is what we would like you, as language teachers, to take away from this chapter: 1. Though widely discussed and critiqued, assessment (in its various forms) is essential to our current system of higher education. It is monitored and regulated by bodies such as the QAA—but a large part of the burden of responsibility for ensuring it meets students’ needs still lies with teachers. 2. It is a good idea to think about assessment as part of the learning process for students. This way it feels like an important use of time and resources—and it could help us to ensure we think about whether we are testing what we want students to learn. Formative assessment, in particular, generates essential feedback, without which it is difficult to teach effectively. This is just as true in the online environment as in the physical classroom. 3. Researchers have observed many varieties of feedback in use in language classrooms and elsewhere. Each of these has its own benefits and challenges—and these can be distributed differently in an online environment. Language teachers that we have encountered among our own colleagues often combine multiple forms of feedback into dialogic exercises that can take place in person, through synchronous online meetings, or multimodally. These mesh well with the idea of dialogic feedback in general—and could be useful for teachers wondering about good ways to offer feedback from formative

124 

L. MANN ET AL.

assessment tasks online. They also often contain important evaluative data from students. If you find yourself having similar dialogues in your online classes, it is a good idea to obtain the correct permissions to keep a record of such conversations. 4. There are a number of challenges associated with moving formal assessments online. This applies to all subjects and not just to language education. While there are no silver bullets here, the best outcomes are likely to be obtained through careful thought and planning, as well as discussion with key stakeholders (including students, of course). As with assessment generally, alignment of examinations and learning objectives should be central to discussions of online assessment—as should the need to avoid certain groups of students being unfairly disadvantaged. Once online assessments are fully embedded as part of learning within all higher education language programmes, we will no doubt see the emergence of new challenges and opportunities for developing learning. Until then, our immediate plans should include the not-so-new objective of ensuring learning objectives and assessment tasks are in good alignment. If that means changing the nature of assessment tasks when we deploy them online, we must not shy away from doing so. In the Conclusion that follows this chapter, we will look back over the various tasks of teaching and learning languages online discussed in this book.

Useful Resources You might find the following sources helpful when thinking about how to organize and manage language assessments online: Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Introduction: Assessment for the longer term. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment for higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 3–13). Routledge. NFER. (n.d.). An introduction to formative and summative assessment. https:// www.nfer.ac.uk/for-­s chools/free-­r esources-­a dvice/assessment-­h ub/ introduction-­to-­assessment/an-­introduction-­to-­formative-­and-­summative-­ assessment/ QAA. (2018). UK quality code for higher education advice and guidance: Assessment. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-­code/advice-­and-­guidance/assessment QAA. (2019). Degree awarding powers in England: Guidance for providers on assessment. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/guidance/degree-­awarding-­ powers-­i n-­e ngland-­g uidance-­f or-­p roviders-­o n-­a ssessment-­b y-­q aa.pdf?sfvrs n=ddddc181_2

5  FOURTH TIP: THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ASSESSMENT 

125

References Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Biggs, J. (1999, 2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. SRHE and Open University Press. Boggs, J. (2019). Effects of teacher-scaffolded and self-scaffolded corrective feedback compared to direct corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in English L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 100671. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100671 Boud, D. (2007). Reframing assessment as if learning was important. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. Routledge. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long‐term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Introduction: Assessment for the longer term. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment for higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 3–13). Routledge. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Brock, M. (2000, November 16). A ‘plastic structure’. In The history of the University of Oxford: Volume VII: Nineteenth-century Oxford, part 2. Oxford University Press. Buckendahl, C. W. (2016). Public perceptions about assessment in education. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 454–471). Routledge. Byrne, N., & Butcher, C. (2020). An introduction to teaching in UK higher education : A guide for international and transnational teachers. Routledge. Key Guides for Effective Teaching in Higher Education. Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407. Coady, M., & Escamilla, K. (2005). Audible voices, visible tongues: Exploring social realities in Spanish-speaking students. Writing’ Language Arts, 82(6), 462–471. Elbow, P. (1997). High stakes and low stakes in assigning and responding to writing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 5–13. Eslami, E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ writing. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences., 98, 445–452. Galvez-Bravo, L. (2016). Overassessment in higher education: Does less mean more? Innovations in Practice, 10(2), 93–102. Gardner, J. (2012). Assessment and learning: Introduction. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 1–8).

126 

L. MANN ET AL.

Jeffrey, A. Is it time to rethink the use of learning objectives. https://andrewjeffrey. co.uk/is-­it-­time-­to-­re-­think-­the-­use-­of-­learning-­objectives/ Karchava, E. (2019). Noticing Oral corrective feedback in the second language classroom: Background and evidence. Lexington Books. Kolkman, D. (2020, August 26). F**k the algorithm?: what the world can learn from the UK’s A-level grading fiasco. Impact of Social Sciences Blog. https:// blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/08/26/fk-­t he-­a lgorithm-­ what-­the-­world-­can-­learn-­from-­the-­uks-­a-­level-­grading-­fiasco/ NFER. (n.d.). An introduction to formative and summative assessment. https:// www.nfer.ac.uk/for-schools/free-resources-advice/assessment-hub/introduction-to-assessment/an-introduction-to-formative-and-summative-assessment/ Passow, H., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., Harding, T. S., & Carpenter, D. D. (2006). Factors influencing engineering students’ decisions to cheat by type of assessment. Research in Higher Education, 47(6), 643–684. QAA. (2018). UK quality code for higher education advice and guidance: Assessment. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-code/advice-and-guidance/assessment QAA. (2019). Degree awarding powers in England: Guidance for providers on assessment. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/guidance/degree-awarding-powers-inengland-guidance-for-providers-on-assessment-by-qaa.pdf?sfvrsn=ddddc181_2 Race, P., Brown, S., & Smith, B. (2005). 500 tips on assessment. Routledge Falmer. Shute, V. (2007). Focus on formative feedback. ETS Research Report. Spence, L. (2010). Generous Reading: Seeing students through their writing. The Reading Teacher, 63(8), 634–642. Stray, C. (2001). The shift from Oral to written examination: Cambridge and Oxford 1700–1900. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 8(1), 33–50. Waterfield, J., & West, B. (2006). Inclusive assessment in higher education: A resource for change. University of Plymouth. Weaver, B. (2020). Formal v. informal assessments. https://www.scholastic.com/ teachers/articles/teaching-­content/formal-­vs-­informal-­assessments/ Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 285–297. Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293–314. Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2015). Effective feedback design using free technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(3), 408–434.

CHAPTER 6

Conclusion: Don’t Lose Faith

Abstract  This chapter restates and reinforces the overall thesis of this book; that the shift to online teaching and learning of languages in HE settings during the COVID-19 pandemic has brought—in some cases hitherto largely unnoticed—interactions between technology, physicality, digitality, communication and learning. In particular, it highlights the positive outlook of this book as a whole, expressed primarily in terms of the opportunities offered by the online space to enhance student experiences and progress. It also reiterates the particular challenges of teaching and learning languages in the online space encountered by the participants cited in this book—not least a perceived difficulty in building rapports with students in digital settings devoid of all physical proximity. As the pandemic recedes and, yet again, a new set of demands are placed on language teachers working in HE, the skills of analysis, flexibility and imagination—already key components of our professional toolkit—will be vital for all teachers, as this chapter (and book) concludes. Keywords  Online language learning • Learning technologies • Challenges • Physicality • Digitality • Social media • Curriculum • Diversity • Continuing professional development (CPD) • Assessment • Screen fatigue • Analysis • Flexibility • Imagination

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 L. Mann et al., Online Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91418-9_6

127

128 

L. MANN ET AL.

As this book has aimed to demonstrate, for those of us interested in online teaching in general, or online language teaching in particular, there are many perspectives out there to chew over and digest. Teaching through the internet is far from a new thing and, even before the rapid move online that accompanied the outbreak of COVID-19 in the UK in early 2020, many teachers will have read about and used digital technologies in their work. Indeed, in many areas of our professional lives, deeper integration of digital and internet-enabled technologies has been presented as more of an inevitability than a choice, for many years already. Despite this, even after the dual cataclysm of COVID infection and the resulting nationwide school closures, teachers are not wholly convinced of the efficacy of teaching and learning online and many in public life were, in mid-2021, hailing the return of ‘regular’ face-to-face teaching in UK schools as an exciting and relieving milestone. The most cynical readers will perhaps take the view that commentators’ opinions on the deployment of internet resources in support of teaching and learning may be predicted by the degree of those commentators’ involvement with digital teaching or, in worse cases, vested interests in that sector. It is difficult to deny that learning technologists and other education professionals whose jobs depend on the roll-out of technology are unlikely to recommend scrapping the use of internet-enabled technologies in teaching. However, as we suggested already in the Introduction, there are existential anxieties on the other side of the debate; namely those caused by the potential displacement of human teachers by digital technologies. While it has not yet come, there will be a day in the relatively near future when intelligent machines are capable of handling large proportions of a teachers’ workload, as they already do for bank clerks and call-centre workers. There is already concern that we will see increased reliance on pre-recorded lecture materials and on-demand teaching content, as universities cater for demands for greater flexibility from some student groups—although it remains to be seen whether ‘value-for-money’ arguments for in-person teaching will trump these. Overall, this book has presented a largely optimistic view of teaching and learning languages online, with a focus on positive thinking and careful planning, as well as openness towards what the internet could do to improve our teaching and, more importantly, for our students’ learning. We did not choose to approach the topic with such openness because any of us is a professional learning technologist. In fact, one of the reasons we chose to write this together at this time was because we do not work at

6 CONCLUSION: DON’T LOSE FAITH 

129

institutions with decades of experience in teaching language only or mainly online. This meant that, like many of our colleagues, we were thrust into unfamiliar environments in 2020 and 2021, during which there was a scramble to digitally ‘distance’ our teaching. While sometimes uncomfortable, being in that position did enable us to think relatively freely, and in broad terms, about our approaches, as well as giving us space to consider the future. We concluded that, however uncertain that future may be, it is very unlikely not to include internet language teaching. As language teachers, we want to help shape that future—and cannot really see how it would make any sense not to. When confronted with extreme enthusiasm for any emergent learning technology, a healthy scepticism of the sort described above is both natural and potentially beneficial, in particular where it becomes the starting point for thinking about what constitutes good practice. However, institutional policy and other factors can at times leave teachers feeling that they must try to ‘fit’ existing teaching practices into a string of ever-­ changing technological environments or replicate the arrangements of face-to-face learning online. Not only does this result in a lot of additional work for teachers; it may also not always lead to optimal outcomes for anyone involved. The truths, if they may be so-called, about how learning happens online (or in any other environment for that matter) will not be arrived at through discussions of whether one technology is better than another, or can replace it, or can replicate its functions. Rather—as clichéd as this may sound—we must respect the complexity of both teachers’ and learners’ interactions with technologies of all kinds, including those which existed before the internet, and interrogate that complexity with a view to examining its working parts and their interrelationships. This should lead us to realize that many educational practices exist and function only with the support of others. When one is removed, this sometimes renders others motionless. This sentiment is given eloquent expression in the work of Jon Dron (2021), who has argued that the groups of processes of education and learning are phenomena largely constituted by technology and, therefore, never wholly separate from it. The greatest difference to the functioning of these interrelated groups of processes (‘assemblies’ and ‘orchestrations’ in Dron’s words) is made by the ways in which they are configured by participants, including teachers: [It] is not surprising … that studies find no significant difference between the outcomes of online and in-person learning. There will invariably be

130 

L. MANN ET AL.

many other aspects of the assembly, especially the skill of a teacher to teach to a style, that, at least en masse, are far more significant than methodical alignment with a learning style. You cannot simply, say, remove printed words from a learning resource to accommodate visual learners: the entire orchestration has to change, and the way this is done will typically affect learning far more than the style that it accommodates. (2021, n.p.)

The approach adopted by this book has been to encourage teachers to think both de-constructively and re-constructively about their practice, as more and more of their work moves online. Taking apart what we do and reassembling the parts, honed and oiled, for a new context surely seems more like a sustainable solution than many of the sticking-plaster fixes university teachers were forced to produce under pandemic conditions— although, as this book aimed to demonstrate, it is possible to learn from these too. Taking apart and questioning our practice do not mean revolution—or throwing any proverbial babies out with their bathwater. As the teaching community becomes more and more familiar with online learning technologies, a fudge of different opinions and approaches is more or less inevitable anyway. At every institution, ‘rules’, including those we discussed in the assessment chapter, must also always be subject to interrogation and, in general, are copious enough to accommodate a range of interpretations and pragmatic solutions. Making a similar point, Dron raises the example of a colleague who felt bound enough by the rules to hold an exam, but free enough within them to change the content of that exam to the point that it was, in many respects, no longer an exam in the traditional sense (2021, n.p.; Huntrods & Dron, 2017). Similar elasticity, it could be argued, has been one feature that has sustained the University of Oxford for centuries and, on more than one occasion, saved its constituent institutions from a variety of ruinous fates. This book has suggested four areas in which the internet can offer language teachers possibilities to explore, experiment and grow. The first was in the area of social media integration within the languages curriculum, where, it was argued, it could be central to the development of new socio-­ pragmatic teaching models, as well as providing opportunities for virtual immersion and exposure to diverse patterns of language use. The second, an extension of the first, was as a vehicle for increasing curriculum diversity by capitalizing on social media’s widespread engagement with popular culture. The third was as an arena for professional development, action research and exploratory practice (which underpin our own work in

6 CONCLUSION: DON’T LOSE FAITH 

131

creating this book). Finally, the internet was explored in terms of its relationships with assessments and the far-reaching implications that these can have for the teaching and learning of languages. As well as opportunities, many challenges posed by the online environment have been recounted in this book. Indeed, it has been the exploration of the challenges we have encountered as teachers that has given this book its current shape. To sum these up briefly, they have to do primarily with the intersects of physicality, digitality and communication. There is screen fatigue and social media fatigue—the mental and physical discomfort felt after protracted periods spent entirely focussed on digital activities. There is the issue of home working, also affecting many outside the education sector, whereby the previously separated physical spaces of work and home life have become intermeshed. There is the lack of physical infrastructure in which to engage in relaxed communications with colleagues—this is particularly significant when one considers how important sharing problems can be to a happy and successful teaching life. There is the issue of how to handle breakout rooms which aim to recreate the more relaxed physical environment of a single table, or huddle, of students. While this does seem to promote freer participation among students, it can be technologically challenging to monitor multiple groups at once to ensure that students stay on task, or use L2 to the extent that is expected or required. Additionally, it is worth noting that the online space has problems of its own, or that are more clearly defined within it. Some of these have also appeared in the course of our discussion—one being the relatively high language proficiency bar for entry into some online communities and another being a large number of students’ (perhaps surprisingly) simplistic engagement with digital technologies in learning contexts. One particularly intractable obstacle that has been raised at several points during this book is the building of rapports with students online, particularly where students have begun new programmes of study, before having a chance to travel to their institutions physically. It now seems hopeful that the future will permit us opportunities to interact with students in a physical environment at least some of the time, so there is a chance that this problem will go away naturally. Nevertheless, it is probably worth dedicating time and thought to how to build those relationships of trust and confidence that engender academic excellence, among students working online in future, in order to avoid unfairness in situations when some students are unable to attend physical classrooms for one reason or another, but are enabled to pursue courses of study by means of

132 

L. MANN ET AL.

online learning. If such students are at a constant academic disadvantage when compared to their peers, the institution will have unwittingly added to an already formidable array of potential routes for broader socio-­ economic inequalities to permeate higher education. Tackling problems such as these will be among the tasks that lay ahead for teachers, after the pandemic eventually subsides and universities take stock of the full effects of changes in working practices, as well as teachers’ and learners’ expectations vis-à-vis the processes in which they are involved daily. For language teachers, squeezed already by existing trends in student recruitment and participation, this could mean looking more and more to the world of social media and digital culture, where changing patterns of language use and new language communities offer huge potential for boosting the affective and motivational dimensions of learning. By shifting some of their focus towards those communities—which already consist of L1 and L2 speakers—teachers should more easily be able to conceive of ‘online language teaching’ as far more than a soulless simulacrum of face-to-face teaching. The final tip that this book has to offer is, therefore, not to lose faith. Faith, that is, in our experience and training as teachers. However the future of online teaching develops, we can be certain that, in order for it to survive, it must have teachers and learners at its core. As for the skills that will be required, they are already at the core of a teacher’s skillset; analysis, to break down the successful process of teaching and learning into their elemental parts, flexibility, to adapt to changing technologies and environments and, finally, imagination, to put the parts we have back together in ways that suit that new context and meet learners’ needs.

References Dron, J. (2021). Educational technology: What it is and how it works. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-­021-­01195-­z Huntrods, R., & Dron, J. (2017). Engagement with robots: Building a social, self-­ paced, online robotics course. Proc E-Learn World Conf E-Learn Corporate Government Healthcare Higher Educ, 2017, 365–372.



Appendix

Online Language Learning and Teaching—Challenges and Reflections: What have we learnt so far? November 2020  (Sample form for workshop). Name: Language taught: 1. How did you change/modify your curriculum? 2. What do you think is lacking in online learning compared to face-­to-­face learning? 3. IT issues—Have you had any challenges with your IT skills? If yes, how have you overcome them? 4. Pronunciation teaching related matters • How do you do it? • What is the difficulty? How difficult was it? • Have you used windowed mask? • How can we improve it? 5. Script teaching related matters • How do you do it? • What is the difficulty? How difficult was it? © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 L. Mann et al., Online Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91418-9

133

134 

APPENDIX

• How do you use the board? White board or tablet? • Have you ever used tablet synching to the Team? 6. Interaction matters • How do you do the pair-work? • What are particular challenges you have in teaching pragmatics or interaction? • Do you ask your students all to be muted? • Do your students turn off their computers? What do you think about this? Have you ever asked them to turn on computer? (We need student’s feedback for this issue! Some students talk about privacy) 7. Any other issues or suggestions regarding online teaching … Thank you so much for your time.

References

Adebisi, A. E. (2019, May 2). As a black student, I know why our grades are worse: Universities don’t listen to us. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ education/2019/may/02/as-­a-­black-­student-­i-­know-­why-­our-­grades-­are-­ worse-­universities-­dont-­listen-­to-­us Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113–141. Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research: The case of exploratory practice. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 353–366. Allwright, D. (2006). Six promising directions in applied linguistics. In S. Gieve & I. K. Miller (Eds.), Understanding the language classroom (pp. 11–17). Palgrave Macmillan. Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An introduction to exploratory practice. Palgrave Macmillan. Alvarez, T. (2011). Beats, rhymes and life: Rap therapy in an urban setting. In S. Hadley & G. Yancey (Eds.), Therapeutic uses of rap and hip-hop (pp. 99–114). Routledge. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Atay, D. (2006). Teachers’ professional development: Partnerships in research. TESL-EJ, 10(2), 1–15. Atay, D. (2008). Teacher research for professional development. ELT Journal, 62(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl053 Biggs, J. (1999, 2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. SRHE and Open University Press.

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 L. Mann et al., Online Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91418-9

135

136 

References

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. David McKay Co Inc. Boggs, J. (2019). Effects of teacher-scaffolded and self-scaffolded corrective feedback compared to direct corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in English L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 100671. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100671 Boud, D. (2007). Reframing assessment as if learning was important. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. Routledge. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long‐term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Introduction: Assessment for the longer term. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment for higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 3–13). Routledge. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Brock, M. (2000, November 16). A ‘plastic structure’. In The history of the University of Oxford: Volume VII: Nineteenth-century Oxford, part 2. Oxford University Press. Brookfield, S. (1995, 2nd ed., 2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass. Brown, L. (2013). Teaching ‘casual’ and/or ‘impolite’ language through multimedia: The case of non-honorific panmal speech styles in Korean. Journal of Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26, 1–18. Buckendahl, C. W. (2016). Public perceptions about assessment in education. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 454–471). Routledge. Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. Routledge. Byrne, N., & Butcher, C. (2020). An introduction to teaching in UK higher education : A guide for international and transnational teachers. Routledge. Key Guides for Effective Teaching in Higher Education. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1–28. https://doi. org/10.1515/9783110239331.1 Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407. Centre for Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Diversifying assessment: A resource booklet for the University of Oxford. CTL, University of Oxford. Coady, M., & Escamilla, K. (2005). Audible voices, visible tongues: Exploring social realities in Spanish-speaking students. Writing’ Language Arts, 82(6), 462–471.

 References 

137

Condry, I. (2006). Hip-Hop Japan: Rap and the paths of cultural globalization. Duke University Press. Collen. (2020). It is an online article entitled “Language learning is still in decline in England’s schools”, accessed here: https://www.britishcouncil.org/voicesmagazine/language-learningdecline-england-schools Cooper, J. (2015, June). Think with Google. Cooking trends among millennials: Welcome to the digital kitchen. https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/intl/en-­ gb/futur e-­o f-­m arketing/digital-­t ransfor mation/cooking-­t r ends-­ among-­millennials/ Cowie, N. (2011). Emotions that experienced English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers feel about their students, their colleagues and their work. Teaching and Teacher Education., 27(1), 235–242. Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. Falmer Press. Delahunty, J., Verenikina, I., & Jones, P. (2014). Socio-emotional connections: Identity, belonging and learning in online interactions. A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(2), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1475939x.2013.813405 Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. D.C. Heath and Company. Dikilitaş, K., & Hanks, J. (Eds.). (2018). Developing language teachers with exploratory practice: Innovations and explorations in language education. Palgrave Macmillan. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Multilingual Matters. Dron, J. (2021). Educational technology: What it is and how it works. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-­021-­01195-­z Edwards, E., & Burns, A. (2016). Language teacher action research: Achieving sustainability. ELT Journal, 70, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv060 Effective Language Learning. Language difficulty ranking. https://effectivelanguagelearning.com/language-­guide/language-­difficulty/ Elbow, P. (1997). High stakes and low stakes in assigning and responding to writing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 5–13. Eslami, E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ writing. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences., 98, 445–452. Faculty of Oriental Studies. The history of the faculty.https://www.orinst.ox.ac. uk/history-­faculty-­1#/ Farrell, T. S. C. (2001). Tailoring reflection to individual needs: A TESOL case. Journal for Education for Teaching, 27(1), 23–38. Farrell, T.  S. C. (2007). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. Continuum. Farrell, T. S. C. (2014). Reflecting on practice. A plenary session on 23 November 2014 at JALT Conference.

138 

References

Firth, J.  R. (1935). The technique of semantics. Papers in linguistics: 1934–1951 (pp. 7–33). Oxford University Press. Flaherty, C. (2020, May 19). IP problems. Inside higher ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/19/who-­o wns-­a ll-­c ourse-­c ontent-­ youre-­putting-­online Galvez-Bravo, L. (2016). Overassessment in higher education: Does less mean more? Innovations in Practice, 10(2), 93–102. Gardner, J. (2012). Assessment and learning: Introduction. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 1–8). Goodnow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and the study of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 177–196. Guan, L., & Huang, Y. (2013). Ways to achieve language teachers’ professional development. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(11), 2112. Hanks, J. (2017a). Exploratory practice in language teaching. Puzzling about principles and practices. Palgrave Macmillan. Hanks, J. (2017b). Integrating research and pedagogy: An exploratory practice approach. Systems, 68, 38–49. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Hayes, D. (Ed.). (2014). Innovations in the continuing professional development of English language teachers. The British Council. Hillman, N., & Robinson, N. (2016). Boys to men: The underachievement of young men in higher education—And how to start tackling it. HEPI. Hollingworth, W. (2015, September 25). New reforms threaten future of Japanese language study in England. Japan Times. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/ news/2015/09/25/national/new-­r eforms-­t hreaten-­f uture-­o f-­j apanese-­ language-­study-­in-­england/ Huntrods, R., & Dron, J. (2017). Engagement with robots: Building a social, self-­ paced, online robotics course. Proc E-Learn World Conf E-Learn Corporate Government Healthcare Higher Educ, 2017, 365–372. Hymes, D.  H. (1971). On communicative competence. In C.  J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford University Press. Jeffrey, A. Is it time to rethink the use of learning objectives. https://andrewjeffrey. co.uk/is-­it-­time-­to-­re-­think-­the-­use-­of-­learning-­objectives/ Jeffreys, B. (2019, February 27). Language learning: German and French drop by half in UK schools. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-­47334374 Jernigan, C. (2016). Authentic learning and student motivation: Building instructor and student confidence through genuine interaction and authentic classroom materials. In R. Breeze & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Essential competencies for English-medium university teaching (pp.  281–294). Springer International Publishing AG.

 References 

139

Kambara, W. (2011). Teaching Japanese pragmatic competence using film clips. L2 Journal, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.5070/L23210001 Karchava, E. (2019). Noticing Oral corrective feedback in the second language classroom: Background and evidence. Lexington Books. Kawahara, S. (2007). Half rhymes in Japanese rap lyrics and knowledge of similarity. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 16(2), 113–144. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Deakin University Press. Kemmis, S. et al. (2014). The action research planner: doing critical participatory action research. Springer. Kiaer, J. (2020). Study abroad in Korea: Korean language and culture. Routledge. Kiaer, J. Delicious words: East Asian food words in English. Routledge. Kiaer, J., Park, M., Choi, N., & Driggs, D. (2019). The roles of age, gender and setting in Korean half-talk shift. Discourse and Cognition, 26, 279–308. Kienlen, J. (2021, May 7). The best anime on Netflix to watch right now. https:// www.themanual.com/culture/best-­anime-­series-­on-­netflix/ Kolkman, D. (2020, August 26). F**k the algorithm?: what the world can learn from the UK’s A-level grading fiasco. Impact of Social Sciences Blog. https:// blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/08/26/fk-­t he-­a lgorithm-­ what-­the-­world-­can-­learn-­from-­the-­uks-­a-­level-­grading-­fiasco/ Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27–49. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59–81. Lambton-Howard, D., Kiaer, J., & Kharrufa, A. (2020). ‘Social media is their space’: Student and teacher use and perception of features of social media in language education. Behaviour & Information Technology. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/0144929X.2020.1774653 Lammers, W. J., & Gillaspy, J. A., Jr. (2013). Brief measure of student-instructor rapport predicts student success in online courses. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2), Article 16. https://doi. org/10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070216 Lee, I. (2007). Preparing pre-service English teachers for reflective practice. ELT Journal, 61(4), 321–329. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46. Lightstone, A. (2011). Yo, can ya flow! Research findings on hip-hop aesthetics and rap therapy in an urban youth shelter. In S. Hadley & G. Yancey (Eds.), Therapeutic uses of rap and hip-hop (pp. 211–251). Routledge. Liu, S. (2016, June 15). Embracing digital diversity in modern teaching. teach. com. Retrieved February 1, 2021, from https://teach.com/blog/ embracingdigital-diversity-in-modern-teaching/

140 

References

Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J, Bonk, C. J, & Lee, S. (2007). Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9–24, 87–88. Charlotte. Ma, J., Yujia, W., Sun, T., Cai, L., Fan, X., & Li, X. (2020). Neural substrates of bilingual processing in a logographic writing system: An fMRI study in Chinese Cantonese-mandarin bilinguals. Brain Research, 1738, 146794. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.brainres.2020.146794 Maslach, C., & Leiter, M.  P. (1999). Teacher burnout: A research agenda. In R. Vanderberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 295–303). Cambridge University Press. McLelland, N. (2017). Teaching and learning foreign languages: A history of language education, assessment and policy in Britain. Routledge. McLelland, N. (2018). The history of language learning and teaching in Britain. The Language Learning Journal, 46(1), 6–16. McNiff, J. (2002). Action research: Principles and practice. Routledge Publishing House. Mercer, S. (2016, August 22–24). Psychology for language learning: Spare a thought for the teacher. Plenary presentation delivered at the ‘Individuals in Contexts’ (Psychology of Language Learning 2) International Conference, University of Jyväskylä. Mercer, S., & Kostoulas, A. (Eds.). (2018). Language teacher psychology. Multilingual Matters. Moody, J. (2020). Moving assessment on-line: Key principles for inclusion, pedagogy and practice. AdvanceHE Webinar. Moody, S. (2014). Should we teach rules for pragmatics? Explicit instruction and emergent awareness of Japanese plain and polite forms. Japanese Language and Literature, 48(1), 39–69. Morris, N. P., Swinnerton, B., & Coop, T. (2019). Lecture recordings to support learning: A contested space between students and teachers. Computers & Education, 140. Mr Pink. (n.d.). Learning objectives: A waste of time. https://allearssite.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/learning-­objectives-­a-­waste-­of-­time/ Murphy, E., & Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. (2012). Rapport in distance education. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13, 167–190. NASUWT. (2021). Arrangements for remote teaching and learning. https:// www.nasuwt.org.uk/advice/health-­safety/coronavirus-­guidance/arrangements-­ for-­remote-­teaching-­learning-­support.html NFER. (n.d.). An introduction to formative and summative assessment. https:// www.nfer.ac.uk/for-schools/free-resources-advice/assessment-hub/introduction-to-assessment/an-introduction-to-formative-and-summative-assessment/ Ong, W. (2002). Orality and literacy. Routledge.

 References 

141

Open University. (2008, revised 2018). Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in the Curriculum: Guidance for faculties and approval bodies. Palmai, K., & Smale, W. (2021, January 11). UK leading the way in use of language-­ learning apps. BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-­55562267 Passow, H., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., Harding, T. S., & Carpenter, D. D. (2006). Factors influencing engineering students’ decisions to cheat by type of assessment. Research in Higher Education, 47(6), 643–684. Peters, M. A. (2015). Why is my curriculum white? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(7), 641–646. QAA. (2018). UK quality code for higher education advice and guidance: Assessment. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-code/advice-and-guidance/assessment QAA. (2019). Degree awarding powers in England: Guidance for providers on assessment. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/guidance/degree-awarding-powers-inengland-guidance-for-providers-on-assessment-by-qaa.pdf?sfvrsn=ddddc181_2 Race, P., Brown, S., & Smith, B. (2005). 500 tips on assessment. Routledge Falmer. Reuters Asia Pacific. (2021, April 19). McDonald’s adds K-pop spice to menu with new BTS meal. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-­pacific/mcdonalds­adds-­k-­pop-­spice-­menu-­with-­new-­bts-­meal-­2021-­04-­19/ Russell Group Students’ Unions. (2021, January 12). Our response to current arrangements for assessments and grading. https://www.qmsu.org/news/article/6965/Russell-­G roup-­S tudents-­U nions-­O ur-­r esponse-­t o-­c urrent-­ arrangements-­for-­assessments-­and-­grading/ Satariyan, & Reynolds (2016). In S. Fan & J. Fielding-Wells (Eds.), What is next in educational research? (pp. 21–28). Sense Publishers. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. American Educational Research Association. Selener, D. (1997). Participatory action research and social change. Cornell Participatory Action Research Network, Cornell University. Sharpe, R., Qi, W., & Pavlakou, M. (2019). Exploring patterns of technology use in UK college students: A cluster analysis of learners’ digital practices. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 24(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13596748.2019.1584436 Shute, V. (2007). Focus on formative feedback. ETS Research Report. Slimani-Rolls, A., & Kiely, R. (2019). Exploratory practice for continuing professional development: An innovative approach for language teachers. Palgrave Macmillan. Spence, L. (2010). Generous Reading: Seeing students through their writing. The Reading Teacher, 63(8), 634–642. Stray, C. (2001). The shift from Oral to written examination: Cambridge and Oxford 1700–1900. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 8(1), 33–50.

142 

References

Taylor, F., & Marsden, E. (2014). Perceptions, attitudes, and choosing to study foreign languages in England: An experimental intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 902–920. Vincent, J. (2020, August 20). University staff are worried their recorder lectures will be used against them. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/21373669/ recorded-­lecture-­capture-­copyright-­universities-­coronavirus-­fears Vohra, P. (2018, August 2). Indian movies attract millions around the world—And that number looks set to grow. CNBC. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ indian-­movies-­attract-­millions-­around-­001200376.html Watanabe, A. (2016). A reflective continuum: Development of reflection. Current Issues and New Thoughts on Reflective Practice, 53, 103–133. Waterfield, J., & West, B. (2006). Inclusive assessment in higher education: A resource for change. University of Plymouth. Weaver, B. (2020). Formal v. informal assessments. https://www.scholastic.com/ teachers/articles/teaching-­content/formal-­vs-­informal-­assessments/ Wood, C., & Busby, E. (2018, August 16). A-level results day 2018: Chinese overtakes German for first time. Telegraph. https://www.independent.co.uk/ news/education/education-­news/level-­results-­day-­chinese-­german-­modern-­ foreign-­languages-­decline-­students-­a8494156.html Wyatt, M. (2011). Teachers researching their own practice. ELT Journal, 65(4), 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq074 Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 285–297. Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293–314. Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2015). Effective feedback design using free technologies.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(3), 408–434.

Index

A Action research (AR), 75, 78–82, 91, 92, 130 Alignment, 11, 107–110, 114–119, 124, 130 Apps, 9, 10, 24, 25, 27, 32, 34, 37, 86 Assessment, 3, 11, 12, 21, 23, 34, 51, 53, 54, 75, 87–89, 98–124, 130, 131 Authenticity, 53–54, 59, 62, 64, 66 B Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME), 51–53 Black Lives Matter, 50 C Continuing Professional Development (CPD), 11, 75–78, 82–85, 91, 92 COVID-19, 2–4, 8–10, 12, 20–22, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 57, 74, 83, 88, 109, 115–117, 122, 123, 128

D Decolonization, 50–51 Diversity, 4, 6, 11, 14, 24, 30, 35, 40, 48–57, 60, 68–71, 84, 106, 130 Drama, 27, 28, 34 E Emcee battles, 48–71 Exploratory Practice (EP), 75, 81–83, 91, 92, 130 F Feedback Conversation, 113, 114 Formal assessment, 88, 99, 100, 102–105, 110, 111, 115–125 Formative assessment, 98, 103–105, 111–115, 121, 123–124

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 L. Mann et al., Online Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91418-9

143

144 

INDEX

I Internet of Things (IoT), 4 Internet resources, 128 L Language Immersion, 35–37 Language Teachers’ Committee (LTC), 83–91 Low Stakes and High Stakes, 105–107 P Pragmatics, 21, 33–35, 39, 42, 57, 62, 67, 68, 119, 130, 134

R Rap, 48, 54, 58–69 S Social Media, 8, 10, 11, 20–44, 48, 56, 57, 62, 65, 66, 71, 75, 86, 123, 130–132 Summative assessment, 101, 103–105, 108, 111, 115 Z Zoom fatigue, 22, 23