Teaching Languages with Technology: Communicative approaches to interactive whiteboard use 9781441170569, 9781623560850, 9781472593658, 9781623569334

Citation preview

Teaching Languages with Technology

i

ADVANCES IN DIGITAL LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING Series Editors: Michael Thomas, University of Central Lancashire, UK; Mark Peterson, Kyoto University, Japan; and Mark Warschauer, University of California-Irvine, USA Today’s language educators need support to understand how their learners are changing and the ways technology can be used to aid their teaching and learning strategies. The movement toward different modes of language learning—from presence-based to autonomous as well as blended and fully online modes—requires different skill sets such as e-moderation and new ways of designing and developing language learning tasks in the digital age. Theoretical studies that include practical case studies and high quality empirical studies incorporating critical perspectives are necessary to move the field further. This new series is committed to providing such an outlet for high quality work on digital language learning and teaching. Volumes in the series will focus on a number of areas including but not limited to: ●

task-based learning and teaching approaches utilizing technology

●

language learner creativity

●

e-moderation and teaching languages online

●

blended language learning

●

designing courses for online and distance language learning

●

mobile assisted language learning

●

autonomous language learning, both in and outside of formal educational contexts

●

the use of web 2.0/social media technologies

●

immersive and virtual language learning environments

●

digital game-based language learning

●

language educator professional development with digital technologies

●

teaching language skills with technologies

Enquiries about the series can be made by contacting the series editors: Michael Thomas ([email protected]), Mark Peterson (tufsmp@yahoo. com) and Mark Warschauer ([email protected]).

ii

TITLES IN THE SERIES Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning in a Virtual Learning Environment, Miranda Hamilton Online Teaching and Learning: Sociocultural Perspectives, edited by Carla Meskill

iii

iv

Teaching Languages with Technology Communicative approaches to interactive whiteboard use A resource book for teacher development

EDITED BY EULINE CUTRIM SCHMID AND SHONA WHYTE

v

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com Bloomsbury is a registered trade mark of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2014 © Euline Cutrim Schmid, Shona Whyte and Contributors 2014 Euline Cutrim Schmid and Shona Whyte have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the Editors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-1-4411-7056-9 PB: 978-1-6235-6085-0 ePDF: 978-1-6235-6933-4 ePub: 978-1-6235-6882-5 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Teaching languages with technology : communicative approaches to interactive whiteboard use / edited by Euline Cutrim Schmid, Shona Whyte. pages cm ISBN 978-1-4411-7056-9 (hardback) — ISBN 978-1-62356-085-0 (paperback) — ISBN 978-1-62356-882-5 (epub) 1. Language and languages—Study and teaching— Technological innovations. 2. Interactive whiteboards. 3. Visual education. I. Schmid, Euline Cutrim, 1969- II. Whyte, Shona. P53.28.T438 2014 418.0078'566—dc23 2014003628 Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk

vi

Contents Notes on contributors ix Editorial Advisory Board xi Foreword: interactive whiteboards – against the odds?

xii

Introduction: Theory and practice in second language teaching

with interactive technologies,

Shona Whyte

1

PART ONE Case studies 23 1 The IWB in language education for learners with special

2

3 4

5

6

educational needs: learning Welsh at primary school, Emily Hillier and Gary Beauchamp 25 A task-based approach to video communication with the IWB: a French–German primary EFL class exchange, Shona Whyte and Euline Cutrim Schmid 50 Digital storytelling in the primary EFL classroom, Anika Kegenhof 86 The IWB in the CLIL classroom: using visuals to foster active learning with young beginners, Helene Sailer, Euline Cutrim Schmid and Ton Koenraad 123 Using the IWB to support gamification in order to enhance writing fluency in the secondary language classroom, Graham Stanley 152 Exploring IWB use for language instruction in Turkish higher education settings, Serkan Çelik 188

vii

viii

CONTENTS

7 Academic teacher training and the IWB: coaching pre-service

teachers in Belgium, Margret Oberhofer, Mathea Simons and Tom F. H. Smits 212

PART TWO Final recommendations 241 8 Ongoing professional development in IWB-mediated language

teaching: evening up the odds, Euline Cutrim Schmid and Shona Whyte 243

PART THREE Glossary 261 Index

266

Notes on contributors Gary Beauchamp is Professor of Education and Director of Research in the School of Education at Cardiff Metropolitan University. He teaches both undergraduate and postgraduate students, as well as supervising PhD students from the UK, Jordan and Kuwait. His research focuses on ICT, particularly interactive technologies, and he has been involved in many funded research projects in the area of ICT in teaching and learning. He has published widely in academic journals and is author of ICT in the Primary School: From Pedagogy to Practice (2012). Serkan Çelik has an MA degree from the Bilkent University TEFL program in Turkey and a PhD in Computer Education and Instructional Technologies from Ankara University. A former teaching fellow at Boston University, he currently works as a professor at Hecettepe University. His research interests are technology enhanced learning, applied linguistics and language pedagogy. Euline Cutrim Schmid is a Professor of TEFL and Applied Linguistics at the University of Education Schwäbisch Gmünd in Germany. She teaches at undergraduate and postgraduate levels on a variety of topics including CALL, applied linguistics and qualitative research methodologies. She is the author of Interactive Whiteboard Technology in the Language Classroom: Exploring New Pedagogical Opportunities (2009) and co-editor of Interactive Whiteboards for Education: Theory, Research and Practice (2010). Emily Hillier is currently conducting doctoral research on assistive technologies for learners with a visual impairment across Key Stages 2 and 3. She has worked as a research assistant on a variety of different funded projects and teaches on the BA (Hons) Education Studies degree at the School of Education, Cardiff Metropolitan University. Anika Kegenhof has a Bachelor’s degree in TEFL from the University of Education, Heidelberg. She works as an EFL teacher at a primary school in Germany.

ix

x

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Ton Koenraad, MA, worked as senior ICT-E consultant at Hogeschool Utrecht, University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands. Since 2011, as owner of TELLConsult, his activities have involved the acquisition, development and evaluation of (EU) projects in the fields of modern languages, teacher education and e-learning. Special interests include methodology development for interactive whiteboards, mobile applications and 3D virtual learning environments for language learning. Margret Oberhofer is International Projects Co-ordinator within Linguapolis, the Institute for Language and Communication at the University of Antwerp. Since 2005, she has been coordinating several international R&D projects related to e-learning. Since 2009, she has also been an e-learning assistant at the Institute of Education and Information Sciences of the University of Antwerp. Helene Sailer has a Bachelor’s degree in TEFL from the University of Education, Heidelberg. She works as an EFL teacher at a secondary school in Germany. Mathea Simons has a Master’s degree in romance languages and is Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences. She teaches didactics of French and Spanish at the Institute of Education and Information Sciences of the University of Antwerp. Her main research interests are self-efficacy in language teaching, foreign language anxiety and language learning and ICT. Tom F. H. Smits is a Lecturer in TEFL and German Language Teaching (DaF) at the University of Antwerp in Belgium. He teaches at undergraduate and postgraduate levels on a variety of topics including language proficiency, applied and variational linguistics, and didactics. His areas of research are sociolinguistics, language variation and applied linguistics. Graham Stanley, MEd, University of Manchester, works as project manager for the British Council in Uruguay on Plan Ceibal English, the One Laptop Per Child project in Uruguay. He is coordinator of the IATEFL Learning Technologies Special Interest Group, and is co-author of the methodology book for teachers Digital Play: Computer Games and Language Aims (2011). Shona Whyte is Associate Professor of English at the University of NiceSophia Antipolis in France, where she teaches courses in EFL, SLA, TEFL and learning technologies for language teachers. She has produced e-learning resources for Learning and Teaching Foreign Languages and young EFL learners (http://efl.unice.fr), and her research involves classroom interaction and teacher education in CALL settings.

Editorial Advisory Board Frederik Cornillie (University of Leuven, Belgium) Nicolas Guichon (Lyon University, France) Sara Hennessy (Cambridge University, UK) Steve Higgins (Durham University, UK) Julie Mathews-Aydinli (Bilkent University, Turkey) Cédric Sarré (Paris-Sorbonne University, France) Thomas Raith (University of Education, Freiburg, Germany)

xi

Foreword: interactive whiteboards – against the odds? O

ver the past 30 years, language teachers have been confronted at regular intervals with the emergence of some technology that was supposed to revolutionize the teaching and learning of languages. To gain credibility, these technologies were often linked to ‘new’ pedagogical approaches such as the communicative approach or socio-constructivism. Nowadays, terms such as digital pedagogy, blended learning, tablets, serious games, the flipped classroom and digital natives continue to be overhyped and underjustified. Against this backdrop, what can teachers expect from interactive whiteboards (IWBs)? After more than 30 years in the field, I believe that no technology, not even the IWB, carries an inherent, direct, measurable and generalizable effect on learning. Younger researchers may be shocked, particularly those who have set up experiments that have found a significant difference, and who have even published their work in Computer Assisted Language Learning, the journal I edit. While their research design is more professional and academic than in the days when ‘my students just loved it’ was considered a convincing proof of the effectiveness of new technology, for me the problem is that they are trying to measure the wrong thing. In my view, it is necessary to focus on the effect of the entire learning environment, and the fact that learning effects are proportional to the designedness of this learning environment. A well-designed learning environment has been conceptualized and specified in a methodological and justifiable way, and technology is just one of the components of this environment, designed for a specific context (Colpaert, 2013). What makes IWBs very interesting is their unique position in the technological spectrum: on the one hand they feature a specific set of limitations and affordances, but on the other hand they easily fit within many learning environments as one piece of the puzzle. IWBs have never been hyped to the same extent as games and tablets, and have perhaps suffered in comparison. There has been some commercial xii

FOREWORD: INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS – AGAINST THE ODDS?

xiii

pressure that in educational circles has proved rather counterproductive, given that manufacturers have generally failed to demonstrate the actual added value of IWBs. Some schools have bought IWBs for prestige reasons, and teacher training has often been found wanting, leaving many teachers simply using the IWB as a projector (Van Laer et al., 2012). IWBs are intended almost exclusively for classroom use, and are difficult to move around. A teacher is required for effective use, at least in the earlier stages of language learning. IWBs need content – interactive content, expensive content – and one of the challenges in this respect is the fact that most interactive IWB content is not structured in a generic way. Open educational resources offer a possible solution, as is shown by the results of the iTILT project (Whyte et al., 2013). A growing number of researchers and teachers have now started to investigate the specific affordances of IWBs, and to explore ways of exploiting this potential in different learning environments. IWBs cannot generate a learning effect on their own, but they are indispensable cornerstones for creating powerful learning environments in some – I dare say many – contexts. IWBs afford rich and meaningful interaction with content, they provide ways of making learners work – and play – together in the most effective way, and they allow connections with remote classrooms and afford many other learning and teaching activities. Some of these are presented in the present volume, which provides a welcome overview of these lesser known affordances of IWBs in rich pedagogical practice. I believe that IWBs have their unique, justifiable place in many language learning environments, and the contributions in this volume confirm this belief. Jozef Colpaert Universiteit Antwerpen

References Colpaert, J. (2013), ‘Peripatetic considerations on research challenges in CALL’, in P. Hubbard, M. Schultze and B. Smith (eds.), Learner-Computer Interaction in Language Education. San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium, pp. 272–9. Van Laer, S., Beauchamp, G. and Colpaert, J. (2012), ‘Teacher use of the interactive whiteboards in Flemish secondary education—mapping against a transition framework’. Education and Information Technologies, 17, 1–15. Whyte, S., Cutrim Schmid, E., van Hazebrouck Thompson, S. and Oberhofer, M. (2013), ‘Open educational resources for CALL teacher education: the iTILT interactive whiteboard project’, Computer Assisted Language Learning. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.818558 [accessed 18 March 2014].

xiv

Introduction – Theory and practice in second language teaching with interactive technologies Shona Whyte

Introduction

L

anguage teaching is currently undergoing major transformations: in many classrooms, teachers are confronted with new theories, new methods and new technologies. These changes offer opportunities for innovation in language teaching and learning, but also create challenges. Regarding the interactive whiteboard (IWB), for example, one secondary English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher in Germany remarked: ‘It’s like having a Porsche in the backyard and you only drive in first gear’ (Cutrim Schmid & Schimmack, 2010). The present volume aims to address such frustrations with a collection of classroom research studies on using interactive technologies to enhance language teaching and learning. The case studies in this collection recount teachers’ efforts to use the IWB to foster interaction among their language learners in a variety of languages and contexts, and at different age and proficiency levels. What is common to each context is a commitment to communicative and task-based approaches to language teaching. Each case study describes how materials were developed and implemented to support collaborative tasks and meet communicative goals. The authors then reflect on how well these goals were met, and consider alternative routes to the same goals. This format allows authors to present some of the data from classroom research projects in ways 1

2

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

which will help language teachers to explore the potential of the IWB in greater depth, and support their own reflection and practice, perhaps in the framework of a specific training course, or via self-study. Language teachers and trainers might well ask why we are showcasing these particular goals and activities. The present introduction provides a rationale for communicative and task-orientated approaches to second language teaching, giving an overview of recent language teaching methods, examining second language research which leads us to prefer communicative language teaching (CLT) and task-based language teaching (TBLT) over other methods, and setting out the main tenets of these two approaches. Technology integration in language teaching is then addressed, followed by the question of interactivity in teaching with the IWB. The final part of this chapter discusses teacher development, examining research into how teachers make decisions about what and how to teach with technology, and ending with a brief overview of the papers that make up this collection.

Second language teaching methods: How were you taught? Language teachers and trainers are often faced with a great deal of contradictory and misleading information about how languages are learned and how they should be taught. Popular wisdom in books, on television and online has much to say about bringing up children bilingually, methods of accelerated language learning and how native speakers should teach their language. Methods or approaches to language teaching, some of which are tied to particular psychological theories of learning, also go in and out of fashion. An overview of the major methods of language teaching over the past century may help teachers to situate their own teaching and learning experiences. Table 0.1 shows an approximately chronological progression of language teaching methods, although there is often a lag between the development of a theory and its application in the language classroom. Grammar–translation has perhaps been the most widely used method, and for that reason is practically timeless, dating from very early approaches to teaching classical Greek and Latin. Grammar–translation focuses on the grammar rules underlying the written language (since there are no speakers of classical languages) and aims to give learners access to high culture in the original. Many of today’s teachers and trainers will have experienced grammar–translation classes in secondary school, and some may also remember audiolingualism. The audiolingual method was developed in the United States during the Second World War as a reaction to grammar–translation, and was common in

3

Socioconstructivist

Constructivist

Cognitivist

Behaviourist

Theory

1980s to present

2000 to present 2000 to present

Task-based language teaching

Project-based learning Sociocultural approaches

1970–80s

–

Grammar– translation

Communicative language teaching

1940s

Audiolingual method

1950–60s

1930s

Direct method

Presentation– practice– production

Date

Method / approach

Kasper, Lantolf

Kramsch

Ellis, Long, Skehan; Common European Framework of Reference

Krashen, Savignon

Lado, Fries

Bloomfield

Authors

Table 0.1 Methods of second language teaching

Collaboration in longer term group activities

Collaboration in goal-orientated group activities, which mimic real-life tasks, followed by reflection including focus on form

Communicative competence

Intercultural competence Language socialization

Understanding and creating messages in a low-anxiety environment, often involving pair and group work and authentic materials

Communicative competence

Learn and apply grammar rules using specifically developed learning materials

Lectures, reading, text analysis

Cultural knowledge Language proficiency

Memorization and manipulation of grammar rules

Pattern practice (drills)

Overlearning

Activities

Grammatical knowledge

Oral proficiency

Goals

4

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

some European schools in the 1960s and 70s. It was based on behaviourist methods of language teaching that aimed to create new language habits by drilling new sounds and language patterns, without explicitly teaching grammar rules. The cognitive revolution of the 1950s brought a new understanding of how the human brain processes information, leading for a time to a return to explicit grammar teaching. ‘PPP’ (presentation, practice, production) is shorthand for language teaching that first presents learners with a new grammar rule, gives them exercises to practise it, and only then allows them to produce their own sentences. This lesson format is still popular in today’s language classrooms, and underlies the design of many language textbooks. However, cognitivist approaches to learning, particularly constructivist cognitivist approaches, also gave rise to a competing theory of language learning that completely rejects PPP. This approach is known as ‘communicative language teaching’. CLT compares second language learning to first language learning, and claims that just as babies learn their first language or mother tongue without direct teaching, but rather simply by ‘picking it up’ from what they hear around them, so, too, we can learn a second or foreign language without the explicit teaching of grammar rules. The strong claim of CLT is that languages can be learned simply through exposure to comprehensible, preferably authentic samples of the language: the teacher’s task is to help the learners to understand and create meaningful messages. This process will lead learners to become increasingly proficient without having to study grammar rules or memorize lists of vocabulary. Participating in communicative activities develops the ability to communicate, or communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980). However, the application of strong CLT approaches in immersion classes in Canadian schools in the 1990s was found wanting. Content classes taught in the target language (maths, geography and science lessons taught in French to English-speaking pupils) were found to produce learners who were communicatively competent (i.e. they could understand and create target language messages effectively) but who continued to make many language errors even after many hours and years of instruction (Swain, 2000). As a consequence, current models of CLT teaching do involve some attention to grammar rules, although the objective is to focus on linguistic form in a communicative context, rather than explicitly teach grammar rules, and to encourage learners to reflect on their own language use, rather than have the teacher identify errors for them. Recent approaches to CLT include TBLT, a method that still aims to develop communicative (as opposed to only grammatical) competence. Teaching and learning are organized around tasks, or goal-orientated activities similar to ones the learners might be expected to perform outside class, and class time is devoted to the preparation, performance and subsequent analysis of

INTRODUCTION – TEACHING WITH INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

5

these tasks. Learners have access to samples of the target language in the preparation and performance phases, as they read, listen to, write and speak the language, while the post-task phase often allows for a focus on form and reflection. The cooperation and collaboration among learners that is necessary for the completion of tasks brings strong TBLT under the socio-constructivist umbrella, which includes sociocultural theory and theories of intercultural competence and language socialization. Such approaches often advocate an extension of TBLT to longer term workplans such as project-based learning, and may also focus on the development of intercultural awareness as a broader objective than communicative competence.

Second language acquisition theory: What research says about CLT and TBLT While the variety of language teaching methods just presented may seem somewhat disorientating to teachers and trainers who simply want to know ‘what works’ for their learners, all theoretically sound approaches rely on a small number of major concepts in language learning. In fact, an academic domain concerning the learning of foreign or second languages – second language acquisition (SLA) – has been in existence for some 40 years, and a number of key facts are well established. The term interlanguage is used to refer to the language produced by learners: it is not their first language (L1), nor yet exactly like the target language (L2), but exists somewhere in between (Selinker, 1972). Learners each develop their own unique interlanguage, and this is why each learner progresses at his or her own pace. On the other hand, interlanguage development always follows predictable patterns, which is why different learners all make similar errors. Language learning or interlanguage development depends crucially on input, which is the term used for samples of the target language that learners see and hear, while output refers to the language they produce themselves. Interaction involves both input and output, and when interaction involves learners in the negotiation of meaning, learning occurs and language proficiency develops. Language acquisition is also facilitated by noticing, or paying attention to, language features in meaningful contexts. Teachers can help learners to notice features of the target language by choosing language samples where the feature is prominent, for example using personal narratives to focus on the past continuous, or daily routines for adverbs of frequency. They can also guide learners to notice the gap, or discrepancies, between their own language production and target language texts. Noticing activities help learners to focus on form and facilitate the reflection necessary for efficient

6

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

language learning, but are most effective when introduced in a communicative context where meaning is important. Loewen and Reinders (2011) offer an accessible recent overview of these key SLA terms. Given this short list of requirements for effective second language learning as established by second language research, it is now easier to choose from the multitude of teaching methods described in the previous section. If the goal of language teaching is to be interlanguage development, learners need language input, plus opportunities for output and interaction, allowing them to negotiate meaning in the target language. Reflective activities including focus on form in meaningful contexts also promote language learning. While CLT and TBLT appear to meet some of these requirements, approaches to teaching that are strongly orientated towards grammar–translation, audiolingualism and PPP fall foul of them in various ways, since they either do not seek to promote interlanguage development or do so in decontextualized settings that prevent the communication of meaning.

Communicative language teaching CLT developed in the United States in the 1970s and 80s in reaction to grammar-based teaching methods: ‘CLT grew out of a dissatisfaction with earlier methods that were based on the conscious presentation of grammatical forms and structures or lexical items and did not adequately prepare learners for the effective and appropriate use of language in natural communication’ (Celce-Murcia et al., 1997, p. 144). Its main proponents are Stephen Krashen (1982) and Sandra Savignon (1991, 2002), whose central claims about language learning and communicative teaching are summarised in Table 0.2, together with Berns’ (1990) list of eight defining features of CLT. Three important elements of CLT emerge from Table 0.2: (a) the study of grammar must be subordinate to the understanding and use of language in meaningful context; (b) learners’ individual interests, motivations and anxieties must be taken into account; and (c) no particular teaching method is defined for the CLT classroom. The teaching method that generally matches CLT criteria while also addressing SLA requirements is TBLT.

Task-based language teaching TBLT also emerged in the 1980s (Prabhu, 1987), and adds the notion of goals and outcomes to communicative classroom activities. Table 0.3 provides an overview of definitions and features of tasks, as well as the roles of teachers and learners in this method.

INTRODUCTION – TEACHING WITH INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

7

Table 0.2 Features and second language theory in communicative language teaching (CLT) CLT theory: the monitor model

Definitions and main concerns of CLT

Features of CLT

Krashen (1982)

Savignon (1991, 2002)

Berns (1990)

There are two types of L2 development. Acquisition is the development of implicit L2 knowledge that can be used to produce language in real time. Learning is the development of knowledge about rules, which can only be of limited use

The central theoretical concept in CLT is ‘communicative competence’ defined in terms of the expression, interpretation and negotiation of meaning

Language teaching is based on a view of language as communication. That is, language is seen as a social tool that speakers use to make meaning; speakers communicate about something to someone for some purpose, either orally or in writing

The elaboration and implementation of programmes and methodologies that promote the development of functional competence in the L2 through learner participation in communicative events

Diversity is recognized and accepted as part of language development and use in second language learners and users, as it is with first language users

The classroom is but a rehearsal. Language use beyond the classroom in a communicative curriculum begins with discovery of learners’ interests and needs, and opportunities not only to respond to but, more importantly, to explore those interests and needs through second language use beyond the classroom itself

A learner’s competence is considered in relative, not in absolute, terms

The L2 develops in a specific order, similar to the development for L1 speakers of the language

(Continued )

8

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

Table 0.2

(Continued)

CLT theory: the monitor model

Definitions and main concerns of CLT

Features of CLT

Krashen (1982)

Savignon (1991, 2002)

Berns (1990)

Learners use their learned knowledge to monitor and, where necessary, self-correct their language production

In those settings where the teacher shares with the learners a language other than the second language, special attention needs to be given to providing learners with opportunities for experience in the new language

More than one variety of a language is recognized as a viable model for learning and teaching

Input that is slightly above a learner’s current interlanguage level is necessary for L2 development (i + 1). Such input can be made comprehensible by the linguistic and social context

Grammatical competence is not linked to any single theory of grammar, and does not include the ability to state rules of usage. One demonstrates grammatical competence not by stating a rule but by using a rule in the interpretation, expression or negotiation of meaning

Culture is recognized as instrumental in shaping speakers’ communicative competence, in both their first and subsequent languages

Input can only become intake if learners have a low affective filter, i.e. if they view the target language and their learning context favourably

Focus on form cannot replace practice in communication. The essence of CLT is the engagement of learners in communication to allow them to develop their communicative competence

Language use is recognized as serving ideational, interpersonal and textual functions, and is related to the development of learners’ competence in each

Grammar is important, and learners seem to focus best on grammar when it relates to their communicative needs and experiences

It is essential that learners be engaged in doing things with language – i.e. that they use language for a variety of purposes in all phases of learning

No single methodology or fixed set of techniques is prescribed

INTRODUCTION – TEACHING WITH INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

9

Table 0.3 Task definitions, features and participant roles Task features

Definitions and design

Teacher and learner roles

Tasks involve a plan for learning activity (Ellis, 2003)

A task is an activity that requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective (Bygate et al., 2001)

Teachers must ‘respond spontaneously to the learner’s unpredictable “in-flight” linguistic needs’ (Thornbury, 1998, p. 112)

They have a primary focus on making meaning (Ellis, 2003)

A task is a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed (Ellis 2003)

The role of the teacher is to react to whatever language emerges as important, and then help learners to address the gap that has been noted (Skehan, 2003b)

They engage with real-world authentic language use (Ellis, 2003)

They focus on any or all of the four language skills (Ellis, 2003)

An activity in which people engage to attain an objective, and which involves the meaningful use of language (Van den Branden et al. 2007)

They engage learners in cognitive skills in order to accomplish them (Ellis, 2003)

View TBLT as a continuum, stretching from concerns with the design and adoption of tasks in classroom practice, to the development of task-based language syllabuses and curricula (Thomas & Reinders, 2010b)

They have a defined communicationbased learning outcome (Ellis, 2003)

Task-based teaching calls for the classroom participants to forget where they are and why they are there, and to act in the belief that they can learn the language indirectly through communicating in it rather than directly through studying it (Ellis, 2006)

The important elements of TBLT include an insistence on real-world, meaningful and authentic language use, a focus on goal-orientated activities and, almost paradoxically, the need to leave space for unplanned and even unpredictable learner contributions. Tasks may be relatively open-ended: Samuda (2001) describes a ‘knowledge-constructing task’ where learners are presented with a series of objects purportedly from a jacket found on a plane and collaborate

10

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

in hypothesizing about its owner. The teacher supports the task by providing language input related to modal verbs and adverbs for expressing degrees of likelihood. The learners make a final poster to consolidate and reflect on the new forms. Other task designs may involve a more fixed structure: Willis (1996) and Willis and Willis (2007) describe a task cycle that involves pre-task activities, and then the task itself, followed by post-task planning and the presentation of a report focusing on the language used in the task. This type of TBLT often features in textbooks supporting programmes based on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), which has recently been adopted in many European schools and teaching institutions. One advantage and one disadvantage of TBLT for many teachers and trainers are worth noting. The advantage of task-based teaching methods is that they are broadly compatible with the CEFR and the associated competency-based approach. Tasks can be designed using existing textbooks, and learners’ progress evaluated with existing assessment criteria. The same cannot be said for a strong CLT approach. On the other hand, TBLT places additional demands on the teacher which may seem daunting: The teacher has to be ready to provide the unpredictable help that will be required. This presupposes a broader type of readiness for almost anything to occur, compared to the more comfortable ability to prepare for the preordained structure-of-the-day. Small wonder, then, that many teachers shy away from this approach. (Skehan, 2003, p. 11) This brings us to the role of technology in the language classroom. The following section shows how interactive technologies can support teachers with the challenges of task-based teaching.

SLA and technology: How interactive technologies can support teachers A number of researchers have considered the consequences of the SLA research findings described earlier for computer-assisted language learning (CALL) or computer-mediated communication (CMC). Table 0.4 presents the main requirements for learners and teachers as defined for teaching language at a distance (online learning). However, these guidelines are also relevant to today’s language classrooms, where teachers and learners have access to technology in the form of computers connected to the internet and/or IWBs. For teachers moving from grammar–translation or PPP methods to taskbased approaches, Table 0.4 features a number of important changes. First, in

INTRODUCTION – TEACHING WITH INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

11

Table 0.4 Second language teaching with technology Learners’ needs

Teacher’s role

Chapelle (1998)

Doughty & Long (2003)

The linguistic characteristics of target language input need to be made salient for ‘input enhancement’

Use tasks, not texts, as the unit of analysis

Learners should receive help in comprehending the semantic and syntactic aspects of linguistic input

Promote learning by doing

Learners need to have opportunities to produce target language output

Elaborate input (do not simplify; do not rely solely on ‘authentic texts’) Provide rich (not impoverished) input

Learners need to notice errors in their own output, and they need to correct these errors

Encourage inductive (‘chunk’) learning

Learners need to correct their linguistic output

Provide negative feedback

Learners need to engage in target language interaction whose structure can be modified for negotiation of meaning

Respect ‘learner syllabuses’/ developmental processes

Learners should engage in L2 tasks designed to maximize opportunities for good interaction

Individualize instruction (according to communicative needs and psycholinguistically)

Focus on form

Promote cooperative/collaborative learning

the design of materials and activities, the focus is less on the resources selected than on the activities planned: ‘tasks, not texts’ (Doughty & Long, 2003). Instead of choosing a text because of its interesting cultural content, for example, and then designing a lesson based on the problems predicted for learners in decoding and understanding the text, this approach recommends focusing on activities that will help learners to develop particular competences, and then selecting resources (or allowing learners to select resources) that will support these activities. Second, teachers should provide rich, elaborated input rather than Skehan’s ‘structure-of-the-day’, and devote a large proportion of class time to output and interaction. This change is likely to require a move away from teachercentred and teacher-fronted whole-class activities, because pair work and

12

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

group activities allow learners more total interaction time as well as opportunities for cooperation and collaboration. Finally, teachers can be reassured that the grammar baby is not being thrown out with the PPP bathwater: this approach still requires a focus on form and negative feedback, but these should be provided within a communicative lesson, and in a reactive, selective, even individualized manner, respecting learners’ interlanguage development, rather than taking the form of grammar presentations and wholesale error correction. How can technology help teachers to implement TBLT in their classrooms? The IWB can function as a digital hub allowing teachers to access audio, video, text and internet resources in pre-planned activities, as well as spontaneously in response to learners’ reactions during the lesson (Cutrim Schmid & van Hazebrouck, 2010). Thus, the IWB facilitates learners’ access to rich, elaborated input in a variety of forms. Teachers and trainers often fear that this use of the board to control learning resources is likely to reinforce teacher-fronted and teacher-directed activities, and research confirms that many language teachers do tend to monopolize the IWB in the early stages of technology adoption (Cutrim Schmid, 2010). However, as they become more accomplished and confident technology users, teachers are able to design and implement more pedagogically effective activities, ceding more control to their learners (Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012). One of the ways in which teachers can allow learners more control is through activities that promote interaction and output in small groups. The IWB can function as one station in station-work or carousel activities where groups of learners cycle through a number of different activities in separate parts of the classroom. This format is particularly suited to young learners, who benefit from short, focused activities such as individual or pair listening with digital recordings (mp3 players, tablets), online games, independent worksheet exercises and intensive language work with the teacher in small groups. In this context, the IWB can be used to preview the computer-based work to come, making sure learners understand the task. If one group works at the IWB, the board then allows cooperation and collaboration among group members, incidentally allowing them to improve their IWB skills and digital competences in general. The IWB is also useful for correcting or reviewing work conducted in groups independently of the teacher. Otherwise, when group work is conducted simultaneously by different groups away from the board, the IWB can still support this work by displaying language resources, and it can also be used afterwards to help learners to present tasks or reflections on tasks to the larger class group. Finally, concerning the third requirement of focus on form and individualized feedback, the IWB can be used to store and retrieve learner productions (text or multimedia), which can then be annotated, amended and edited collaboratively.

INTRODUCTION – TEACHING WITH INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

13

Since the digital materials displayed on the IWB obviate the need for photocopying, teachers can plan noticing activities based on extensive written work by a large number of learners, thus preserving a meaningful context for a focus on form and providing multiple examples of the same language point. To conclude on the relationship between second language theory and the use of technologies like the IWB in the language classroom, it is clear that technology can help teachers to implement task-based approaches that are likely to foster interlanguage development by providing access to rich language input and supporting opportunities for output, interaction and reflection, which are necessary for effective language learning. Learning technology can also support teachers with the challenges of managing unexpected linguistic requirements: the IWB can function as a communal web browser to access online reference resources for lexical or grammatical information, and can be used to save a trace of discussions, mindmaps and brainstorming for later development. In addition, we should not forget that technology generally enhances motivation: Research has conclusively showed that new tools . . . have a motivational impact on learners. . . . The higher learners’ competence in using different tools, the more they are able to function as autonomous learners. . . . Learner motivation is also enhanced through the visual and diffusion of the task outcome when published on the internet. (Müller-Hartman & Schockervan Ditfurth, 2010, p. 31)

Interactivity in learning technologies: How interactive is the IWB? The past decade has seen a rapid increase in the number of IWBs installed in classrooms in many parts of the world, particularly in English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia, and there is now a substantial body of educational research documenting the use of the IWB in, and its effect on, teaching and learning. Such research generally shows that the introduction of the IWB increases learners’ motivation and may also support ‘interactivity’ in classroom practice (Beauchamp, 2004; Beauchamp & Parkinson, 2005; Beauchamp & Kennewell, 2008, 2010). Given the importance of the notion of interaction for second language learning, it is worth looking at research on interactivity in relation to the IWB in other classroom contexts. Table 0.5 gives an overview of four different frameworks for describing how teachers and learners interact around the IWB in UK primary and

14

None

IWB as black/ whiteboard substitute, only teacher uses IWB, only native software

Some other software, planned learner manipulation of objects (drag and drop)

Beginner

Apprentice

Authoritative

Beauchamp & Kennewell (2010)

Beauchamp (2004)

Teacher uses planned IWB features, learners give fixed answers

Lecture/ demonstration mode: teacher presents information and controls pace

Interactivity in IWB use

Teacher development as IWB user

Teacher presents vocabulary and learners copy into their notebook

Learners come to IWB to manipulate objects in the short final phase

Teacher creates text and diagrams in front of class and learners copy into their notebook

Technical

Supported didactic

IWB illustrates rather than develops concepts

Jewitt et al. (2007)

Interactivity in IWB materials design Glover et al. (2007)

Table 0.5 Interactivity in interactive white board (IWB)-supported teaching

15

Use of more programmes (internet), planned learner use of more IWB tools

Use of audio and video files, spontaneous learner use of IWB features and peripherals (slates)

High technical competence in teacher and learners, fluid, unplanned use of IWB by both

Initiate

Advanced

Synergistic Collective reflective activity: all learners use IWB to contribute ideas and retrieve and amend earlier work

Less structured activities where input is provided by learners as well as teacher (IWB as communal web browser)

Dialogic

Synergistic

Learners use IWB to show and justify responses to teacher’s questions

Dialectic

Enhanced interactivity

Interactive

Teacher links to other pages and resources

Fluent technology use and flexible lesson structure

Teacher links pictures to words, but is not proficient at moving elements

Teacher uses more tools and programmes

Conceptual

Physical

Learners annotate teacher’s pages using slates, teacher contributes from back of classroom

Learners come to IWB to demonstrate work done in their notebook and answer the teacher’s questions

Teacher gives PowerPoint presentation

16

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

secondary classes. Each framework consists of a continuum of IWB use, starting with minimal use of the board by the teacher alone, involving little or no interactivity, and then increasing in amount and type of interactivity to maximum interactivity with high levels of learner autonomy and control. The different studies focus on various aspects of interactivity, from the perspective of the teachers’ professional development, classroom interactivity or interactivity in relation to materials design, but all distinguish two types of interactivity. The first is termed ‘technical’ and ‘physical’ interactivity (labelled variously ‘supported didactic’ style, ‘apprentice’ user and ‘authoritative’ teaching) and involves the teacher’s technical interaction with the board, using tools and features to present information, together with limited learner participation, such as coming to the board to move elements. This type of interactivity is typical of new IWB users, teachers who are just beginning to use the board in their teaching. The second type of interactivity is referred to as ‘synergistic’, ‘conceptual’ or ‘enhanced:’ it describes IWB use by all participants, teacher and learners alike, and occurs when all have the required technical competence for the fluent and flexible, unplanned use of the affordances of the IWB. This type of board use is generally seen in technologically advanced users, teachers who have had time to learn to use its features and reflect on its pedagogical affordances. It is, of course, this second type of interactivity which is of interest to second language teachers. If language teachers are to use technology to support interaction in the second language in collaborative tasks, they need the technical and pedagogical skills to use the IWB to support unplanned discussion and spontaneous exchanges arising from planned classroom tasks. The final section of this chapter addresses the question of how teachers can develop skills for using interactive technologies, particularly the IWB, for effective task-based teaching.

Professional development: Learning to use the IWB for teaching language Recent years have seen changes in approaches to teacher education both for second language teaching in general, and for training for CALL or CMC teaching in particular. Cutrim Schmid and Whyte (2012) describe the challenges for practising teachers to adjust to new task-based methods and also integrate new technologies into their teaching. Their study of EFL teachers’ use of the IWB in French and German state schools reveals a variety of different teaching styles, corresponding to a number of the different second language teaching methods described in the first section of this chapter. It also showed occasional

INTRODUCTION – TEACHING WITH INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

17

gaps between what teachers believed about language learning and wanted to achieve in class, on one hand, and their actual classroom practice, on the other. The teacher in the study who perhaps showed the most effective use of the board had also benefited from the most training, support and institutional latitude in experimenting with the IWB in her teaching, suggesting that teachers need sustained support to adopt new technologies in pedagogically effective ways. Research in language teacher education has identified a number of ways of supporting teachers in their professional development. Meskill et al. (2004) describe a novice–expert tandem approach in which pre-service or newly qualified teachers are paired with more experienced colleagues, each bringing differing degrees of technological, theoretical and pedagogical experience to the collaboration. This approach has been successfully transposed to the secondary EFL classroom in a teacher development project focusing on IWB use in Germany (Cutrim Schmid, 2010). Teacher cognition studies drawing on Borg (2003, 2006) and using video-stimulated reflection and in-depth interviews with teachers in longitudinal studies also support teacher development (Cutrim Schmid, 2011; Whyte, 2011). These studies shed light on teachers’ reasons for using technology in particular ways, as well as contributing to their ongoing professional development through the data collection procedure. A further example of professional development for language teachers using technology is the European lifelong learning project on Interactive Technologies in Language Teaching (iTILT), which aims to promote the effective use of IWBs in communicative language classrooms (Whyte et al., 2011). iTILT showcases video extracts from IWB-based language lessons in a variety of contexts (primary, secondary, vocational and higher education, at different proficiency levels, and in six European languages). Each video clip is accompanied by learner, teacher and/or trainer commentaries, as well as lesson plans and IWB files, with the goal of presenting and explaining different uses of the IWB to meet a variety of language learning goals. The collection and analysis of classroom data for iTILT involved training teachers to use the IWB in communicative ways, filming class sessions and interviewing learners, and watching these films with the teachers in order to select short clips for the project website to illustrate their IWB practice. This process, documented in Whyte et al. (2013), supports the project teachers in their own professional development, as well as providing a window on teaching and learning practices. The present volume seeks to pursue these avenues of research into language teachers’ adoption of interactive technologies – novice–expert tandems, teacher cognition and video-stimulated reflection – in a number of different contexts. Several of the chapters are based on data collected in the

18

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

framework of the iTILT project and involve teacher and learner commentary on IWB use based on films on classroom language sessions. Three chapters focus on young learners in state school contexts. Beauchamp and Hillier (Chapter 1) examine the role of interactive technologies in second language teaching for pupils with special educational needs in Welsh primary schools, exploring teacher and learner perceptions of the IWB for a type of learner often neglected in the mainstream second language teaching literature. Kegenhof (Chapter 3) reports on the design and implementation of a teaching unit based on her own digital story for EFL learners in a German primary school, focusing particularly on learner-centred activities and active learning. In their study of primary EFL classes in France and Germany, Whyte and Cutrim Schmid (Chapter 2) investigate the use of the IWB for synchronous CMC, asking to what extent young beginners are able to benefit from this learning context, and how the IWB can support communicative interaction in a second language. The secondary school EFL context features in two papers in the collection: in a gamification study, Stanley (Chapter 5) explores the potential of the IWB to support the implementation of a gamified writing system with the aim of increasing motivation and fluency of writing in the second language. Sailer, Cutrim Schmid and Koenraad (Chapter 4) focus on content and language integrated learning, reporting on two teaching units on geography topics devised by a German novice–expert teacher tandem with the goal of using the IWB to facilitate the visualization of information. The remaining two chapters focus on the IWB for languages in higher education, another underinvestigated area of research. Oberhofer, Simons and Smit (Chapter 7) report on a Belgian university training project that followed pre-service second language teachers of a variety of European languages as they designed and created materials for IWB-supported teaching. Çelik, on the other hand, investigated classroom practice (Chapter 6), researching the early stages of IWB integration into the practice of six Turkish university teachers of English and Turkish. We hope that the rich data presented and analysed in this collection will help readers to understand how and why teachers and learners use the IWB in particular ways, as well as how practice evolves over time. By showing and commenting on real examples of classroom language teaching by practising teachers in this way, our goal is also to encourage teachers to use interactive technologies in their classrooms and perhaps experiment with new techniques. Each study analyses data – recordings, observation and interviews – but then goes beyond the focus on practice in order to contribute to a better understanding of the theoretical issues involved. In this way, the volume underscores the close links between teaching, training and research in the area of language teaching with technology. Research has suggested that each of these three areas can and should inform the others (Hubbard & Levy, 2006; Whyte, 2011), and the present collection of chapters on classroom research is

INTRODUCTION – TEACHING WITH INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

19

intended as a response to this interdisciplinary call. Perhaps with these examples of how training that encourages reflection and collaboration can support teacher development with the IWB over time, teachers will feel emboldened to get the Porsche out of first gear and make for new horizons.

References Beauchamp, G. (2004), ‘Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard (IWB) in primary schools – towards an effective transition framework’. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13, (3), 327–48. Beauchamp, G. and Kennewell, S. (2008), ‘The influence of ICT on the interactivity of teaching’. Education and Information Technologies, 13, (4), 305–15. Beauchamp, G. and Kennewell, S. (2010), ‘Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning’. Computers & Education, 54, 759–66. Beauchamp, G. and Parkinson, J. (2005), ‘Beyond the “wow” factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard’. School Science Review, 86, (316), 97–103. Berns, M. S. (1990), Contexts of Competence: Social and Cultural Consideration in Communicative Language Teaching. New York: Plenum Press. Borg, S. (2003), ‘Teaching cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe and do’. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109. Borg, S. (2006), Teacher Cognition and Language Education. London: Continuum. Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (eds) (2001), Researching Pedagogical Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Assessment. London: Pearson. Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980), ‘Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing’. Applied Linguistics, 1, (1), 1–47. Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z. and Thurrell, S. (1997), ‘Direct approaches in L2 instruction: a turning point in communicative language teaching?’ TESOL Quarterly, 31, (1), 141–52. Chapelle, C. (1998), ‘Multimedia CALL: lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA’, Language Learning and Technology, 2, (1), 22–34. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2010), ‘Developing competencies for using the interactive whiteboard to implement communicative language teaching in the English as a Foreign Language classroom’. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19, (2), 159–72. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2011), ‘Video-stimulated reflection as a professional development tool in interactive whiteboard research’. ReCALL, 23, (3), 252–70. Cutrim Schmid, E. and Schimmack, E. (2010), ‘First steps towards a model of interactive whiteboard training for language teachers’, in M. Thomas and E. Cutrim Schmid (eds), Interactive Whiteboards: Theory, Research and Practice. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 197–214.

20

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

Cutrim Schmid, E. and Van Hazebrouck, S. (2010), ‘The interactive whiteboard as a digital hub’. Praxis Fremdsprachenunterricht, 4, 12–16. Cutrim Schmid, E. and Whyte, S. (2012), ‘Interactive whiteboards in school settings: teacher responses to socio-constructivist hegemonies’. Language Learning and Technology, 16, (2), 65–86. Doughty, C. and Long, M. (2003), ‘Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning’. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 50–80. Ellis, R. (2003), Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2006), ‘The methodology of task-based teaching’. Asian EFL Journal, 8, (3), 19–45. Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D. and Door, V. (2007), ‘The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: an empirical analysis from the secondary sector’. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, (1), 5–20. Hubbard, P. and Levy, M. (eds) (2006), Teacher Education in CALL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jewitt, C., Moss, G. and Cardini, A. (2007), ‘Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers’ design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom’. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, (3), 303–17. Krashen, S. (1982), Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Loewen, S. and Reinders, H. (2011), Key Concepts in Second Language Acquisition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Meskill, C., Mossop, J., Di Angelo, S. and Pasquale, R. (2002), ‘Expert and novice teachers talking technology: precepts, concepts, and misconcepts’. Language Learning & Technology, 6, (3), 46–57. Müller-Hartmann, A. and Schocker-von Ditfurth, M. (2010), ‘Research on the use of technology in task-based language teaching’, in M. Thomas and H. Reinders (eds), Task-based Language Teaching and Technology. New York: Continuum. Prabhu, N. S. (1987), Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Samuda, V. (2001), ‘Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: the role of the teacher’, in M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (eds), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing. Harlow: Longman, pp. 119–34. Savignon, S. (2002), ‘Communicative language teaching: linguistic theory and classroom practice’, in S. Savignon (ed.), Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: Contexts and Concerns in Teacher Education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 1–27. Selinker, L. (1972), ‘Interlanguage’. IRAL, 10, 209–31. Skehan, P. (2003), ‘Task-based instruction’. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14. Swain, M. (2000), ‘French immersion research in Canada: recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics’. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199–212. Thomas, M. and Reinders, H. (2010b), ‘Deconstructing tasks and technology’, in M. Thomas, and H. Reinders (eds), Task-based Language Teaching and Technology. New York: Continuum, pp. 1–16.

INTRODUCTION – TEACHING WITH INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

21

Thornbury, S. (1998), ‘Comments on Marianne Celce-Murcia, Zoltan Dörnyei, and Sarah Thurrell’s “Direct Approaches in L2 Instruction: A Turning Point in Communicative Language Teaching?”’ TESOL Quarterly, 32, (1), 109–16. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, K. and Verhelst, M. (2007), ‘Introduction to tasks in action: task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective’, in K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp and M. Verhelst (eds), Tasks in Action: Task-based Language Education from a Classroom-based Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 1–6. Whyte, S. (2011), ‘Learning to teach with videoconferencing in primary foreign language classrooms’. ReCALL, 23, (3), 271–93. Whyte, S., Cutrim Schmid, E. and van Hazebrouck, S. (2011), ‘Designing IWB resources for language teaching: the iTILT project’. International Conference on ICT for Language Learning, 4th Edition. Simonelli Editore. Available online at: http://conference.pixel-online.net/ICT4LL2011/common/download/ Speakers_pdf/IBL57–384-SP-Whyte-ICT4LL2011.pdf [accessed March 2014]. Whyte, S., Cutrim Schmid, E., van Hazebrouck Thompson, S. and Oberhofer, M. (2013), ‘Open educational resources for CALL teacher education: the iTILT interactive whiteboard project’. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27, (2), 122–48. Willis, D. and Willis, J. (2007), Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willis, J. (1996), A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Essex: Longman.

22

PART ONE

Case studies

23

24

1 The IWB in language education for learners with special educational needs: learning Welsh at primary school Emily Hillier and Gary Beauchamp

Reflective Questions Before reading 1 ‘The multimodal features of the interactive whiteboard make it very effective for promoting a fully inclusive language learning classroom.’ Debate whether you agree or disagree with this statement, and discuss which modes of information and communication technology (ICT) you think are most effective for teaching learners with special educational needs (SEN). 2 Using the headings in the table below, make a list of how the features of the interactive whiteboard (IWB) could be used in second language lessons to support the following SEN. Add extra headings to the table for different SEN that may be relevant for your setting: Dyslexia Autism Visual Motor (add (add here) here) impairment control difficulties Features of the IWB

25

26

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

Introduction

A

lthough there has been a long history of research into the benefits of using ICT for all pupils in an educational setting, it is only more recently that a growing body of research has developed highlighting the particular benefits of ICT for learners with SEN or learning difficulties. This has developed in the context of underlying debates around ‘integration’ and ‘inclusion’ in UK policy and practice (Dyson et al., 2004; Office for Standards in Education, 2004; Stevens, 2004). Both of these concepts, and the distinction between them, need to be explored to contextualize the use of ICT in general, and the IWB in particular, within SEN education. The starting point in the United Kingdom was the 1944 Education Act, which, as well as providing free education for all, ‘constructed a highly segregative post-war education system with its ten categories of handicap for which special schools would cater’ (Thomas et al., 2005, p. 18). This resulted in a minority of pupils being placed in ‘special’ schools, catering only for pupils with SEN, with the majority of pupils in ‘mainstream’ schools. Subsequent changes in policy meant that some pupils with special needs were moved into the mainstream system and provided with ‘planned and continuous interaction with other children within common educational systems and settings’ (Jones, 2004, p. 12). This process of ‘inclusion’ describes ‘efforts made to include students with a range of physical, sensory, communication or cognitive disabilities in both learning and wider social opportunities’ (British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA), 2003a). Since then, reflecting wider concerns over rights, participation and social justice outside education, there has been a move away from ‘integration’ towards ‘inclusion’ for all. The distinction is summed up as follows: ‘with inclusion the mainstream school reorganises its structures to accommodate children regardless of their needs. Integration on the other hand leaves the school structure unchanged and the child’s task is to assimilate into an unchanged school environment’ (Woolfson, 2011, p. 175). Two relatively recent political landmarks, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 and the Disability Discrimination Act 2001, have emerged in the United Kingdom, based on the notion of inclusive practice, with the intention to strengthen the support given to children with SEN in a mainstream setting working alongside children who do not have SEN (as opposed to a ‘special’ school where all children have SEN). Although such developments in policy imply positive steps towards inclusion, some researchers remain sceptical. This is due to the difficulties of changing practice that was deep-rooted in previous systems, the existence of contradictory policies and associated assessment systems that create

THE IWB FOR LEARNERS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

27

competitiveness among schools (Bines, 2000). One way in which practitioners can make ‘reasonable adjustments’ and help with inclusion is through the use of ICT – but it is important to note that the use of ICT alone is not a panacea. Research suggests there are many benefits of ICT for SEN, not just for learners themselves, but also for teachers and parents (BECTA, 2003a). Non-specific benefits include: ●

enhanced learner autonomy;

●

demonstration of achievement that is unattainable through traditional methods;

●

greater communication;

●

activities can be tailored to suit individual needs (BECTA, 2003a).

While Bines (2000) argues that policies such as the introduction of a National Curriculum (1988) contradict inclusive policies, specific language learning initiatives, such as ‘Language for All’ (Department for Education and Skills (DfES), 2002), which seek to allow all learners the opportunity to learn a second language, have been a product of such standardization. A body of research investigating how ICT can be used to support learners with SEN in language learning contexts has subsequently emerged. However, there remains a dearth of research that explores the specific use of the IWB to support learners with SEN in this context, which this chapter aims to address. The chapter will provide a summary of recent research and literature relating to ways in which ICT can be used to support learners with SEN in second language learning, before highlighting the smaller body of research that focuses on this issue in relation to IWBs. A case study conducted in a mainstream primary school in Wales will be outlined, describing the ways in which the IWB was used to support two learners with SEN. Key findings that emerged from interviewing the teacher about the use of the IWB, including a discussion of various IWB tools that can be used, are discussed. The chapter will conclude with suggestions for future research and points for discussion for further reflection.

Literature review Language learning in UK primary schools Despite shifts to integrate second language learning into UK primary schools and the apparent advantages of introducing such learning at a relatively young

28

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

age, Cameron (2001) argues that research illustrating the UK experience of second language learning in primary schools is not always a positive one. This suggests that a consideration of how second language teaching and learning is integrated into the school context is important. The implementation of second language teaching and learning has been based on a variety of second language acquisition theories that draw on a range of theoretical landscapes including sociological, psychological and behavioural. Recent research, however, suggests that the influx of emerging technologies has led to a general shift from cognitive linguistic perspectives towards a socio-constructivist and communicative approach to second language education (Lantolf, 2000). The focal point of this approach is summarized by Chapelle (2009, p. 747), who asserts that ‘From this perspective, the communication the language learner engages in with peers and others using the target language is critical to the development of language and intercultural competence’. Chapelle (2009) also suggests that the bridge between technology and language learning has provoked interest from a variety of stakeholders, including teachers, learners and the government. As a result, some work has been carried out to explore the design and evaluation of related computerassisted language learning materials (Ellis, 1998; Tomlinson, 2003). One of the recurring principles used to design and evaluate these learning materials is the need to ensure that learners are exposed to second language learning using an authentic context, so that learners can associate the language learning they experience in the classroom with the language that they will require outside the classroom in a real-life context (Chapelle, 2001; Tomlinson, 2003).

Language learning and SEN Even though the development of a National Curriculum can be interpreted as contradicting the individual needs of learners with SEN (Bines, 2000), such reform has allowed all learners with SEN the entitlement to have a ‘broad and balanced curriculum’ (Meiring & Norman, 2005, p. 129). The landmark Warnock Report (1978) was originally responsible for this, and it was later preserved in the Education Act 1981 and Education Reform Act 1988 (Warnock, 2010). Prior to this shift, certain subjects, including foreign language learning, were only offered to a small minority of learners across secondary schools rather than to all learners (Meiring & Norman, 2005). The introduction of a National Curriculum in 1988 had an impact on many other subsequent initiatives, which sought to enable opportunities for all learners, including the ‘Languages for All’ strategy (DfES, 2002). This strategy

THE IWB FOR LEARNERS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

29

stressed the importance in the twenty-first century of young people being able to communicate in other languages and understand multiple cultural contexts as a critical part of modern citizenship. One of the many objectives of the strategy was to expand and develop the way in which teachers utilize ICT and ‘e-learning tools’ to enable greater learner engagement, remote assessment and teaching, and to support educational inclusion (DfES, 2002). While the strategy mentions educational inclusion, this is not defined, and there is no specific reference to how ICT can support language learning for learners with SEN. In addition, while the DfES (2002) strategy mentions the importance of learning about different cultures, McColl (2005) proposes a specific consideration of how such language practice could be beneficial to learners with SEN. Neither language, nor cultural teaching and learning, is given precedence in the literature, but the idea that there needs to be some balance between solely language learning and cultural studies is important. McColl (2005) continues that merely allowing learners with SEN to partake in language learning is insufficient in its unchanged state (i.e. integration), and we need to consider how language teaching could be modified to suit all learners, including those with SEN (i.e. adopting inclusive practice).

Language learning with ICT for learners with SEN Meiring and Norman (2005) identify various features of ICT that are particularly beneficial to learners with SEN in a language learning context. Drawing on work from Kennewell (2004) and the Teacher Training Agency (1998), they discuss how particular features of ICT, including automation, range, capacity, provisionality, interactivity, authenticity and multimodality, can be adapted to cater for learners with SEN. For instance, range (the ability to represent ideas in a variety of formats) is potentially a very significant feature of ICT as it allows learners of all abilities to develop an understanding of the cultural context of the origin of a language. The capacity of ICT allows learners to use tools, such as the internet or CDROMs, to explore outside cultures from within the classroom environment. Although these representations may not be real, they are at least more realistic than those simulated in the classroom. While this could be argued to be beneficial for all learners, Meiring and Norman (2005) suggest that it is particularly important for learners with SEN, as it creates authentic contexts that may be easier to conceptualize and therefore to associate a new language with real life. Multimodality is another key feature of ICT that Meiring and Norman address, with reference to Kennewell’s (2004) work on the use of IWBs. It is

30

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

argued that the ability to represent an idea using multiple modes (i.e. text, images and videos) enables learners with a range of complex needs to access a stimulating and engaging learning experience (McColl, 2000; Meiring & Norman, 2005). Such advantages, however, presuppose that teachers recognize, or perceive, and use features of ICT. Recognizing the affordances (Greeno,1994, Kennewell, 2001; Conole & Dyke, 2004) of ICT is particularly important when trying to adapt work to cater for learners under the umbrella term ‘SEN’, which encapsulates a wide range of complex needs across the spectrum of severity. In this context, an affordance refers to ‘the perceived and actual properties of a thing, primarily those functional properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used’ (Pea, 1997, p. 51). The main challenge here for teachers is in recognizing the affordances that ‘need to be perceived to be realised’ (Hammond, 2010, p. 206). This is complicated if we accept that the IWB offers the potential to be a ‘digital hub’ (Cutrim Schmid & Van Hazebrouck, 2010), offering the ability to use a range of modes in its native software and in a range of other packages, and hence offers a very wide range of affordances that may, or may not, be useful to a particular age range or SEN. Nevertheless, it is important that teachers try to recognize the affordances offered by ICT, and more specifically by the IWB, as they can enhance language learning.

Language learning with IWBs and SEN While there is a growing recognition that ICT can support learning for learners with a variety of SENs, there is a limited body of literature that states the specific potential of the IWB to support such learners (Lopez, 2006; Mechling et al., 2008). The majority of empirical IWB literature discusses the implementation of the IWB for all learners, but it does acknowledge its potential for learners with SEN (e.g. BECTA, 2003b; Beauchamp & Parkinson, 2005; Somekh et al., 2007). The small body of research focusing on the IWB and SEN either explores the generic use of the IWB for learners with SEN or more specifically explores its use for particular types of SEN, such as autism (e.g. Egerton et al., 2009; Xin & Sutman, 2011), visual impairment (e.g. Freire et al., 2010) and moderate learning difficulties (Mechling et al., 2007). Cobb-Morocco (2001) describes four effective teaching strategies for learners with SEN – authentic tasks, opportunities to develop cognitive strategies, socially mediated learning, and engagement and participation in constructive conversations – and Lopez (2006) suggests that technologies that facilitate interactivity, such as the IWB, can be used to support these strategies.

THE IWB FOR LEARNERS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

31

Authentic tasks allow learners with SEN to relate new concepts to their own real experiences outside the school environment, which the IWB can support through its multimodal tools and functions (such as displaying digital images, photographs, maps and so on), as well as the ability to easily connect to the Internet to use the IWB to explore real life (Wilson, 1999; Lopez, 2006). In terms of developing and building upon cognitive strategies to develop an understanding of key ideas, Lopez (2006) reports that the use of the IWB to display attractive images to support text can develop learners’ abilities to recall information by visualizing the associated images as a prompt. While this example is not subject-related, in the case of modern foreign language teaching and learning, this use of the IWB could be particularly useful for learning new vocabulary. Another key pedagogical strategy suggested by Cobb-Morocco (2001), and facilitated by the IWB, is that teachers foster a socially mediated learning environment whereby activities allow for social interaction, and all learners communicate their learning through dialogue or visual stimuli. The IWB’s tools can encourage such social interaction between learners through the use of features such as the spotlight, annotation and drag and drop tools (Bell, 2002; Levy 2002; Lopez, 2006). From a practical perspective, the IWB allows heightened learner interaction through the use of peripheral equipment, such as the ActivSlate, or a wand, that allow learners with a physical disability to interact with the IWB, increasing their level of participation and potentially their engagement. While the IWB has often been regarded as a technology that engages and motivates all learners (e.g. Beeland, 2002; BECTA, 2003b), this could be potentially more important for those learners who have behavioural difficulties such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism (Egerton et al., 2009; McClaskey & Welch, 2009). The versatility of tools can potentially make lessons more appealing and interesting for such learners, which may increase their attention span and engagement, and hence improve classroom behaviour. This would, however, be dependent on the teacher allowing opportunities for learners to interact with the IWB and its associated tools, and to recognize which particular features engage learners with diverse needs. The IWB does not automatically create such opportunities; rather, the teacher needs to recognize the affordances of the IWB for a particular SEN in order to realize this potential. Lopez (2006) also argues that increased social interaction can be achieved for learners with a sensory impairment (i.e. visual and hearing) by using different IWB facilities. For instance, the teacher could record instructions and use the IWB to play them back as many times as necessary. Or the teacher could alter the background colour and text style and size used on the IWB to present the teaching materials. While such modifications could increase the level of socially mediated learning with the IWB for learners with such

32

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

impairments, there may be other barriers, such as teacher self-efficacy (Hillier et al., 2013) that could negatively affect such interaction. Nevertheless effective use of the IWB could remove barriers for social interaction for learners with a variety of individual needs. Similar to the concept of socially mediated learning, Lopez (2006) also stresses the importance of engagement in constructive dialogue. Again, while the literature is not specifically about how the IWB could be used to support learners with SEN, the principle of dialogue and conversation could be aligned with the oracy skills required for language learning. Lopez (2006) argues that the IWB can create opportunities for all learners to both voice their questions and thoughts, and make sense of other learners’ thinking as a method of comparing and contrasting different understanding of key concepts. Higgins et al. (2007) suggest that the use of multimedia, and its multimodal opportunities, also allows key ideas to be introduced and modelled in a variety of different ways to suit different learning styles and needs. Some teachers, however, often struggle with ways to allow such learners access to balanced materials that are authentic and understandable, yet challenging (Lopez, 2006). This is important as a lack of access to such learning materials could potentially hinder the opportunity for learners with SEN to engage in constructive conversation. Constructive dialogue may contribute to learners developing an understanding about key ideas, but it also helps teachers to assess students’ achievement. For example, incorporating short assessments within a lesson plan, typically towards the end of the lesson, allows learners with SEN the opportunity to understand their level of progress, and also allows teachers to identify weaknesses to address (Miller & Glover, 2002; Lopez, 2006). Both the integral IWB software, and the array of internet resources that are designed to be used on the IWB, allow instantaneous feedback to highlight potential development and areas for improvement. However, as mentioned earlier, teachers need to be aware of such affordances offered by the IWB. While Lopez (2006) makes an interesting link between effective teaching strategies for learners with SEN and how the IWB could be used to facilitate such interactive strategies, it is important to reflect upon the distinction between technical interactivity and pedagogical interactivity. This is the difference between ‘what a piece of technology can do, and what it can be used to achieve educationally’ (Mercer et al., 2010, p. 197). This distinction is important as there is often the (mis)conception that the potential technical interactivity of the IWB can deterministically cause pedagogical interactivity (Smith et al., 2006; Gillen et al., 2007). Lopez (2006), on the other hand, demonstrates that the technical interactivity of the IWB can inform pedagogic interactivity to support learners with SEN.

THE IWB FOR LEARNERS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

33

Research context Data were collected during the first stage of a European Union (EU)-funded project called Interactive Technologies in Language Teaching (iTILT). The purpose of the project was to explore the ways in which the IWB could be used to support a communicative approach to second language teaching. The main aim of the project was to develop a website offering a repository of different resources, including examples of ‘real’ classroom clips of language teaching and learning, training materials and a manual, as well as external links and sources. The project included seven partner countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain, the United Kingdom and Turkey), exploring the use of the IWB across different educational sectors and with teachers with differing IWB proficiency levels. For the purposes of this chapter, one primary teacher from Wales, already participating in the iTILT project, was chosen due to the presence of pupils with SEN in her class. The teacher selected was female and between the age of 20 and 30 years, had been teaching for less than 10 years, and had used the IWB for 6–7 years. The teacher did not speak Welsh as a first language. In line with the data collection framework for the iTILT project, one Welsh lesson was video-recorded, and an electronic copy of the lesson was provided to the teacher. The teacher was asked to select three or four short clips that she perceived to be ‘good use’ of the IWB for that particular lesson. She then took part in a video-stimulated recall (VSR) interview using the video footage to discuss the use of the IWB. While data collection for the iTILT project focused on only three or four clips, the interview also explored the importance of all six activities within the lesson. The interview schedule was developed as a research tool for the iTILT project, and included a standardized question relating to how the IWB was used in the lesson to support learners with SEN. This question was used to initiate discussion and further questions relating to this area.

Description of the school context The case study took place in a large mainstream state (government-funded) primary (age 4–11 years) school in Wales, United Kingdom. The school has two classes of 30 children in each age group and just over 400 pupils in total. In common with all UK state primary schools, the class teacher teaches the class all subjects (including languages), within a curriculum defined by the Welsh Government that stipulates what children should be taught in all age groups and subjects, although it does not prescribe how it should be taught. This means that the class teacher is not a specialist in all areas, including the teaching of languages besides English.

34

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

In terms of learning a second language, all children in English-medium primary schools (the vast majority) in Wales are required to learn Welsh as a second language, with a vision of developing a bilingual nation (Welsh Assembly Government, 2004). Although teachers may be supported by visits from specialist Welsh-language teachers, these visits are not regular, and most language teaching is done by the class teacher. This can present a challenge to many teachers unless Welsh is their first language, particularly as the children grow older. The Welsh School Inspectorates (Estyn, 2013) recognize this and report that: Generally, when practitioners’ own Welsh is fluent, children’s progress in learning Welsh is better. These practitioners use Welsh consistently across all areas of learning. Where there are no confident Welsh-speaking practitioners in a school or setting, the use of Welsh by staff is usually more limited. This means that children hear less Welsh and have less opportunity to practise it. Where there are gaps in practitioners’ knowledge, particularly in the grammar, intonation and pronunciation of Welsh, children can learn to speak or pronounce incorrectly. In a few cases, practitioners cannot sustain using Welsh long enough and use a very limited amount of incidental Welsh with the children. Most settings and schools have very few fluent Welsh-speaking practitioners and many use Welsh television programmes or DVDs to try to compensate for this, so that children can hear more spoken Welsh. However, this approach does not secure sustained progress in learning. (Estyn, 2013, p. 9) In terms of technology, every classroom in the study school has an IWB, and most teachers are experienced users. This does not mean, however, that they are confident users of the IWB, although they may be confident users of other forms of ICT (Hillier et al., 2013). Within the school, one teacher acts as the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO), who oversees the support of children who have been identified as having particular needs, but ‘all teachers are teachers of children with special educational needs’ (Welsh Assembly Government, 2004, p. 43). These needs are normally noticed in the first instance by the class teacher (although it could also be an external agency) and may be cognitive, physical or psychological. At the first stage of support, the SENCO and class teacher ‘provide interventions that are additional to or different from those provided as part of the school’s usual differentiated curriculum offer and strategies’ (Welsh Assembly Government, 2004, p. 51, underlining in original). This would include how ICT is used in teaching and learning. The child works through stages of support, with specific intervention strategies depending on their needs, and

THE IWB FOR LEARNERS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

35

support is increased or withdrawn according to progress. Much of the ongoing support for the child in the class is provided by the class teacher, or, in some cases, a classroom assistant working on a particular intervention strategy. Hence, the class teacher makes important decisions about the level and type of support, the availability of specialist equipment and, in the case of this chapter, how they use classroom resources (such as the IWB) to support a child (or children) in the classroom.

Description of the lessons, activities and materials The case study took place in a Year 2 (age 6–7 years) mainstream class with around 30 learners of all abilities learning Welsh as a second language. Within the class, there were four learners with SEN: three with mild/moderate learning difficulties and one with fine motor coordination difficulties. All learners began learning Welsh as a second language at the very start of primary school, with compartmentalized Welsh lessons as well as integration into other areas of school life and everyday activities in accordance with the Welsh Assembly Government’s strive to promote the Welsh language as early as the Foundation Phase (age 3–7-year-olds) (Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills, 2008). The topic of the Welsh lesson was learning different vocabulary and short phrases associated with different types of animals that may be kept as pets. The main language focus of the lesson was ‘speaking and listening’, and in particular the following learning objectives: ●

to make themselves understood;

●

to listen to familiar and unfamiliar voices;

●

to use appropriate language in structured play activities, and speak clearly using simple words;

●

to speak using correct pronunciation and appropriate intonation.

The lesson was divided into six activities with clear progression, consisting of a revision activity, reinforcement activities and an assessment/plenary activity to assess understanding. The activities were purposely short in length to maintain attention span and break down the learning process into manageable stages, particularly for those learners with mild/moderate learning difficulties. This particular lesson could be regarded as task-based language learning as the teacher set clear language learning goals, and the lesson contained a clear beginning and end with learners actively participating in the various activities (Cameron, 2001). The individual tasks were not necessarily ‘authentic’ but, as

36

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

argued by Cameron (2001), it is difficult to distinguish what is useful for young language learners outside the classroom context. Instead, Cameron suggests that aiming for ‘dynamic congruence’, that is, using activities that are ageappropriate and ensuring young learners can relate to their specific sociocultural experiences, is sufficient (Cameron, 2001, p. 30). The purpose of activity one was to reintroduce all learners to the key vocabulary for different types of animals such as cat, dog, horse, mouse and so on. While all the learners had been introduced to the vocabulary in previous lessons, the teacher wanted to revise the topic before progressing to associated short sentence patterns and phrases. The first activity (Figure 1.1) was a downloadable ready-made IWB resource from the National Grid for Learning Wales and was delivered using the IWB as a whole-class task. The IWB flipchart presented a variety of images of different animals with the written vocabulary below. The teacher tapped the image, and the word for each particular animal was spoken by a native Welsh-speaker for all learners to listen and repeat. The teacher randomly selected the images, and was able to repeat as many times as possible to check clarity of pronunciation. The multimodal nature of the activity (text, image and audio) introduced vocabulary without a sole reliance on text. The support of the images and audio to model pronunciation was a way of reinforcing the language in a variety of ways to support learning for those learners who struggled with being introduced to new, complex information. Learners with

Figure 1.1 Activity 12

THE IWB FOR LEARNERS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

37

fine motor skill difficulties were able to participate in the activity as no formal writing was required at this stage. The second and third activities were developed to practise and reinforce the vocabulary in varied ways, through the use of IWB tools and software, as opposed to repetitive ‘drill and kill’ exercises (Lopez, 2006, p. 1). The teacher had created her own materials using animal images from the IWB picture ‘gallery’, which is a depository of various images, games and so on built into the native IWB software. For the second activity, two rows of animal images were positioned on the IWB, again with the written vocabulary of each animal below. In this activity, the teacher used the white-out effect to hide the written vocabulary below so the learners had no auditory or textual support. As a whole-class activity, learners were asked to say the name of the animal in Welsh using the correct pronunciation, and if they were correct, the individual learner used the IWB rubber to remove the white-out effect and reveal the written word (Figure 1.2). These activities used the IWB tools to practise vocabulary in a variety of progressive ways as the audio and textual clues had been removed. Using the white-out effect to hide the text was intended to capture the attention of all the learners, particularly those with mild/moderate learning difficulties, and motivate them to participate in the activity as the correct answer allowed them access to the IWB, which was perceived as a reward. Similarly, another

Figure 1.2 Activity 2

38

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

rationale for using the rubber tool to reveal the image was to allow the learner with fine motor skill difficulties to participate in the activity as using the tool did not require formal writing, nor did the tool require motor precision as only the white area could be removed from the IWB. The third activity (Figure 1.3) was created by the teacher to reinforce the vocabulary, and again utilized animal images from the IWB ‘gallery’, as well as the spotlight tool. The spotlight tool was used to zoom in and reveal only a small section of the image for the learners to guess as a whole class. One individual volunteer was required to move the spotlight around the image to reveal different parts of the animal’s body as a clue, while the other learners tried to guess what the animal was in Welsh. This was repeated a few times with different images and different individuals moving the spotlight tool. This activity was a variant of Activity 2, but with only the use of an image as a clue to the vocabulary. The spotlight tool was used as an alternative to ensure the learning process did not become repetitive to all learners, and to ensure that the learners with mild/moderate learning difficulties had been sufficiently exposed to reinforcing the new information (i.e. vocabulary) prior to progressing to more complex ideas. Similar to the use of the rubber tool, the spotlight tool requires minimal fine motor skill precision, so it allowed all learners the opportunity to participate in the activity and, perhaps more importantly, physically interact with the IWB. Subsequent to the revision of vocabulary and practising the correct pronunciation, the fourth activity (Figure 1.4) was designed to allow the

Figure 1.3 Activity 3

THE IWB FOR LEARNERS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

39

Figure 1.4 Activity 4

learners to use their vocabulary in short phrases. The teacher created a table on the IWB flipchart with name (enw in Welsh) and images of a dog, cat and rabbit on the top row. The teacher asked individual learners to come to the IWB and ask another learner what animals they had as pets using the phrase, ‘Do you have a . . .?’ (In Welsh: ‘Oes . . . gyda ti?’). The other learner was required to respond in Welsh by using the phrases ‘Yes, I do have a . . .’ or ‘No, I do not have a . . .’. The learner at the IWB had to listen to the response and then use the pen tool to fill in the table by writing the name of the learner they had asked and putting a tick or cross underneath the images of animals to represent their answers. While the pen tool requires greater fine motor skills, the avoidance of formal writing and use of symbols rather than elongated sentences allowed all learners to participate. To model the activity, the teacher completed the first row of answers, and then subsequent learners were given the opportunity to use the IWB and complete the activity. Modelling the activity (both the teacher and other learners) was regarded by the teachers as being particularly important for learners with mild/moderate learning difficulties, to help comprehend the more complex information prior to completing the next task independently with another learner. Once the activity had been completed, the learners were asked to sit in pairs and practise asking and answering the same questions with minimal teacher assistance. The final activity (Figure 1.5) of the lesson was based on assessing the learners’ understanding of the key vocabulary. Once again, the teacher designed her own activity using the IWB tools to create a whole-class game.

40

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

Figure 1.5 Activity 5

The class were split into two teams, and took it in turns to move the green and red squares that were hiding either the written vocabulary or the images for different animals. The aim of the game was to try to match the text with the associated image by guessing which squares to move, and required them to remember the vocabulary for different types of animals. If incorrectly matched, the squares were put back to cover the pictures or text. Turn-taking was considered an important social skill for personal development, particularly for learners with mild/moderate learning difficulties, and potentially enhanced independence. The images were the same ones that had been used throughout the lesson, to ensure consistency and in particular so that learners with mild/ moderate learning difficulties could make the association between the images and the vocabulary they had learnt throughout the lesson. The teacher facilitated the activity by ensuring that learners both within and across the two teams were turn-taking and kept score for every correct match. By allowing the learners to interact with the IWB, the teacher assessed whether learners understood the vocabulary used in the lesson.

An evaluation of the lesson When the lesson had been implemented, the teacher was given a videorecording of the lesson to evaluate. Once the teacher had had sufficient time to watch and reflect on their lesson, a VSR interview took place. This allowed the teacher to self-evaluate the use of the IWB to support language learning

THE IWB FOR LEARNERS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

41

for their learners, specifically those with SEN. VSR interviews are increasingly becoming regarded as a valuable research method as they allow the researcher to identify, provoke and explore participants’ thinking, and they are a popular method for research relating to second language acquisition (Gass & Mackey, 2000). Four themes emerged from the interview data that reflected ways in which the teacher felt the lesson helped to support all learners, in particular those learners with mild/moderate learning difficulties and difficulties with fine motor skills: multimodality, the versatility of IWB tools, increased levels of interactivity and an ability to model activities.

Multimodality One of the most pertinent themes that resonated throughout the interview data was the use of multiple modes, in particular the teacher’s perception of their ability to engage all the learners in the classroom. The teacher stated the importance of including multimodality throughout the different activities as a way of engaging all learners in what could ordinarily be considered a monotonous task. This is a key concern related to learning vocabulary among young learners. Cameron (2001) contends that using different games or activities helps to recycle the vocabulary and ensure it is deeply embedded into the young learners’ memory. This also supports the views of Higgins et al. (2007) that the IWB offers the teacher a variety of ways of presenting information (i.e. in this case vocabulary). The teacher stated that: The different aspects that you can have like the visual, textual and sound are so useful for children with different learning needs, particularly those with different learning difficulties. [The IWB] offers lots of colours to look at and there is a lot of animation that engages them. If you just use text all the time like on a [normal] whiteboard it isn’t as stimulating for the children. Using images, text and sound, which can all be used on the IWB, is really useful to teach something like vocabulary, which can be boring, in different ways. The teacher argued that, for learners with learning difficulties, it was important to rehearse the vocabulary as this would provide a foundation for learning more complex tasks, such as using the vocabulary to create well-constructed Welsh sentences. While using the multimodal features, particularly in the first activity, was perceived by the teacher to improve attention and engagement, it is important to highlight that such use did not necessarily improve physical interaction between the learners with SEN and the IWB at this stage.

42

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

Versatility of IWB tools The teacher also highlighted the importance and usefulness of using a range of IWB tools for one learning objective, i.e. memorizing the vocabulary for different animals. She asserted that: the variety of tools that the IWB offers allows repetition of language without the lesson becoming boring. The children are still focused and enthused and motivated because of the variety of tools and they are easy for the children to use themselves. Using the rubber and spotlight tool provided an interesting way to rehearse the vocabulary without the textual and auditory clues provided in the first activity. The teacher felt that using such tools, and more specifically allowing the learners to use the tools themselves, almost distracted them from the challenge of the activity. All learners, including those with SEN, were keen to participate by interacting with the IWB. The teacher noted that: When I watched the video back, I was actually surprised by the learners who were volunteering to come out for [Activities 2 and 3]. I noticed a range of learners with different abilities were engaging and even participating successfully in the activity. This doesn’t usually happen so this was really encouraging for me to watch and I think it’s just the children like using the different IWB tools.

Increased levels of interaction The teacher also reflected on the specific use of the drag and drop tool, as mentioned by Meiring and Norman (2005) as a means of increasing participation among the learners with SEN. Particularly for learners with fine motor coordination difficulties, the teacher noted that the ability to use the pen tool to make symbols or drag and drop images or text in the last activity allowed participation and increased levels of ‘technical interactivity’ (Mercer et al., 2010) with the IWB. The teacher explained: The drag and drop feature is a good way for the children to record answers rather than recording formally if they’ve got issues with motor control. They can respond and interact in the lesson by dragging and dropping . . . they can read perfectly but do struggle with their written work. Rather than being required to formally write answers using pen and paper, learners with fine motor skill difficulties could physically interact and

THE IWB FOR LEARNERS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

43

engage in the activity without feeling excluded as a direct result of their difficulties.

Ability to model activities Despite the teacher’s reflections on how well individual learners with SEN engaged and participated in the various vocabulary-related activities, the teacher also reflected on the usefulness of conducting whole-class activities. In this particular lesson, all IWB activities were whole-class, rather than group or individual work (although individuals were physically interacting with the IWB). The main reason the teacher decided to conduct activities appropriate for the whole class related to the IWB’s ability to model the requirements of an activity. This was particularly true of Activity 4, where at first the teacher and then subsequent learners demonstrated the activity. The teacher stated that: I feel [the IWB is] a great demonstration tool because it supports the lower ability children as you are able to model things for them and set the expectation of what you expect the children to do and how to complete a particular activity. The teacher noted that, in Activity 4, there was a tendency for higher ability learners to dominate, and this could have potentially discouraged lower ability learners as the task was more complicated. However, the teacher reflected that, in the last activity, all learners had the opportunity to interact in the plenary game, and her role as facilitator ensured that overdomination by higher ability learners did not occur. The teacher stated: I get the higher ability helping and showing others what to do but the only problem with that is the issue of over-powering because they [learners with SEN] think ‘oh no I don’t know what to do’ and they stand back. However as a teacher I am more inclined to be at the board with them, making sure they are taking turns which I think worked well. When asked whether the teacher used same- or mixed-ability groups at the IWB, they stated that they would often prefer to create mixed-ability groups so that learners could support each other and learn through interaction, so becoming more independent at completing tasks. This could arguably mean that the IWB has the potential to foster socially mediated learning, through learner interaction (Cobb-Morocco, 2001), and even pedagogical interactivity (Mercer et al., 2010).

44

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

Reflection on how the IWB-based activities could be further developed As the teacher found the VSR activity useful, the same process could also be used with the learners. With advances in small, high-definition video cameras, it would be easy to record activities within the lesson not only as a means of assessment, but also to be played back on the IWB (or other ICT devices) as the basis for peer-assessment or class discussion. If the teacher added a webcam to the IWB computer, it would also be possible for learners to try out their sentences with other classes in the school or elsewhere (including native speakers of the same age in Welsh-medium schools). These could again be recorded for the same purposes as above. In addition, as many of the learners were confident users of the IWB, they could also be allowed to develop their own IWB resources (such as the matching game) for future lessons using new vocabulary. The font size of these (and all classroom resources) could also be adjusted if required by pupils with visual impairments. In addition, as another teacher interviewed stated: There are children who struggle to see things with a certain colour background, find it difficult to read black on white, so it is a very simple thing to do by changing it to a yellow background with a blue writing on the top which helps them to see visually and for them to read without the others needing to know why it has been done.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have explored only some of the ways in which the IWB can be used to enhance the inclusion of pupils with SEN in mainstream second language classrooms. A range of features, such as multimodality, the versatility of IWB tools, greater interactivity and the ability of the IWB to model activities, have been identified as being helpful. This list should not, however, be regarded as definitive, and it is suggested that the more the teacher is able to identify the affordances the IWB can offer, the more the process of inclusion can be even further enhanced. As one teacher said: I think because you can use/there are so many tools and so many aspects to the IWB, especially the IWB software, it just engages them. Somebody that couldn’t write can come up and use the IWB irrelevant of what they can and can’t do; they have access to learning through using the IWB.

THE IWB FOR LEARNERS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

45

Due to the small-scale nature of the case study, further research is necessary to increase the reliability of such findings. It is also important to consider that, due to the scope of SEN and associated learner needs, future research needs to focus not only on how specific technologies, such as the IWBs, can support inclusion and learners with SEN, but also on particular needs. It is difficult to ascertain whether there are particular features of ICT or IWBs that can cater for specific needs, or whether there are various features that have the potential to support a variety of individualized needs within second language learning. Further research into this area could provide practitioners with a more in-depth insight into how the IWB could be integrated and support learners with SEN in second language learning contexts.

Reflective Questions After reading Interpreting the study: analysing your reading 1

How was the IWB exploited to support the inclusion of pupils with SEN in this chapter?

2 The authors pointed out that the lesson was designed in accordance with the principles of task-based language learning. What are the specific features of the lesson that enable us to say that it is task-based? 3 When using technologies (such as IWBs) with SEN learners, teachers need to pay special attention to ways of facilitating access to the technology. What special requirements were mentioned in this chapter? Can you think of other technical questions that teachers should ask themselves in order to support the inclusion of SEN learners in IWB-based lessons? For instance: Do I need heightadjustable interactive whiteboards for learners in wheelchairs to access them? Are learners likely to be disturbed by their shadows in front of the image?

Going further: relating the findings to your own teaching context 4 Have you ever worked with learners with SEN? Do you currently have learners with SEN in any of your classes? If so, has this chapter provided you with new ideas on how to cater for their needs? Which ones? 5 Which examples of IWB use provided in the chapter refer specifically to the needs of SEN language learners, and which ones refer to the needs of language learners in general?

46

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

6 Some educationists are critical of the use of IWB with learners with SEN because of the constant exposure to a variety of media leading to cognitive overload or disorientation. What other points of criticism can you find in the literature?

Making it happen: hands-on activities 7

Look back at the table you created at the start of the chapter, and consider the examples of IWB use provided in the chapter. Design an IWB-supported language lesson (with an accompanying IWB file and extra resources) in which the needs of specific SEN learners (e.g. those with dyslexia or autism) are catered for. You should include an extra column in your lesson plan explaining how the IWB could support you in achieving these goals.

8 The participating teacher in this chapter reflected on her practice through a VSR interview. As pointed out in the chapter, this is a research method that allows the researcher to identify, provoke and explore participants’ thinking (Gass & Mackey, 2000). In this method, teachers watch the videotape of a lesson together with the investigator and answer questions, but also take the initiative in identifying aspects of their teaching they want to comment on. Video-record one of your IWB-supported lessons and watch it together with a colleague. Ask your colleague to ask questions and make comments as you watch it. What have you learnt from watching yourself on tape?

Note 1

2

While there are varying definitions of ‘learning difficulties’, the most widely used working definition is a reduced ability to comprehend complex or new information and a lowered ability to manage independently that has a long-term hindrance on development (World Health Organization, 1996; Department of Health, 2001). Please note the children in the figures are not necessarily the children with SEN. The photographs were taken in a mainstream classroom which include children with and without SEN. The purpose of the figures are to illustrate the activities and content on the IWB.

References Beauchamp, G. and Parkinson, J. (2005), ‘Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard’. School Science Review, 86(316), 97–103.

THE IWB FOR LEARNERS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

47

Beeland, W. D. (2002), ‘Student engagement, visual learning and technology: can interactive whiteboards help?’ Action Research Exchange, 1, (1). Available online at: http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/beeland_am.pdf [accessed 15 May 2011]. Bell, M. A. (2002), ‘Why use an interactive whiteboard? A baker’s dozen reasons!’ Available online at http://teachers.net/gazette/JAN02 [accessed 1 February 2013]. Bines, H. (2000), ‘Inclusive standards? Current developments in policy for special educational needs in England and Wales’. Oxford Review of Education, 26, (1), 21–33. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (2003a), ‘What the research says about ICT supporting special educational needs (SEN) and inclusion’. Available online at: http://www.mmiweb.org.uk/publications/ict/ Research_SEN.pdf [accessed 5 February 2013]. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (2003b), ‘What the research says about interactive whiteboards’. Available online at: www.becta. org.uk/research [accessed 5 February 2013]. Cameron, L. (2001), Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapelle, C. A. (2001), Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for Teaching, Testing and Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapelle, C. A. (2009), ‘The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning’. Modern Language Journal, 93, 741–53. Cobb-Morocco, C. (2001), ‘Teaching for understanding with students with disabilities: new directions for research on access to the general education curriculum’. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, (1), 5–13. Conole, G. and Dyke, M. (2004), ‘What are the affordances of information and communication technologies?’ ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 12, (2), 113–24. Cutrim Schmid, E. and Van Hazebrouck, S. (2010), ‘The interactive whiteboard as a digital hub’. Praxis Fremdsprachenunterricht, 4, 12–15. Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (2008), ‘Welsh language development’. Available online at: http://wales.gov.uk/topics/ educationandskills/earlyyearshome/foundation_phase/ foundationphasepractitioners/welshlanguage/?lang=en [accessed 2 March 2013]. Department for Education and Skills (2002), ‘Languages for all: languages for life’. Available online at: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/ eOrderingDownload/DfESLanguagesStrategy.pdf [accessed 18 February 2013]. Department of Health (2001), ‘Valuing people: a new strategy for learning disability for the 21st century’. Available online at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. uk/20090430155237/http://www.publications.doh.gov.uk/learningdisabilities/ access/ [accessed 20 February 2013]. Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G. and Gallanaugh, F. (2004), Inclusion and Pupil Achievement. London: DfES. Egerton, J., Cook, J. and Stambolis, C. (2009), ‘Developing a model of pedagogical best practice in the use of interactive whiteboards for children with autism and complex learning disabilities: implications for initial teacher training’. Training

48

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

and Development Agency for Schools R&D Award (SEN) 2. Available online at: http://sunfield.org.uk/pdf/TDA_project.pdf [accessed 1 February 2013]. Ellis, R. (1998), ‘The evaluation of communicative tasks’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Materials Development on Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 217–38. Estyn (2013), Welsh Language Development in the Foundation Phase. Cardiff: Estyn. Freire, A. P., Linhalis, F., Bianchini, S. L., Fortes, R. P. M. and Pimentel, M. (2010), ‘Revealing the whiteboard to bling students: an inclusive approach to provide mediation in synchronous e-learning activities’. Computers and Education, 54, 866–76. Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A. (2000), Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gillen, J., Kleine Staarman, J., Littleton, K., Mercer, N. and Twiner, A. (2007), ‘A ‘learning revolution’? Investigating pedagogic practices around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms’. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, (3), 243–56. Greeno, J. G. (1994), ‘Gibson’s affordances’. Psychological Review, 101, 336–42. Hammond, M. (2010), ‘What is an affordance and can it help us understand the use of ICT in education?’ Education and Information Technology, 15, 205–17. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., and Miller, D. (2007), ‘Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards’. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, (3), 213–25. Hillier, E., Beauchamp, G. and Whyte, S. (2013), ‘A study of self-efficacy in the use of interactive whiteboards across educational settings: a European perspective from the iTILT project’. Educational Futures, 5, (2), 3–23. Jones, C. A. (2004), Supporting Inclusion in the Early Years. London: SAGE Kennewell, S. (2001), ‘Interactive whiteboards – yet another solution looking for a problem to solve?’ Information Technology in Teacher Education, 39, 3–6. Kennewell, S. (2004), Meeting the Standards in Using ICT in the Secondary School. London: Routledge Falmer. Lantolf, J. P. (2000), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levy, P. (2002), ‘Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: a developmental study’. Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. Available online at: http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/ wboards.htm [accessed 15 May 2011]. Lopez, O. (2006), ‘Lighting the flame of learning for English language learners through the use of interactive whiteboard technology (White paper)’. Round Rock, TX: Corporation for Public School Education K16. McClaskey, K. and Welch, R. (2009), ‘Whiteboards engage autistic students’. Learning and Leading with Technology. Available online at: http://www. learningandleading-digital.com/learning_leading/200902/?pg=32#pg32 [accessed 3 November 2012]. McColl, H. (2005), ‘Foreign language learning and inclusion: who? why? what? – how?’ Support for Learning, 20, (3), 103–8. McColl, H. (2000), Modern Languages for All. London: David Fulton. Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L. and Krupa, K. (2007), ‘Impact of SMART board technology: an investigation of sight word reading and observational learning’. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorder, 37, 1869–82. Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L. and Thompson, K. L. (2008), ‘Comparison of the

THE IWB FOR LEARNERS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

49

effects of smart board technology and flash card instruction on sight word recognition and observational learning’. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23, (1), 34–46. Meiring, L. and Norman, N. (2005), ‘How can ICT contribute to the learning of foreign languages by pupils with SEN’. Support for Learning, 20, (3), 129–34. Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., and Warwick, P. (2010), ‘Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue’. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19, (2), 195–209. Miller, D. and D. Glover (2002), ‘The interactive whiteboard as a force for pedagogic change: the experience of five elementary schools in an English authority’. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2, (1), 5–19. Office for Standards in Education (2004), Special Educational Needs and Disability: Towards Inclusive Schools. Ofsted Departmental Report. HMSO; London. Pea, R. D. (1997), ‘Distributed intelligence and designs of education’, in G. Salomon, (ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47–87. Smith, F., Hardman, F. and Higgins, S. (2006), ‘The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies’. British Educational Research Journal, 32, (3), 443–57. Somekh, B., Haldane, M., Jones, K., Lewin, C., Steadman, S., Scrimshaw, P. and Woodrow, D. (2007), Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project – Summary Report. Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University. Stevens, C. (2004), ‘Information and communication technology, special educational needs and schools: a historical perspective of UK government initiatives’, in L. Florian and J. Hegarty (eds), ICT And Special Educational Needs: A Tool for Inclusion. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Teacher Training Agency (1998), The Use of ICT in Subject Teaching: Expected Outcomes for Teachers. London: Teacher Training Agency & Department for Education. Thomas, G. and Vaughan, M. (2004), Inclusive Education: Reading and Reflections. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Tomlinson, B. (2003), ‘Materials evaluation’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum, pp. 16–36. Warnock, M. (2010), ‘Special educational needs: a new look’, in L. Terzi, M. Warnock and B. Norwich (eds), Special Educational Needs: A New Look. London: Continuum, pp. 11–45. Welsh Assembly Government (2003), Iaith Pawb: A National Action Plan for a Bilingual Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Assembly Government (2004), Special Educational Needs Code of Practice for Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. Wilson, D. R. (1999), ‘Accessible authenticity: Internet resources for foreign language learners having difficulty’. IALL Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 31, (1/2), 59–65. Woolfson, L. M. (2011), Educational Psychology: The Impact of Psychological Research on Education. London: Pearson. World Health Organization (1996), ICD-10 Guide for Mental Retardation. Geneva: World Health Organization. Xin, J. F. and Sutman, F. X. (2011), ‘Using the smart board in teaching social stories to students with autism’. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43, (4), 18–24.

2 A task-based approach to video communication with the IWB: a French–German primary EFL class exchange Shona Whyte and Euline Cutrim Schmid

Reflective Questions Before reading 1 Consider the case of young foreign language (FL) learners in your country. Under what conditions are children exposed to a second language: regular or after-school classes; specialist or generalist teachers; with goals concerning language awareness or language acquisition? What are the particular needs of young learners? 2 What is your experience with video communication (VC)? Do you have private and/or professional experience with applications such as Skype or Adobe Connect? What potential advantages and drawbacks of this means of communication with young FL learners can you list?

Introduction ur understanding of how second languages are learned has greatly evolved over the past few decades, and most applied linguists would now

O 50

A TASK-BASED APPROACH TO VIDEO COMMUNICATION

51

agree that learner-centred, constructivist approaches, where the target language is used in meaningful interaction, are most effective (Long, 1996; Gass 1997, 2003; Ellis, 1999; Nunan, 2004). In many countries, however, the classroom teaching of FLs has not kept pace with these developments, with the result that grammar-based methods involving the rote learning of decontextualized language elements are still common. De Bot (2007, p. 276) notes that young learners in particular may be ‘spoiled or discouraged by FLs as academic subjects’ and so recommends ‘The Sneaky Way,’ whereby language is learned ‘as a by-product of some other activity, not as the central focus of the subject matter’. But what ‘other activity’ should be envisaged? Task-based language teaching (TBLT), with its emphasis on the use of the target language to complete purposeful activities with actual outcomes, provides a useful framework for motivating, and leads to effective classroom language learning. The present study explores the pedagogical potential of TBLT by investigating live communication in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) between young learners with different first languages. It exploits the technical affordances of the synchronous use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and the interactive whiteboard (IWB) to create a class exchange between primary school learners in France and Germany using live audio/ video and screen-sharing. The goal is to investigate the type of interaction in which young learners can engage in these situations.

Background to the study Young learners in state school settings Teaching FLs to young learners in state school settings involves a number of unique challenges. First, primary school beginners by definition start with highly restricted resources and capabilities. Their knowledge of vocabulary and grammar is very circumscribed, and they also find it difficult to mobilize these resources. They generally lack communication strategies and, of course, cannot take advantage of written input to support learning. Their attentional capacities are also limited (Cameron, 2003). In addition, although state FL curricula in many European countries now espouse notional-functional and/or communicative language teaching approaches, in accordance with the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe, 2001), actual classroom implementations often still reflect behaviourist practices based on a structural syllabus (Gruson, 2010; Favaro, 2011; Whyte, 2011; Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012).

52

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

These factors can restrict young learners’ opportunities for using the target language during FL sessions. They can lead teachers to reduce their expectations, and to confine FL activities to exercises such as reproducing scripted question–answer routines and memorizing lexical sets. Such activities do not capitalize on young learners’ capacities for learning by doing (Bruner, 1990), nor do they offer opportunities for negotiation of meaning and output, which are key to interactionist approaches to second language acquisition (Gass, 1997). They may also appear artificial to young learners who already share a first language, and thus affect motivation and learning outcomes. These teaching practices generally stem from teachers’ beliefs about FL learning, and may be reinforced by teachers’ lack of confidence in their own FL proficiency and limited methodological awareness, as well as by a dearth of alternative teaching materials and activities (Favaro, 2011; Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012). In this context, task-based approaches to teaching and learning can offer a number of benefits.

Task-based language teaching As described in the introduction to the current volume, TBLT is a meaningbased approach to second language learning and teaching that engages learners in real communication and prepares them ‘to deal with the wide range of language encounters they may experience in the real world’ (Willis & Willis, 2007, p. 136). The basic principles include an emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language, the inclusion of the learner’s own personal experiences, and the linking of classroom language learning with language use outside the classroom (Nunan, 2004). In work with young learners, Cameron (2003) notes a number of demands placed on learners involved in tasks, including cognitive, language and interactional demands. These demands need to be balanced by support to help learners complete the task, support that can be provided through learning materials or by the teacher. A good balance leads to language development: ‘the difference between demands and support creates the space for growth and produces opportunities for learning’ (Cameron, 2003, p. 27). However, the same author notes a particular challenge for TBLT in primary schools. Tasks should be authentic and set in a real-life context, yet most children do not use the target language outside the classroom and so ‘their outside lives do not readily provide a needs-related syllabus for foreign language learning’ (Cameron, 2003, p. 30). The most obvious solution is offered by international exchange, where learners need the target language to communicate with others who do not share their first language. And interactive technologies can provide a platform for this type of communication.

A TASK-BASED APPROACH TO VIDEO COMMUNICATION

53

VC for teaching and learning languages Live VC might appear to be the most suitable form of CMC for young FL learners. As already suggested, written exchanges pose problems, and asynchronous communication (e.g. exchanging pre-recorded audio or video messages) can be frustrating (Camilleri et al., 2000). On the other hand, live oral communication with visual support may prove motivating (Pritchard et al., 2010; Favaro, 2011, 2012; Macrory et al., 2012a,b) while also increasing ‘the level of authenticity in classroom practices and content’ (O’Dowd, 2010, p. 5). It can offer access to peer or expert interlocutors who do not share the learners’ first language (Gruson, 2010; Pritchard et al., 2010; Favaro, 2011; Gruson & Barnes, 2012a,b). VC can also support authentic tasks based on genuine communicative intent and real gaps in knowledge or opinion (Favaro, 2011; Macrory et al., 2012a,b). While offering a sheltered environment for target language practice (O’Dowd, 2010), it also has at least the potential for encouraging learner autonomy (cf. the Montgomery–Le Sanquer project – Arnold et al., 2002; Comber et al., 2004; Le Bian, 2007, 2010). The following sections review research in this area.

Types of VC VC links can be set up using three main types of technology (Jauregi & Bañados, 2008): (a) video-conferencing proper, which requires special equipment on each side connected via a video link; (b) video-calling or video chat, using desktop software or an internet browser (e.g. Skype or Google Hangouts); and (c) web conferencing, with either proprietary software (e.g. Adobe Connect, Elluminate) or free tools (e.g. BigBlueButton), which include features such as screen-sharing with whiteboard annotation and polling for virtual classes and webinars. Since the affordances of all three technologies are comparable, the umbrella term video communication is used in this paper to refer to video-conferencing, video-calling or chat, and/or web conferencing. A VC link can be exploited in a variety of pedagogical formats. It can be used to gain access to remote expertise, where, for example, classroom learners watch a teacher via live video (Macédo Rouet, 2009, 2010; Pritchard et al., 2010), or an instructor conducts tutoring sessions via a video link (Guichon & Nicolaev, 2011). VC can also enable class-to-class exchange (Favaro, 2011, 2012; Whyte, 2011; Macrory et al., 2012a,b), which may involve whole-class or small-group interaction (Jauregi & Bañados, 2008; Gruson, 2010; Gruson & Barnes, 2012a,b). It can also permit more informal learner-to-learner interaction, such as the extracurricular one-on-one VideoPal link set up in an early French–English bilingual exchange (Comber et al., 2004; Le Bian, 2007, 2010).

54

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

VC is also compatible with a broad range of pedagogical activities. Teachers may give instructional presentations using a teacher-centred transmission model (Macédo-Rouet, 2009; Pritchard et al., 2010) or organize whole-class activities such as songs, games and stories, which are common in nontechnological settings (Whyte, 2011). VC also allows TBLT, involving the exchange of information and opinion using polls, information-gap and discussion tasks (Gruson, 2010; Favaro, 2011; Guichon & Nicolaev, 2011). Another option is free conversation in small groups or one on one, often as an add-on or unplanned adjunct to more structured pedagogical activities (Le Bian, 2007, 2010; Favaro, 2011). But what does research on VC activities using different formats with young primary FL learners reveal?

Previous studies of VC with young FL learners A small body of studies of VC for FL teaching and learning with young learners, often based on national or European projects, has recently emerged. Following Comber et al. (2004), the use of VC in these initiatives can be categorized as: familiarization, which broadly corresponds to pilot or experimental uses; substitution, or replacement of traditional curriculum delivery by videoconferencing; and enhancement, in which VC activities are designed to enrich existing teaching. Two studies of VC for primary FL have used the technology for access to expertise, using VC technology as a substitute for conventional classroom FL teaching. Pritchard et al. (2010) report on research conducted during the European project MustLearnIT, which focused on using ICT to bring specialized instruction to remote schools by linking classes to teachers or classes in more central locations. Some schools engaged in live communication between classes using an online whiteboard to resolve problems caused by geographical distance. Others linked specialist teachers with primary classes to address a ‘shortage of teachers with primary [modern foreign language] expertise’ (Pritchard et al., 2010, p. 210); secondary school language teachers taught 20-minute VC sessions at a distance using flashcards and PowerPoint, while the class teacher, who was present with the pupils, facilitated learner participation and modelled appropriate learner behaviour. Materials were developed and shared with the class teacher before VC sessions and reused by this teacher in follow-up sessions. The objective was to design a sustainable model to develop primary FL delivery, and indeed the authors claim that ‘this model helped to train the primary school teachers both in language and in teaching methodology’ (Pritchard et al., 2010, p. 216). In another project set up under the French national 1000 Videoconferences project (Plan 1000 visioconférences), to allow geographically remote classes

A TASK-BASED APPROACH TO VIDEO COMMUNICATION

55

access to experienced FL teachers, Whyte (2011) investigated French–French tandem classes. Four pairs of novice–expert teachers conducted whole-class language sessions with two EFL classes linked by video-conferencing equipment via an IWB. Research into participant perspectives showed that the project provided a goal for FL learning and thus improved motivation among pupils and teachers, while an analysis of VC activities showed rather restricted opportunities for unplanned learner-to-learner interaction. A more common type of VC project for primary FL teaching involves classto-class exchanges where learners interact in groups. Favaro (2011, 2012) investigated the effect on learners’ motivation of video-conferencing between two English–Italian tandem classes (aged 9–11 years). The two tandem classes conducted surveys of their partner classes via one-on-one or small-group exchanges on Skype; one tandem used both languages, while the other used only English. In spite of a number of technical problems, teacher and learner self-report data indicated higher than usual participation and attention. A similar format was adopted in other studies in the French 1000 Videoconferences scheme. Gruson (2010) compared a collaborative oral task with French primary pupils aged 9–11 years in an ordinary EFL session and during a bilingual French–English VC exchange. The information-gap task required learners to identify one monster in a series of pictures with questions like ‘Has your monster got two noses?’ and was conducted in small groups of four or five pupils. As in the Italian project, this study highlighted technical difficulties related to sound and image quality (the placing and orientation of cameras and microphones), as well as pedagogical issues related to a ‘reciprocal didactic contract’ (contrat de réciprocité; Gruson, 2010, p. 420), or ‘reciprocity contract’ (Gruson & Barnes, 2012a, p. 83), which was established for the tandem partnership and imposed equal second (target) language opportunities for both classes in each VC session. Gruson’s analysis of transcripts of VC interaction shows how this constraint led to frequent teacher intervention regarding the language learners should use, interrupting learner– learner communication. A subsequent bilingual French–English project involved 9–11-year-olds who played a problem-solving task in groups via video-conferencing. The task was based on the game Cluedo, and oral contributions again alternated between French and English to allow all learners to produce and hear their target language. Here again, the authors noted problems with the role of the teacher, one of whose frequent echoing of learner contributions ‘prevented the students from interacting directly and the French students from getting spontaneous feedback from their partners’ (Gruson & Barnes, 2012a, p. 87). Perhaps the most ambitious primary FL VC project to date is TechnologicallyEnhanced Language Learning Pedagogy, a 2-year Comenius project that involved three universities in the UK, France and Spain working with two

56

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

primary schools in each country (Macrory, 2010; Macrory et al., 2012a,b). Primary FL learners of French and English aged 8–11 years were involved in video web communication using tasks embedded in a common curriculum initially designed by generalist class teachers in the three countries. The VC sessions were supported with resource materials on a dedicated learning platform, and by trainee teachers and researchers. The primary learners in this project appeared to be both motivated and relaxed about VC exchanges – ‘when we do the video-conferences if we get stuck the teachers help us and then it gets easier’ – although the researchers also noted ‘a desire for less structured exchanges: ‘with a script it’s like you’re doing a little play’ (Macrory et al., 2012a, pp. 441–2). This finding encouraged the project team to develop resources to teach and evaluate communication strategies aimed at supporting more spontaneous, unplanned interaction between learners. Interestingly, a much earlier, small-scale VC project (Arnold et al., 2002), which might be classified as a familiarization exchange (Comber et al., 2004), is the one that allowed learners the greatest freedom to communicate. In this French–English bilingual exchange, groups of four French and four English primary learners conducted 20-minute daily sessions during their lunch break, asking general questions about each other (on age, family, pets, etc.), using ‘a recording sheet to enter details of the interviewee, which also served as a useful prompt’ (Arnold et al., 2002, p. 43; see also Comber et al., 2004).

Constraints and challenges in VC teaching The research conducted on the projects described in the previous section highlights a number of difficulties inherent in VC-based language teaching, ranging from practical considerations to pedagogical and institutional constraints. First, many studies showed technical problems with sound and image quality, particularly in early projects using less advanced videoconferencing equipment and slower connections, or in more recent studies using browser-based set-ups for video chat. The optimal positioning of cameras and microphones is often difficult to achieve and has far-reaching consequences for interactional opportunities, increasing what Moore (1993) has referred to as ‘transactional distance’ (see Gruson, 2010). Establishing and maintaining effective partnerships is also problematic in VC studies (Favaro, 2012), in common with other forms of telecollaboration (O’Dowd, 2010). In terms of pedagogy, previous VC research suggests that one-off familiarization sessions are less effective than longer term projects (Comber et al., 2004), and this implies a need to integrate VC sessions into language teaching units, and indeed the FL curriculum (Pritchard et al., 2010; Macrory et al., 2012a). Research also shows tensions between VC and non-VC classroom practices, which can be observed at the level of planning and

A TASK-BASED APPROACH TO VIDEO COMMUNICATION

57

implementation. While most participants value ‘the opportunity this technology offers . . . to develop the communication strategies integral to authentic, purposeful and spontaneous communication’ (Macrory et al., 2012a, p. 443), this opportunity is not always fully exploited. This may be due to participant configuration: in whole-class VC sessions, there may be too many learners to allow any kind of sustained, meaningful interaction (Whyte, 2011). It may also be related to considerations of linguistic content: in bilingual tandems, pupils act as native-speaking experts as well as FL learners, limiting the time available for FL interaction, and also requiring teacher intervention to enforce particular rules of engagement (Comber et al., 2004; Gruson, 2010; Gruson & Barnes, 2012a). O’Dowd (2010, p. 4) welcomes a newer form of telecollaboration that ‘no longer reifies the native speaker model as the goal of foreign language learning’, and some of the studies above use or recommend English as a lingua franca (Gruson & Barnes, 2012a; Macrory et al., 2012a). However, even in monolingual exchanges, numerous studies underline the limitations placed on spontaneous learner-to-learner interaction by teacher behaviour, both at the planning stages and during VC sessions. Learners are often invited to reproduce ‘practised routines’ (Comber et al., 2004), and ‘teacher mediation’ is very frequent (Whyte, 2011; Gruson & Barnes, 2012a; Macrory et al. 2012a). This mediation can take the form of imposing classroom norms for nontechnological contexts in VC sessions. Teachers may design somewhat artificial tasks by imposing a language rule on a non-verbal activity, as in the Cluedo game described earlier: in order to make the students practise their listening and speaking skills more thoroughly instead of just showing and looking at cards, both teachers agreed on making the students answer the ‘suggestions’ orally (Gruson & Barnes, 2012a). In their study of adult learners, Guichon and Nicolaev (2011, p. 73, translated from the French by the first author) found the most effective learner–learner interactions in the most natural activities: Our study indicates that the less learners are required to conform to a fictional role or imaginary situation, but on the contrary draw on personal experience to complete a task designed to have shared consequences for participants, the greater their involvement. In this way, the learner’s role as interlocutor is complemented by the pedagogical role adopted by the teacher, and each role is influenced by the type of interaction in which the participants are involved and by the expectations and motivations of each. The teachers’ role as mediator may also involve the repetition of learner utterances or an insistence on full sentences, as they would in noncommunicative practice sessions, preventing their learners from interacting

58

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

directly and freely. Other forms of teacher mediation derive directly from the VC context, which many teachers and indeed trainers feel requires careful orchestration (Macedo-Rouet, 2010; Whyte 2011). Indeed, teachers may consider it necessary for them to control all turns in VC interactions – ‘now you speak . . . now you speak’ – as this teacher’s reaction to the less structured VideoPal exchange reveals: I can supervise both ends because I’m only there for communication purposes. If the communication breaks down because they can’t understand each other, I have to chip in and help out but I don’t actually say: ‘Now you speak . . . now you speak’, they do it on their own. (Comber et al., 2004, p. 13) This overview of the VC literature highlights a number of difficulties that make this kind of live communication challenging for both language learners and teachers. Technical issues remain, because – in spite of continually improving technology – outside specific funded projects, teachers often have little time, training and technical support to prepare and run VC sessions. Constraints also arise with the integration of VC into the curriculum, as many of the studies discussed in this section reveal. In practical terms, for example, teachers may hesitate to invest too heavily in plans for a tandem project that may fail to come to fruition, or may be reluctant to give up target language time for bilingual exchanges. Pedagogically, too, transitions need to be negotiated from classroom norms for traditional language classes to patterns of participation in VC sessions, particularly with respect to the role of the teacher. A number of studies point to an interest among both teachers and young learners for less teacher mediation and fewer memorized routines, although exactly how this can be achieved remains an open question. The present study seeks to explore a new avenue for supporting live communication between young beginners by investigating the potential of VC with interactive screensharing. At stake, of course, is the quality of real-time interaction that may be elicited from young learners engaged in VC exchanges with remote partners.

Research questions The present exploratory study extends the focus of VC research to the design and implementation of language learning activities in exchanges supported by IWB tools and features. It asks the following: ●

How can an IWB support VC exchange between remote partners involving young learners?

A TASK-BASED APPROACH TO VIDEO COMMUNICATION

●

What types of materials, activities and teaching techniques seem to promote effective learner–learner exchanges?

●

What light is shed on this communicative situation by teachers’ and learners’ views?

59

The following section describes the particular teaching context and data collection procedures used to answer these questions.

The present study Teaching context The present paper involves two classes of primary school EFL learners in France and Germany who used a VC connection established via proprietary IWB software to implement task-based activities that were video-recorded for the purposes of the study. In the following, the participants, classroom organization and data collection procedures are described in turn.

Participants Teachers The teachers in the study were both generalist primary teachers who taught a general primary curriculum including all the main areas of instruction in addition to EFL. The French teacher (Teacher F) had more than 20 years of classroom experience and was particularly motivated to teach FL, being bilingual in French and Spanish (a heritage Spanish-speaker) and a graduate of an applied languages course. Although not an information and communication technology (ICT) enthusiast, she can be described as technologically fluent; when she volunteered for a VC project in FLs, her classroom was equipped with an IWB, which she had used in teaching all subjects on a daily basis for the previous 3 years. Teacher F had experience of projects using ICT for FL, having created a tandem language teaching programme with a VC component with a colleague in another local primary school (cf. Whyte, 2011). Given her professional goal of establishing video-conference connections with English-speaking classes, she had already participated in a number of local EFL teaching, training and research projects (e.g. the local implementation of national video-conferencing programme, an academy-wide Comenius exchange and local training initiatives, as well as a European project on the IWB in language teaching). The German teacher (Teacher G) was a generalist primary school teacher with specialized training in EFL and 5 years’ teaching experience. She also had

60

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

supervisory responsibilities for pre-service teachers on internship in her school. Her participation in the project was voluntary, and was motivated by a personal interest in advancing her own teaching skills with respect to IWB technology and new media in general. At the time of the project, her level of IWB technology expertise was relatively low, as she had limited access to technology and technology training. This was also her first experience with video-conferencing in a school context. Unlike Teacher F, however, Teacher G had extensive recent pre-service training in FL classroom teaching and learning, and employed communicative and TBLT activities in her classes on a theory-driven basis. Each teacher was invited to participate in the project by one of the authors of the study, both of whom were researchers and teacher trainers who were in contact with these teachers via institutional professional development networks. Both researchers collaborated with the teachers in the design and preparation of the teaching activities and materials for the VC project.

Learners The French learners were aged 8–9 years, and were in their third of 5 years of formal primary schooling (CE2 in French), and their first year of EFL. The 25 pupils had a single 90-minute session of English per week; this generally included a whole-class teacher-led presentation and carousel activities, which involved groups rotating around an IWB activity, individual listening exercises and worksheets, followed by a short closing plenary session. The German learners were aged 7–8 years, and were in their second of 4 years of formal primary schooling and their second year of EFL. The 25 pupils had two 45-minute sessions of English per week, involving communicative activities such as storytelling, singing, arts and crafts, role plays and games. Sessions were conducted only in English, with the goal of developing oral skills; the curriculum does not include reading and writing until the following year.

Classroom organization The French side of the VC session was conducted in Teacher F’s regular classroom, where an IWB is installed on the front wall of the regular classroom. Learners engaged in carousel work with three groups and three activities: a web-based game on the IWB, a listening activity with individual mp3 players followed by a worksheet, and the VC activity. The VC connection was established not via the IWB but rather using a smaller, free-standing, interactive pen display, which allows the manipulation of a computer using a stylus for viewing by a small group. This display was employed to take advantage of proprietary software used to establish the VC connection, and also to foster small-group rather than whole-class interaction. A webcam, microphone and speakers were connected to the computer and placed on or near the display.

A TASK-BASED APPROACH TO VIDEO COMMUNICATION

61

Figure 2.1 French class set-up Figure 2.1 shows a French learner at the display, where she could manipulate objects on the IWB page using the stylus. The video window in the top lefthand corner allowed her to see her remote partner as well as a small thumbnail of her own camera feed. The other French pupils in her group sat on the floor beside the display. The teacher was behind her on the right with the other pupils, and for the purposes of the study, the first author, in her role as researcher, controlled a camera from the left. The German class used an IWB installed in the school’s computer room, with the same proprietary software enabling live screen-sharing with video and audio channels via a dedicated server and visible to the whole class on the IWB display. A webcam, microphone and speakers were connected to the computer and placed on the teacher’s desk a short distance from the IWB on the left (out of shot). Figure 2.2 shows one German learner at the IWB and her group on chairs behind her; the rest of the class were at desks behind the active group, with worksheets to record the French learners’ information. Later, they worked independently on computers against the other walls of the room. For the purposes of data collection, the second author was also present, as well as a camera operator. This set-up therefore allowed users to view simultaneously an IWB file page and a video inset with both the remote and local camera feeds, and to manipulate elements on the page. In the German classroom, the VC session was run as a whole-class activity with rotating individual activity at the IWB or camera observed by the other learners. In France, the VC activity was one of

62

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

Figure 2.2 German class set-up

three separate carousel activities, observed only by the small group at the interactive display. This set-up provided: ●

high-quality video and audio with no lag, enabling live oral communication with visual cues;

●

two-way screen-sharing, allowing one set of interlocutors to track the other’s actions in real time;

●

the display and movement of shapes, images and text, as well as the opportunity for longhand writing via the IWB software.

Introduction task The researchers collaborated with the two teachers on an initial familiarization VC session in which learners introduced themselves to the other class. This task involved small-group activity at the screen supported by a previously prepared IWB file with the learners’ names and photos. An example page is shown in Figure 2.3. Each set of learners introduced themselves in turn, while a learner in the remote class dragged and dropped image and text elements onto the IWB page to construct an identity card for each speaker. In separate follow-up sessions in each class, learners pooled their knowledge to identify the pupils in a large photograph of the whole exchange class.

A TASK-BASED APPROACH TO VIDEO COMMUNICATION

Figure 2.3 IWB page supporting VC task

63

64

TEACHING LANGUAGES WITH TECHNOLOGY

The technological and pedagogical affordances of this learning context thus offered learners the opportunity to perform and observe authentic communicative activities in an environment that provided support for speaking and listening.

Data collection The VC session was video-recorded in each classroom, and followed by participant interviews. The French pupils responded to a seven-item questionnaire, which then formed the basis of two focus group interviews conducted after the follow-up session, 1 week after the VC session. All the pupils present participated, and the interviews were audio- and videorecorded. The German pupils were also interviewed in small groups 2 weeks after the VC session, and the recordings were transcribed for analysis. The French teacher took part in a 40-minute interview 3 weeks after the VC session (audio-recorded and transcribed), using a nine-item questionnaire that the German teacher completed via email. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants, and pseudonyms are used in all the examples. Data for the present study thus include: ●

films of the VC session from each side of the exchange;

●

transcriptions of interviews with teachers and learners;

●

the IWB files, both the initial versions prepared before the session, and the modified copies from after the interaction (see Figure 2.3).

Analysis of the VC session The teachers planned for four groups of four to six children to interact during the session, and prepared eight separate IWB pages using the same template with learners’ names and photos, one to support speaking and listening for each side in each group. In this way, each learner would have the opportunity to speak to a learner in the remote class, and to listen to another learner speak. In the event, each interaction took rather longer than the hour-long session planned, and although timetables were rearranged at both ends of the exchange to extend the session by 40 minutes, there was not enough time for all learners to participate as planned. Since the pupils who were not participating directly were offered alternative activities, this arrangement did not seem to create any frustration. In the French class, 11 of the 15 learners initially present took a turn in the exchange: all took a listening role (four more

A TASK-BASED APPROACH TO VIDEO COMMUNICATION

65

than once), and eight were also able to speak. In the German class, 16 learners spoke, while eight listened; four learners were able to do both. This section analyses three episodes selected from the beginning, middle and end of the session, tracing the performances of the learners who had the most opportunities to participate and their partners, and corresponding in each case to the full interaction between the two learners. Although this approach of course produces a selective sample of the full session, it has the advantages of (a) tracing development both across the whole session and for individual learners, and (b) avoiding the additional subjectivity introduced by, for example, the selection of critical incidents. For the analysis, each episode was extracted from the video files recorded in both classes and edited to the same starting point. The Transcriptions software program was then used to transcribe the participants’ speech and actions, and to time-stamp each turn, according to the transcription conventions described in Whyte (2011). Finally, the transcripts were combined as shown in Example 1, in order to display in a single timeline: (a) the VC interaction in the centre column, and in-class conversation in (b) the speaker’s class (left column) and (c) the listener’s (right column).1 Contributions that seemed to be intended as in-class comments but which could be heard in the remote classroom appear in both columns. Data were interpreted from an interactionist standpoint, which Chapelle (2005) has identified as a useful framework for evaluating the effectiveness of computer-assisted language learning. The interaction hypothesis of second language acquistition views the mobilization of linguistic resources during communicative exchanges as the driving force behind language acquisition. For Long (1996, p. 418), the process of negotiating meaning ‘provok[es] adjustments to linguistic form, conversational structure, message content, or all three, until an acceptable level of understanding is achieved’. According to Swain (1995, cited in Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p. 244), interaction provides opportunities for learners to notice problems and ‘see the limits of their second language ability and the need to find better ways to express their meaning’. It also allows for immediate feedback ‘at precisely the point when it will be most useful’ (Skehan, 1998, p. 20). The episodes presented in this study are thus analysed in terms of the interactional opportunities they appear to afford learners, since these are expected to foster language learning.

Example 1: Getting started In the very first exchange, the French learner Isabelle introduces herself to the German learner Anita. The exchange takes 2 minutes, and Isabelle takes nine turns. For six of these turns, she is prompted verbally in French or through

66

13 14 15 16  17   18 19   20  21  22 23  24 25  26 27  28

5 6  7  8 9   10 11 12 

line 1 2 3 4  

&)&-

=@@4@A4AE5@=

77("
"(&
&")$88
'
=@@4@A4@E5I=

"!(!)
=@@4@A4@A5E=

=@@4@A4@F5H=


&
=@@4@@4CG5B= &&

%);'
"!(
=@@4@@4CI5D= ('
("
!

&$$&"
("
=@@4@@4DB5E= 77 "*'
'
!
&"!(
"
 &88 !;
$'
$)&
$$&"
("
=@@4@@4DD5@= (
*")'
*")'
&&.
')&

#(
=@@4@@4DE5E= &$(
("!
$&!"
=@@4@@4DH5H=

=@@4@@4DH5I=

"!(!)

=@@4@@4CC5G=

"&'
()
$&'
"&(
=@@4@@4BC5I= 77("
"(&
&")$88
'
=@@4@@4BD5H=

=@@4@@4BI5@=

"!
(
" "
*'6-
=@@4@@4AH5D=


"&'
()
" !'

=@@4@@4A@5I= )
'
"!")&

%)
"'
*")'
('
"!")&
%)!
 
!


Speaking class

VC channel &-
&;'

=@@4@@4@A5F=
'"
!"+
+
!
'(&(
=@@4@@4@B5G=

(;'
'(&(
+(
(
&'(
&!

=@@4@@4@F5I=

-
&(-
'
!
&)&-
=@@4@A4AB5C=

 ! 77
'('
!
&'
$"("88
=@@4@A4BC5H=

'

    

*&-
""
=@@4@A4@F5G= 222
=@@4@A4AA5I= &)&-
=@@4@A4AF5C= (
(
$()&
!
(!
(
2
=@@4@A4B@5I= ""
=@@4@A4BC5H=

!!'(
)
22
=@@4@@4EA5F=

'
=@@4@@4DH5H=

72228
=@@4@@4CF5C= 77 "*'
+-88

=@@4@@4CG5H= 
&
=@@4@@4CH5D=

  



 !
=@@4@@4BH5C= 77)'
 !
("
"&88
=@@4@@4BI5H= 77""'
(

&")!
-
"&88
+'
'"

()!2
=@@4@@4CD5@=

+";'
"!
("
=@@4@@4AH5H= )
 !
!
-")
'(&(
=@@4@@4AI5D= 77 "*'

"+&88
=@@4@@4BD5F=

=@@4@@4BD5F= 77'('
!
&
(
 &88 '
=@@4@@4BG5@=

77'(!'
)$
!
"*'
'88
=@@4@@4AA5G=
&(
=@@4@@4AA5D=

Listening class

 GR  !

    ! 

 

' -
! 
'
'
=@@4@@4E@5H=   ! 77'('
! 
!
&'
!("
$"'("!88
=@@4@A4@@5G=

 ! 77'('
$!
( $(3
&'
!("
$"'("!
!
!&'88
=@@4@@4DF5E=

' 


&
=@@4@@4CE5A=

' "
-
! 
'
'
=@@4@@4BH5I=

' "
=@@4@@4BC5B=

 

Example_1

67



43 44 & 45 46 47 48 49 50

39 40 41  42 

38

37

35 36

32 33 34 

31

29 30

77" '
"&+&88
=@@4@B4AB5F=

"&'
((!

!"!
;'(
),
%)
&)'!(
(
%)
"!(
(
"

'
&!


-
-
=@@4@B4@E5I=

()
'

=@@4@B4@B5H=

9*("&-
'()&:

=@@4@B4@C5@=

&&-
=@@4@A4DB5C=

' -
-
=@@4@B4@G5D=

'

=@@4@B4@D5B=

Primary VC IWB

' 






!
=@@4@A4EC5B=  ! 77'('
"!
!
$"'("!'88
=@@4@B4@B5G=

 ! 77'('
!) &
!
$"'("!'88
=@@4@A4DH5H=

' 

!!
=@@4@A4D@5B=

 & '  &-  &

 !





   ! 77'('
"!(
!
&'
!("
$"'("!88
=@@4@A4CG5F= 

 !
22
!

=@@4@B4BA5B= 77" '
("
 &88 77!'
&'
("
*")!(&8
=@@4@B4CF5D= &-
=@@4@B4D@5C= 77" '
("
"&88
=@@4@B4DD5C= '

=@@4@B4DB5F= "
=@@4@B4DD5C=

77()&!'
+-88
=@@4@B4AB5A=

22
=@@4@A4EA5I=

&&-
=@@4@A4DC5H=

!
&)&-
=@@4@A4BF5B= &)&-
=@@4@A4BF5F=