COURSE DESIGN FOR PRE-SERVICE SECONDARY TEACHERS:Collaboration and reflection in a short, multilingual CALL course

EuroCALL 2014 Groningen, the Netherlands 21 August 2014

SHONA WHYTE UNIVERSITÉ NICE SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS FRANCE

COURSE DESIGN FOR PRE-SERVICE SECONDARY TEACHERS:Collaboration and reflection in a short, multilingual CALL course

EuroCALL 2014 Groningen, the Netherlands August 2014

DESIGNING COURSES FOR FUTURE TEACHING CONTEXTS

novice language teachers need

1. techno-pedagogical competences(what is useful for language learning and how to provide it)

2. ongoing professional development(how to evolve/keep up as a practicing teacher)

1. Techno-pedagogical competences

Guichon & Hauck, 2011, in Whyte, 2014

2. Ongoing professional development: new difficulties

understanding of technologies for specific language learning and teaching objectives

identifying, accessing, evaluating and adapting teaching and learning resources

becoming an autonomous, reflective practitioner

Katz & Gandel, 2008; Whyte, 2014

“the opposition between the ivory towers of traditional

universities, originally built by a gatekeeping elite to preserve

scarce academic knowledge, and today’s internet information

‘cloud’: superabundant resources, easily accessible,

often ephemeral, and of uncertain provenance”

DESIGNING COURSES FOR FUTURE TEACHING CONTEXTS

institutional constraints may favour

!• stand-alone CALL modules(CALL preparation as bolt-on to other teacher preparation) !

• competency-based approaches to generic ICT (ICT for education in general)

novice language teachers need

1. techno-pedagogical competences(what is useful for language learning and how to provide it)

2. ongoing professional development(how to evolve/keep up as a practicing teacher)

Ongoing teacher education research: 1 Pedagogical beliefs and ICT efficacy

84% of pre-service EFL teachers believed imitation plays a key role in language learning, and L1 transfer is a major source of L2 error; almost half thought immediate error correction is essential

this group showed low self-efficacy for using technology both before and after ICT course, in spite of perceived learning gains

Whyte, 2011

integrated approach to teacher education

Whyte, 2012, 2014

Ongoing teacher education research: 2 Beliefs about technology for language teaching

Whyte, 2012, 2014

Ongoing teacher education research: 2 Beliefs about technology for language teaching

what activities do these pre-service teachers design?

PRESENT STUDY

COURSE

• 4 three-hour sessions over 3 months

• pre-service secondary MFL

• blended course (weebly.com)

• wiki, blog, social media

• F2F and online collaboration

• final reflective paper

PARTICIPANTS

German Spanish Italian Total

Enrolled 6 11 5 22

Submitted assignments 4 9 0 13

Volunteered for study 4 5 0 9

Published on social media

3 4 0 7

• 3 German teachers (all German L1)

• 4 Spanish teachers (2 French, 2 Spanish speakers)

• mid 20s to mid 30s

• second year Master’s programme: university courses plus classroom experience

• learners 11-17 years (lower and upper secondary schools)

QUESTIONS

How do these teachers see the role of technology in the secondary FL classroom!

1. in general terms? !

2. in terms of the teaching activities they implement?

DATA

!

collaborative websites

teaching activity report

reflective blogs

social media participation

final reflective paper

1. General viewsfirst session activity: pros and cons of technology integration in language classroomfinal activity: reflection on own technology orientation (technophile or technophobe?) !

2. Teaching activity: describe and evaluate class activity involving technology

RESULTS

Motivation Learning Authenticity Efficiency Institution Colleagues

10 14% 14 19% 9 12% 24 33% 7 10% 9 12%

RATIONALE FOR TECHNOLOGY USE

{teacher/teaching

{learner/learning

Prop

ortio

n of

arg

umen

ts ad

vanc

ed

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Learning Authenticity Efficiency Institution Colleagues

12%10%

33%

12%

19%

RATIONALE FOR TECHNOLOGY USE

Motivation Learning Authenticity Efficiency Institution Colleagues

Initial 8 13% 13 21% 8 13% 21 34% 5 8% 6 10%

Final 2 17% 1 8% 1 8% 3 25% 2 17% 3 25%

RATIONALE FOR TECHNOLOGY USE

Task Level Programme

AK Christmas e-cards 6e L2 culture vocabulary

CK slide presentations (Berlin historical sites) 1e L2 culture

DU written report on cultural theme (Latin American festivals) 1e L2 culture

LA language practice on cultural topic (Mexican artist) 3e art history (CLIL),

L2 culture, grammar

LB first lesson slides 3e classroom routine

LB gapfill song 3e L2 cultureLB IWB improvisation 3e edtech trial

SF recipe 3e translation task L2 vocabulary

SR personal reaction to topical theme (Spanish abortion law) 1e L2 culture,

grammarSR gapfill song 4e L2 culture

TOTAL 10

TASK DESIGN

Task Activities Tools

AK e-cards copying Christmas wishes sharing and group correction

L2 e-card generator, PDF

CK slide presentations collaborative online research computer lab, text files, ppt

DU written report online research, writing PDF, class blog

LA language practice listening, writing, brainstorming; vocabulary ppt, mindmapping

LB first lesson listening ppt

LB gapfill song listen and fill gaps, order elements paper handout

LB IWB improvisation brainstorming, writing IWB

SF recipe translate favourite French recipe into German

computer lab, L2 image website, ppt

SR personal reaction to topical theme (Spanish abortion

reading authentic text, writing reaction using specific structures (subjunctive)

online newspaper, music video

SR gapfill song listening, grammar L2 culture

TOTAL 10 language exercises

DISCUSSION

–DU

“I’m quite technophile and I think that integrating technology in my

classes is very important, first because it makes it easier to manage school activities but mainly because

we’re talking about learning a modern language and technologies

contribute to use of the oral language by individual learners and as

a class, and in reducing pupils’ inhibitions by communicating in the

language.”–LA

“There are official orientations to be

respected, [the minister for education] advocates the use of

technology in class and for me this integration

is important.”

why technology?

–SR

“Using technologies correctly means that we must be aware that use of technology is not an

end in itself. The use of technology should permit us to work on a certain language

competence and help the pupils to resolve a problem within the task-oriented framework of

the CER”

“I learned many things (creation and use of a blog, social networks, IWB etc); nevertheless I would have liked a framework that was stricter and clearer so

that I could perhaps have learned more”

implementing technology

–SR

I will try to take online courses […] which will be indispensable because training in schools or with

colleagues will not necessarily be available when we need them, and after all it’s by using technologies that we can best understand how they work and what they

are useful for.

ongoing professional development

–LB

“This week I used the IWB in the multimedia lab in my school. It was an Interwrite board. My

knowledge was pretty thin, since you only showed me yesterday in

class for a few minutes. My pupils were very happy to go to the multimedia lab. I told them that I didn’t know the IWB very

well but that we would learn together. They were wonderful and showed me things they had learned with their technology

teacher.”

“So I asked them each to think of something nice to say to their best friend and then write the phrases or words on the IWB. Then

we converted some sentences. At the end of

the session we all signed at the foot of the page and I printed the document as a

souvenir. We were all delighted with the lesson!”

other approaches

–CK

“I noticed during lessons that all the pupils were not equally good with Powerpoint. I was also

nervous that some would come to class without a USB key or deliberately waste time opening files. So I asked them to send me a text file with titles, keywords and photos for their presentations. I

explained that I would make the slides myself and would just insert their information.”

practical concerns

–CK

Yes, I used technology in class, I defined a pedagogical purpose and prepared the sessions

ahead of time. But I don’t think I explained the goal properly to the pupils. They believed, I think, that

they had to give presentations for the sake of giving presentations. Because that’s what we do in school

and because their teacher needed a grade.

But they weren’t “social actors,” they didn’t get excited about a place in Berlin, and didn’t have

enough time to turn in a substantial piece of work. I also think I “failed” in my aim of making them

more autonomous by doing a large part of their work myself.

reflection

–SR

We save time in spite of appearances. For example it took me more than a month to

become comfortable with Weebly to write my blog, but there’s a knack to it, as they say. Now I

know that everything I produce will be published and therefore archived, and this will really save time in the future. In the following years I will be able to reuse my sources and

resources, with perhaps only a slight update, and not always even that.

efficiency

CONCLUSIONS

initial focus on language learning affordances of technology, and efficiency gains; later appreciation of teacher collaboration and interdisciplinary dimension

preference for teaching units based on highly structured and culturally oriented approach to L2 teaching (official programmes)

pedagogical exercises preferred to authentic tasks; activities designed to practice language structures and vocabulary and provide L2 samples for evaluation

some experimentation with technology and pedagogical reflection

–CK

In the future I would like to learn more about creating websites and take an advanced course on word-processing. But more importantly, I would

like to have concrete examples of technology integration in class. In my view this is what is lacking the most at university, but it’s the most

important element if we really want to “bring digital technology” into teaching

TECHNO-PEDAGOGICAL COMPETENCES

–SR

I generally get in touch with the technology coordinator in each school, but quite honestly there isn’t always one, and when there are, these are not always the colleagues who are most committed or

up to date.

On the other hand, I have often exchanged with colleagues who were not official coordinators but

just technophiles like myself. We form a little community within schools ready to expand through

meeting face to face or online.

ONGOING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

REFERENCES

Guichon, N., & Hauck, M. (2011). Teacher education research in CALL and CMC: more in demand than ever. ReCALL, 23(3), 187-199.

Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (Eds.). (2006). Teacher education in CALL. Benjamins.

Katz, R. N., & Gandel, P. B. (2008). The tower, the cloud, and posterity. In Katz, R. (Ed.). The Tower and the cloud, Educase.

Whyte, S. (2014). Bridging gaps : Using social media to develop techno-pedagogical competences in pre-service language teacher education. Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité – Cahiers de l’APLIUT, 33(2):143-169. PDF

Whyte, S. (2012). Curation and social networking for pre-service language teacher development. EuroCALL Teacher Education SIG Symposium. Gothenburg.

Whyte, S. (2011). Pre-service teachers' views on technology for teaching and learning foreign languages. EUROCALL CMC & Teacher Education SIG Annual Workshop, Barcelona. PDF