Teaching practice in LSP and beyond

Benoît Guilbaud b.guilbaud@sussex.ac.uk

@benguilbaud

Discussions around two case-studies

Making discussion forums work

Case study #1

Context

25 final year undergraduates (C1)

English ⇢ French translation (L1 ⇢ L2)

September 2011 - March 2012

Weekly contributions to discussion forums

18 texts18 weeks

1 hour / weekcontact time

Weekly taskSharing part of the

homework on the forumsCommenting on one

another’s contributions Beno

The study

Collect student feedback on use of discussion forums for peer-feedback

Measure student engagement with discussion forums

Evaluate impact on performance (contributions / marks)

Evaluate quality of interactions on the forums

Methodology

3 feedback questionnaires assessing

expectations & satisfaction

pre / mid / post-study

quantitative + open questions

Section(2(–(Social(networking(sites(7(for!all!purposes!other!than!translation

2a.$Are$you$a$member$of$one$or$more$social$networking$sites$(Facebook,$Twitter,$Google+,$etc.)?$Which$one(s)?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2b.$If$you$answered$‘yes’$in$2a,$please$place$one$tick$per$line$in$the$following$table:

When using social networking sites (not

for translation purposes)

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very often Always

Not applicable / don’t know

I log in to my existing member account.

I read other members’ contributions and existing discussions.

I post contributions in response to other members’ activity.

I engage in longer discussions (more than 2 posts) with other members.

When another member has a question, I try and answer it.

Using$social$media$in$an$undergraduate$translation$class$–$a$case$studyPreliminary$questionnaire$X$Benoît$Guilbaud$X$2011

Methodology

Collection and analysis of

contributions to OADs (Online

Asynchronous Discussions) using

Murphy’s collaboration model (2004)

Findings

Feedback

September: “The platform could be useful”

Feedback

March: “The platform was useful”

“I think it works really well and is easy to access.”

“Working really well - maybe we could have a similar thing on other modules.”

“It would be useful to have it for other courses.”

“Very useful.”

Feedback

“Not enough students use it for it to be wholly effective. I think most students just

rely on the contributions of others.”

“It is just down to ourselves to make more of an effort this term, which I will attempt to do.”

Feedback

“Very useful. No improvements needed.”

Feedback from students who did not find the platform useful

“Make it more easily accessible - link on [VLE]?”

“I have tried to log in a few times but it won’t work so I gave up out of frustration!”

“No one really uses it so it’s not very useful. Maybe if you integrate it into the lesson.”

Engagement

Contributions per weekN

r of c

Week number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

IdealActual

Contributions per weekN

r of c

Week number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

IdealActual

Impact of (non)assessment

Impact of assessment on number of contributions

Guilbaud, 2012 McNeilly & Zhok, 2012

Level: BA Level: MA

Blended learning Distance learning

Not assessed Assessed (10% of unit)

Feedback mostly positive (92%) Feedback “overwhelmingly positive”

Average no. of contributionsper student per week = 0,27

Average no. of contributionsper student per week ≃1

Impact on student marks

Total number of contributions to forums0 15 30 45 60

Number of contributions to OADs vs average mark

Total number of contributions to forums0 15 30 45 60

Number of contributions to OADs vs average mark

Analysis of contributions

Murphy’s collaboration model(2004)

Murphy’s collaboration model (2004)

A Producing shared artefacts

B Building shared goals and purposes

C Co-constructing shared perspectives and meanings

P Accommodating or reflecting the perspectives of others

I Articulating individual perspectives

S Social presence

A Producing shared artefacts

B Building shared goals and purposes

C Co-constructing shared perspectives and meanings

P Accommodating or reflecting the perspectives of others

I Articulating individual perspectives

S Social presence

Distribution of contributions per category (% of total)

A Producing shared artefacts 0%

B Building shared goals and purposes 0%

C Co-constructing shared perspectives and meanings 33%

P Accommodating or reflecting the perspectives of others 2%

I Articulating individual perspectives 23%

S Social presence 41%

Articulating individual perspectives (I)

Summarising or reporting on content without reference to the perspectives of others (S)

Statement of personal opinion or beliefs making no reference

to perspectives of others (O)18%I

Accommodating or reflecting the perspectives of others (P)

A Coordinating perspectives (C) 1%

Introducing new perspectives (N) 0%C

P Indirectly disagreeing with challenging statements made by another participant (I) 1%

IDirectly disagreeing with challenging statements made by

another participant (D) 1%S

Co-constructing shared perspectives and meanings (C)

A Sharing advice (S) 0%

Responding to questions (R) 11%B

Provoking thought and discussion (P) 0%C

P Soliciting feedback (F) 9%

Posing rhetorical questions (Q) 0%I

Asking for clarification/ elaboration (A) 10%S Sharing information and resources (I) 4%

Picture by HckySo via flickr.com

Identified issues

Lack of a common goal

Little acknowledgement of perspectives of others

Near-absence of disagreements

50% of questions left unanswered

Near-absence of source referencing & sharing

Suggested criteria for evaluatingonline collaboration

!Work in progress

Input and social presence

Critical thinking and reflective practice

Contribution to common goal

Answering other users’ questions

Referencing and sharing of sources

Little acknowledgement of perspectives of others

Near-absence of disagreements

Lack of a common goal

50% of questions left unanswered

Near-absence of source referencing & sharing

Conclusions

Picture by ryancr via flickr.com

Sharing

Foster a culture of participation within the group

Promote sharing resources & crediting sources

Encourage challenging perspectives & reward initiative

State goals to be attained as a group rather than individually

Motivation

Correlation between contribution and performance difficult to establish

Impact of non-assessment on student engagement

Limitations

Students’ technical ability not to be overestimated

Picture by marc falardeau via flickr.com

Extend use of OADs to promote open learning

and beyond...

Promote participation

Train critically-competent and digitally-literate learners

Belshaw, D., 2011. What is digital literacy? A Pragmatic investigation. Doctoral thesis, Durham University. Available at http://neverendingthesis.com and http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/cgi/latest [accessed 28th March 2012].

Couros, A., 2011. Why networked learning matters. Education in a Changing Environment (ECE) 6th International Conference, Creativity and Engagement in Higher Education, 6-8 July 2011, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK.

McNeilly, E. & Zhok, A., 2012. The Online Discussion Board for Translation - An Undergraduate MFL Perspective for the Study of Italian and Russian. In: LLAS: 7th e-learning symposium. University of Southampton, 26-27 January 2012.

Mott, John., 2011. The End In Mind. www.jonmott.com [blog].

Murphy, E., 2004. Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. In: British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4) pp.421–431.

O’Reilly, T., 2005. Web 2.0. Exteme Interfaces, TTI Vanguard. Geneva, Switzerland 16 September 2005.

Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P. and Wheeler, D., 2008. The Good, the Bad and the Wiki: Evaluating Student Generated Content as a Collaborative Learning Tool. In: British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), pp.987-995.

Wheeler, S., 2012. Digital Pedagogy: Content is a Tyrant, Context is King. In: NAACE 2012 Annual Conference, 9 March 2012, Leicester, United Kingdom.

Any questions or comments?

Group activity

Group activity 1 (see handout)

In your groups, discuss the following questions and statements:

1. How important is student collaboration and why?

2. In which ways do you currently promote collaboration in your class?

3. Would you use/adapt the proposed model? If so, how?

4. Do you, or do you intend to you assess collaboration? If so, would you

use a setup such as the proposed one? How else would you do it?

Bring your own vocabulary

Case study #2

Sydney Uni CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Oh là là !

Context

Language for Specific Purposes: medical French - prevalence of lexicon

Y1&2 MBChB undergraduates / two academic years / 71 B2 students

Attempt to increase student engagement, motivation and collaboration

Draw on students’ specialist knowledge and clinical placement experience

Traditional vocabulary teaching(and maybe learning)

Better vocabulary learning

Vocab+++

What’s in it for…

•Increasing breadth of vocabulary easily and systematically

•Active participants in their learning process

•Collaboratively involved in content design

•Engage with outward-facing learning & OER production

•Reduces need for specialist knowledge

•Keeps students engaged outside of contact hours

•Increases class motivation•Saves time

Students Staff

GOOGLE DRIVE QUIZLET

Google Drive• Template list created by tutor for

each topic/fortnight

• Each student adds 5 words and their translations

• Content is checked, curated and completed by tutor

• Final list imported into web 2.0 vocab app Quizlet

• Students learn/revise list for formative test the following week

• Summative vocab test in final exam

Quizlet

Google Drive

QUIZLET

IOS ANDROID WINDOWS PHONEWEB

The study

•End-of-semester questionnaire

•53 open and closed questions

•44% respondents

18/06/2013 11:19Survey Results

of 14https://selectsurveys.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/PrintOverview.aspx?SurveyID=9lK34l83

1. Please enter your full name (Optional) (NB: all survey results will be anonymised entirely)

Total Respondents 14

(skipped this question) 15

2. Which of the following units were you enrolled on in 2012-13?

ResponseTotal

ResponsePercent Points Avg

Medical French level 1 7 35% n/a n/aMedical French level 2 9 45% n/a n/aBusiness French"further" level 4 20% n/a n/a

Total Respondents 20 100%

3. "I understand that my answers may be used and quoted anonymouly for the purpose of the present research study." Click hereto read more.

ResponseTotal

Yes 20 100% n/a n/aTotal Respondents 20

4. From which devices did you usually access Quizlet? Tick all answers that apply.

ResponseTotal

University PC 9 53% n/a n/aPersonalcomputer(includinglaptop)

17 100% n/a n/a

Smartphone 5 29% n/a n/aTablet 0 0% n/a n/aPrinted lists 1 6% n/a n/aOther, pleasespecify 0 0% n/a n/a

Total Respondents 17

5. From which device did you access Quizlet the most?

ResponseTotal

University PC 1 6% n/a n/aPersonal computer(including laptop) 14 82% n/a n/a

Smartphone 2 12% n/a n/aTablet 0 0% n/a n/aPrinted lists 0 0% n/a n/aOther (as specifiedabove) 0 0% n/a n/a

Total Respondents 17 100%

Quizlet survey 2013

Respondents: 29 displayed, 29 total Status: Closed

Launched Date: 05/06/2013 Closed Date: 16/06/2013

Findings

Vocabulary learning

“Quizlet was useful to my learning”

Very usefulUseful

NeutralUseless

Very useless

“I found that quizlet motivated me to revise vocabulary”

Strongly agree Agree NeutralDisagree Strongly disagree

Place of useVery often Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Public transports

University& library

Outdoors

Around campus

Length of revision session

AVERAGE MAX

40 mins 100 mins

Class-generated vocabulary lists

“Collaboratively creating vocabulary listsis a good way to encourage student engagement”

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

How important is it that students are included in the design of study materials?

Very importantImportant

NeutralUnimportant

Veryunimportant

Issues with class-generated listsoccurring “often”

Technical problems 4%

Late entries (delaying test revisions) 29%

Duplicate entries 21%

Inaccurate entries 29%

Irrelevant entries 34%

% of respondents agreeing

Issues with class-generated listsoccurring “often”

Technical problems 4%

Late entries (delaying test revisions) 29%

Duplicate entries 21%

Inaccurate entries 29%

Irrelevant entries 34%

% of respondents agreeing

Conclusions

Conclusions•Experience very positive overall

•High level of student engagement and satisfaction

•Several positive comments in unit satisfaction survey

•Summative test results show very effective learning

•System works best for individual words and short phrases

•Importance of thorough curation of contents by tutor

Comments

•“Provided there is appropriate oversight this is a fantastic resource.”

•“I will definitely continue to use Quizlet in the future. I have also started

using it to help me learn other areas of my medicine degree.”

•“Quizlet has revolutionised the way I learn vocabulary.”

References• Casserly, C.M., Smith, MS.S, 2008. Revolutionizing education through innovation: Can openness transform

teaching and learning? In: Iiyoshi, T. & Kumar V. (eds), 2008. The collective advancement of Eduction through Open Technology, Open Content and Open Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.

• Couros, A., 2011. Why networked learning matters. Education in a Changing Environment (ECE) 6th International Conference, Creativity and Engagement in Higher Education, 6-8 July 2011, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK.

• Craig, D.V., 2011. Encouraging Participatory Culture and Language Learning: Assisting ELLs in Becoming Part of the Digital Youth. In: TNTESOL Journal, 4(1) pp. 84-93.

• Kop, R., Hill, A., 2008. Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? In: International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3) [Online]. Accessible at: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/523 [accessed 27th June 2013].

• Martin, A., Madigan, D. (eds), 2006. Digital Literacies for Learning. London: Facet publishing.

• Nation, I.S.P., 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Applied Linguistics.

• Siemens, G., 2005. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. In: International journal instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1) [Online]. Accessible at: http://itdl.org/journal/jan_05/index.htm [accessed 27th June 2013].

Group activity

Group activity 2 (see handout)

In your groups, discuss the following questions and statements:

1. What is the place of vocabulary learning in LSP?

2. Can you cite examples of integration of mobile learning in language teaching?

Have you used it yourself?

3. Can you think of ways to expand or improve on the proposed setup?

4. Can you suggest different ways of encouraging the creation of student-

generated materials?

Thank you very much

Benoît Guilbaud b.guilbaud@sussex.ac.uk

@benguilbaud

Teaching practice in LSP and beyond

Education

BEYOND EFL TEACHING

Beyond Effective Teaching

Active Listening and Assertive Communication Style in LSP Teaching

LSP Report

Getting Beyond Tarzan: Teaching Africa and Teaching Diversity

Beyond Apps: Making Teaching & Learning Mobile

English Language Teaching Beyond Retirement

21st Century Teaching and Learning: Beyond the Rhetoric

The Influence of Teaching Beyond Standardized Test Scores

EFFECTIVE TEACHING in 2010 & beyond

Practice Teaching and Beyond… Professional Conduct and Deportment

Distance Learning Experience: Teaching the Thais and Beyond

Flexible Learning and Teaching: Looking Beyond the Binary

Corpus lsp

Presentación lsp

brosure lsp

Fördelningsteknik LSP

LSP storytellings

LSM: Overview & Applications · P2MP LSP Extensions for LSP-Ping draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping Proxy LSP Ping draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping Connectivity Verification for Multicast

Amplop LSP