Search results matching tags 'teaching' and 'teacher development'

The Twelve Days of Geekmas: Seven simple statements

Anonymous — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 14:24:39 GMT

On the seventh day of Geekmas, some blogger gave to me: seven simple statements

Welcome to the teflgeek Christmas celebration! Themed around the classic Christmas carol – but going backwards, mostly because it’s more like a countdown that way:

12 blogs worth clutching

11 tips for writing

10 tricks for reading

9 pretty pictures

8 talks worth watching

And seven simple statements with which to teach by: Be Consistent - Be Persistent - Be Buoyant - Be Diligent - Be Knowledgeable - Be Adaptable - Be Human.

Be consistent – we all like to know where and what the boundaries are, particularly when we’re young and we’re still having trouble figuring things like this out, but also when we’re older, because boundaries help set comfort levels. We feel safe when we know what to expect. So as a teacher, the lesson is simple. Either decide or negotiate the way you want the class to be – and stick to it.

Be persistent – by all means try out new behavioural routines, but give them time to work. The classes I’ve had most trouble with can usually be traced back to me thinking “Well that didn’t work, now what?” and trying something new every lesson. Don’t give up. Kids and teenagers in particular (but adults too) appreciate the perseverance. This isn’t true just for behavioural routines but applies to the learning process as well.

Be buoyant – you set the mood as a teacher and it’s important to remember that no matter how crap a day you’ve had, it’s not their fault! I’m not saying you should force yourself into a prozacian state of perpetual smiling – and if you’ve had a horrendous day you might find it useful to share that with the class, not necessarily in any great detail, but telling them that you’ve got a heavy cold or that you’re just having one of those days might help them lower their expectations and meet you half way. Generally though, I think that if you walk in with a smile and an attitude of being pleased to be there – then the learners will also meet you half way there too!

Be Diligent – and I say this as someone who yesterday found a piece of student homework (marked!) that had been sitting in the homework folder for almost five months. What I really mean here is make sure you live up to all the promises you make in class – from “I don’t know, I’ll look it up and let you know” to “Trust me – if you do this in the exam you’ll pass.”

Be Knowledgeable - we’re all fallible and there will always be things that we don’t know. It often comes as a shock to learners, the younger ones anyway, to find that you don’t know everything. After all – you’re a teacher! And as I mentioned earlier, there’s nothing wrong in admitting your ignorance. But if you plan to teach something, you should know about it beforehand. A salutory lesson well learnt from the CELTA was attempting to teach “must” and “have to” to an upper-intermediate group who clearly knew more about it than I did. ”Is it the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation?” asked one helpful student. ”Erm, must is must and have to is have to” said the confused trainee teacher (but I got better at it!). Know your stuff, or at least look it up beforehand!

Be Adaptable – it’s very easy to get stuck in an educational rut – particularly if you end up teaching the same sorts of classes all the time! If you do teach the same types of classes, you’ll probably have a fairly good idea of what works and what doesn’t and sometimes there can be a danger of constantly trying new things, so that no new thing ever has a chance to become an old thing. Stave off the boredom and experiment with something new – see what happens!

Be Human – when I was thinking about this post – this was the first one I thought of. Be Human. It sounds so simple and makes you think “How could I be anything else?” but as teachers we get cast into the roles that other people expect of us. Students can expect us to be the fount of all wisdom, the authority figure, the confidante. Other people (school management, colleagues, academic management, parents, curriculum writers, local and national governments) all have additional expectations and roles that they thrust upon us. Somewhere in all that, there is also the person that is you! Don’t forget to let them out!

That – for what it’s worth – is what I think! I don’t think it’s an exhaustive list, just seven simple statements to think about! I’d be very interested to hear what you think – and what your seven simple statements to teach by are! (NB – this isn’t a blog challenge, more of an invitational event…!)

The Twelve Days of Geekmas: Eight talks worth watching

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 14:10:42 GMT

On the eighth day of Geekmas, some blogger gave to me: eight talks worth watching

Welcome to the teflgeek Christmas celebration! Themed around the classic Christmas carol – but going backwards, mostly because it’s more like a countdown that way:

12 blogs worth clutching

11 tips for writing

10 tricks for reading

9 pretty pictures

and eight talks worth watching – these have all been selected from the great selection at TED.com, who’ve just announced the 2012 TED Prize winner: The City 2.0.

Obviously, other inspiring talk providers are available.

I’ve chosen these, because these are the talks that have tied into things I’ve been thinking about, inspired me in some way or have taken my thinking in new directions. They’re listed here in no particular order. So enjoy!

Richard Baraniuk talks about open-source learning (18.34) – an idea I think needs a bit more structure. See also Jason Renshaw’s posts on Open (Source) English.

Seth Priebatsch describes his dream of “building a game layer on top of the world” (12.23). Gamification is undoubtedly the next big thing and the gamification of education is already underway (see Sarah Smith-Robbins EDUCAUSE article). Seth lets us know how and why this could be done.

Erin Mckean (15.51) on lexicography and diving into the deep blue ocean of English. When she’s done, you’ll want to run off and hug your dictionary.

John Hunter on his “World Peace Game” (20.28). He initially talks about his background in teaching, his description of the game itself gets going from about 7 minutes in – it’s a remarkable and fantastic achievement!. For more info and for the video John refers to in his talk, check out “World Peace and other 4th grade achievements”

Jay Walker on “The World’s English Mania” (5.02). I remember the Li Yang thing from my time in China and met a couple of people who’d been at his rallies. His theory, as I recall, was essentially audiolingualism on a political rally type scale. The results, in my experience, were limited… Jay’s talk will be a shot in the arm for ELF supporters - and will no doubt help shoot down other theories.

Diana Laufenberg on How to learn? From mistakes (10.06). An elegant reminder that, ultimately, processing where we went wrong leads us on to bigger and better things.

Sir Ken Robinson, and this talk in particular, shouldn’t need any introduction (11.41). You’ve probably seen it already. If so, it’s worth watching again! If you haven’t….? Now would be a good time!

Taylor Mali’s word perfect summation of the teaching profession (3.03).

#ELTchat Summary: Dogme & Formal Assessment – the odd couple?

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:59:49 GMT

At first glance, the free-wheeling Dogme approach to teaching and formal assessment do not sit well together. Rather they would appear to occupy opposite ends of the spectrum, representing as they do either “winging it elevated to an art form” or rigid rows of desks and standardized testing models. The #eltchat on Wednesday 9^th November 2011 tried to find out whether opposites might in this case attract, or at the very least whether this odd couple could form some kind of lasting (if uneasy) relationship.

If you’d like to look at the original transcript for this chat, you can find it on the #ELTchat wiki.

Dogme, like the term formal assessment, means different things to different people. Dogme is NOT winging it (PatrickAndrews), rather it is teaching without materials but with preparation (the teacherjames). You prepare your classes but go with the flow (esolcourses). Experience and skill can help with this (Shaunwilden), though pre-service teachers can be trained (the teacherjames). You should always remember the students’ needs and wants and not impose dogme(bethcagnol), and it works well with higher levels (rliberni).

Formal Assessment could be achievement tests or proficiency tests (ljp2010), exams (rliberni) or portfolio based (esolcourses). In general, people seemed to view “formal” assessment as tests or exams imposed on the class from outside, either by school management (e.g. end of year tests), national exam boards or student needs (e.g. IELTS / FCE / TOEFL etc).

Whether the two can co-exist is difficult to answer. As ever with these things the answer would seem to be “it depends”. The means of assessment (the testing tools) and the criteria being assessed both affect things (esolcourses), though if the test is a good one, it shouldn’t matter how the learners get there (teflgeek). Tests, unfortunately, are not always very good (PatrickAndrews) and may require specific item knowledge that therefore must be covered in class (ShaunWilden), or development of a narrow range of skills (esolcourses). Is the problem therefore the testing method, not the teaching method (teflgeek)? The fact that most schools don’t actually test properly certainly doesn’t make it any easier (Shaunwilden).

A Portfolio based approach to testing would be a better fit with a dogme approach to teaching (PatrickAndrews) and has worked for some (esolcourses), but teachers don’t often get the choice of test type (rliberni). Most testing is very “one size fits all” and there is a need for less rigidity and a more learner-centred approach to testing (esolcourses), though commercial realities make this difficult to implement (rliberni). Overall, we seem to be stuck with whatever we’re given to work with / aim towards.

Given then, that formal testing is often prescriptive and imposed, how can we reconcile the destination with the journey? Test / exam preparation often requires using past papers and extensive practice of task types (AlexandraKouk). Task familiarization is important (rliberni) but there is a difference between test familiarization and test practice and most of the research suggests test practice only goes so far (teflgeek), which is why you might want to ditch the exam material as loads of past papers are unnecessary (ShaunWilden). Though for learners who want to get through a test (e.g. IELTS et al), learner-centred teaching must by definition involve the test (rliberni).

Dogme and the Exam/Test Class: Ideas for teaching, revision and background links & references:

shaunWilden: Teaching Unplugged pages 94 & 95 – section on teaching exam classes
chrisjw133: an idea from T unplugged adaptable for formal assessment – http://anoobsguidetotefl.blogspot.com/2011/11/test-preparation-activity-create-your.html
cybraryman1’s dogme page is here: http://cybraryman.com/dogme.html
theteacherjames: suggests taking a look at dalecoulter’s blog: http://languagemoments.wordpress.com/
ljp2010 suggests asking the students to make exam tasks based on topic areas they’re interested in.
chrisjw133 does the same but with interesting texts
englishraven reckons the best approach to exam prep is an unplugged one http://jasonrenshaw.typepad.com/jason_renshaws_web_log/2010/08/the-best-approach-to-exam-prep-is-an-unplugged-one.html
harrisonmike asks his students to do 1 minute “lightning talks” on familiar topics, rliberni recommends these for IELTS in particular!
teflgeek asks his to to a “just a minute relay race” http://teflgeek.net/2011/04/13/speaking-just-a-minute-relay-race/. Harrisonmike uses just a minute to help develop synonym knowledge, nickcherkas to develop discourse markers and fillers: http://thelinguophile.blogspot.com/2011/11/just-minute-discourse.html
rliberni suggests lateral thinking puzzles for question practice, speculation, conditionals and the like.
fionamau pins a copy of the target language to the wall and crosses it off as they go
rliberni uses podcasts, youtube and outside visits to soak up the real world
Theteacherjames asks his students to go back to their earlier written work and upgrade it as part of revision
teflgeek asks his learners what they want to revise
esolcourses gives learners links and follow on activities via the web for revision between classes
phil2wade suggests online blogs for self reflection and diagnosis. Fionamau prefers to graffiti her notebook…!

Hopefully all this is an accurate reflection of the discussion that took place – if you have anything to add – just let me know.

David Petrie (teflgeek)

What to do with Wikis – an ELT perspective

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:00:46 GMT

The wiki can be an often overlooked teacher tech tool. The piece below is (as you might be able to tell!) an adapted version of an assignment submitted for the Technology & Language Learning module of my MA.

This article provides an overview of the background and evolution of the wiki and examines some of the affordances generally associated with wikis. It situates wikis in a clear educational context, linking wikis to social constructivist views of learning. It examines how the implementation of integrated wiki use might best be approached and looks at how motivation of learners to fully engage in integrated wiki use might be maintained. It clarifies three modes of integrated wiki use, administrative, referential and developmental, and provides specific suggestions for these. It concludes that a general approach to integrated wiki use is necessary and that this should incorporate an implementation strategy, consider motivational factors and give ownership of the project to the participants.

Wikis have evolved as part of a general shift to Web 2.0 technologies, a move towards peer generated content on the internet. Essentially an open document on the internet which is available to all to access, edit and add to, the wiki’s capabilities bring it into line with social constructivist views of learning and make it an ideal collaborative teaching and learning tool for developing understanding and broadening topical knowledge.

There are however, a number of stages to consider in making integrated wiki use successful and to help with this an innovation implementation strategy is needed. Maintaining the motivation of learners to participate in integrating wiki use into classes and courses is a consideration.

Above all, a strategy for integrated wiki use must consider the purpose of the wiki – what learners and teachers will use the wiki for. Three modes of use can be arrived at: administrative, referential and developmental and a number of specific uses can be described within each mode.

While many writers have identified possibilities offered by wikis and demonstrated how, with specific contexts and goals, this may be achieved, a general approach has yet to be fully formulated. It is hoped that what follows goes some way towards that.

What is a Wiki?

A wiki is a webpage that any user can access, add to or edit (Konieczny 2007: 17), and it is this inherent simplicity that has popularised the wiki. One stimulus to the adoption of wiki technology has been Wikipedia. Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, the English language Wikipedia currently contains 3,249,129 articles (Wikipedia: Size of Wikipedia, April 2010). It is a communally generated and maintained reference work whichWales(2005) describes as “an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopaedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language”.

A number of sites, called “wiki farms”, offer wiki hosting. Different wiki farms offer wikis that have slightly different capabilities and user interfaces. Some wiki farms may charge a fee and while others may be free, they may require the wiki to host advertising.

Some of the different affordances to be aware of include:

Access Controls:

- who is allowed to see and write the content (Mindel & Verma 2006: 10). In a teaching wiki, it might be preferable to restrict those who can edit content. For those working with young learners, it might be preferable to restrict wiki access to those involved with the class. Although this removes the opportunity for interaction and collaboration with the wider community, it offers a greater degree of security and protection for young learners operating online.

User Interface:

- The majority of wikis employ a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) interface, similar to word processing software. Use of such an interface means users do not have to possess the same word processing software and means no knowledge of programming language is required (Konieczny 2007: 15).

Versioning

- Every saved change that is made to a wiki is stored; should users accidentally delete their work, or if there is disagreement over the content, the page can be reverted to an earlier state. (Mindel & Verma 2006: 6)

- Taking on the role of site administrator, teachers are able to track changes made to the wiki. Teachers can track the quantity and regularity of students’ participation (ibid), the quality of their participation and the exact changes they make. It would be useful, for example, to know if a learner is constantly mis-correcting verb tenses.

Synchronous Editing

- Wikis are designed to allow asynchronous editing, where users make changes to pages at different times to each other (ibid: 8). Problems may arise when two users attempt to make changes at the same time. Some wikis allow a page to be “locked” when one user is editing it, preventing others from editing it until the first user has finished. Teachers may therefore need to initially set different tasks on the wiki to allow learners time to create the content, before allowing learners to edit and comment on other generated content.

Situating wikis in an educational context

The change from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 has, in many ways, paralleled a shift in views on knowledge and learning. Seely Brown and Adler (2008: 3) mark a clear distinction between Cartesian views, or a hierarchical approach to knowledge and learning where knowledge is objectified and transferred from the expert (teacher) to the amateur (student); and views of social learning where understanding is jointly constructed as participants question each other and clarify areas of uncertainty.

Talandis (2008: 799-800) compares this distinction to the evolution in web technologies. The hierarchical approach to knowledge mirrors the set up of so-called Web 1.0 technology. The content of a website is published and available for viewing by anyone, but there is limited or no interaction between the receiver and publisher. The reader can find information, but cannot necessarily contribute or create content. This is similar in structure to the Cartesian approach to learning; it views knowledge more as a product, and demonstrates a similar attitude to transmission of knowledge.

By contrast, the Web 2.0 model features user generated content as the core concept. The website publisher provides the framework within which users publish the content. Thus content is collaboratively produced and socially negotiated. This mirrors social constructivist views of learning, where a group of people gather around a subject to share their knowledge and experience, collectively adding to the whole. This is what Lave and Wenger (in Talandis 2008: 799) describe as communities of practice.

Talandis diagrams these parallels as below:

By their very nature and design, wikis fit neatly into a social constructivist model by providing a space in which meaning or knowledge can be displayed and negotiated. In Web 2.0 terms, they provide “the architecture of participation” (O’Reilly in Wheeler et al. 2008: 990): a platform or structure in which users can collaboratively create or negotiate content.

It is important to differentiate between tasks that use wiki technology and integrated use of wikis into a class or course. Sharma & Barrett (2007: 123) describe the idea of a “branching story”. Learners create an open-ended story where each part of the story ends with choices that link to new pages in the wiki. The learners then create the next part of the story, once again providing choices for the reader to follow, and so on. This is an excellent example of a task that makes good use of wiki technology. It engages the learner in the roles of writer and reader, raises their awareness of an audience for their writing, provides an opportunity for creative and personal use of language and peer teaching in an editing mode. The teacher can follow an output-feedback model, supplying language as and when it is required, often to immediate communicative effect.

It is however, an example of a task that can be performed with a wiki and does not reflect integrated use. It fails to make full use of the collaborative power of wikis as content is largely aggregated, where content is not deleted or edited together (Mindel & Verma 2006: 24), rather than collaboratively generated. Learners react to each other’s work, and there may be some editing and correction of mistakes, but by and large, learners are left to their own devices.

An attempt to integrate wikis into a class is described in Sharma and Barrett (2007: 131), in a case study. Here the teacher used a wiki as an online vocabulary resource, with content generated by the learners. Learners added new words each week to the class wiki, along with a context sentence, the source, a definition and a personal comment. The wiki use was therefore integrated into the entirety of the course. The feedback presented suggests learners were not enthusiastic about the peer-teaching aspect of the wiki, preferring the authority of the “teacher”. This may reflect the educational environment that learners are used to, but can reflect a need to set up the task differently.

It is difficult to comment on the case study without knowing the full details, but Waters and Vilches (2001: 133-134) outline four levels of need for implementing an ELT innovation: familiarisation, socialisation, application and integration. These are hierarchical and sequential and the case study description suggests the first two levels were not fully met.

Waters and Vilches (ibid) divide the levels of need into two categories; “Foundation building needs” and “Potential-realising needs”:

Foundation-building needs:

Familiarisation: making sure participants know what the innovation is, why it should be used and how it might be used.
Socialisation: making sure the innovation fits with the existing structures or processes

Potential-realising needs:

Application: ascertaining the relative success of the innovation and adapting it further where necessary
Integration: handing over the innovation to the participants and letting them develop the innovation further.

It seems sensible to suggest that where learners are more accustomed to a traditional, hierarchical educational context or unaccustomed to wiki technology, tasks and activities be used to familiarise them with the affordances of the technology and how they can interact with each other and each other’s content. Sharma and Barrett’s “branching story” (2007: 123) is a good way to do this as learners would be able to create and edit text, insert images, create new pages and navigate around the wiki.

Once this stage has occurred, an in-class discussion on how the wiki might be used in support of the class or course can ensue (Wheeler et al. 2008: 994). This would give learners the opportunity to take ownership of the process and meet the socialisation requirement of Waters & Vilches’ (2001: 134) innovation implementation hierarchy. The teacher can outline possible content and negotiate roles as appropriate. Based on class discussions, the teacher can establish a blank wiki without any form of layout, or create “stubs”, pages with titles, but which are otherwise blank, so that learners can develop the pre-decided ideas (Mindel & Verma 2006: 14).

Because teachers can track learner contributions for quantity and quality, wikis offer a unique source of feedback. Coupled with informal discussion or formal feedback questionnaires, learners and teachers can assess the relative success of the wiki implementation and adapt or discard aspects of the wiki as appropriate.

The point at which teachers should step back from a leadership role and into that of a co-contributor (Wheeler et al. 2008: 994), will relate to the specific teaching situation and variables such as age, level, ability and purpose of the learners. In most cases the integration stage is a good point to give the learners full ownership of the wiki content and direction (Waters & Vilches 2001: 134).

The use of wikis as an integrated component of a class or course is intended to develop a collaborative environment where learners provide support and development for each other. This can be a highly motivating experience. Alm (2006) argues that under a self-determination theory model, wikis have the potential to meet our basic motivational needs of “competence, relatedness and autonomy”, supporting our innate predisposition to learn.

Wikis allow learners to perform at a level of competence at which they are comfortable and performances which draw praise will motivate learners to seek a higher level of challenge.

Learners need to feel part of a community and connected to each other. In a language learning context, the learners can relate to two communities, that of the classroom community and the target language community (Alm 2006: 32). Wikis offer an opportunity for increased student-centred communication in the target language and potential interaction with the target-language community.

The extent to which learners persevere at a task depends to a large extent on the amount of autonomy afforded them (ibid: 33). Wikis allow teachers to set purposeful, meaningful tasks, to give learners the freedom to carry out the task in their own way, and to provide support throughout the process as required. This might be done in a socialisation stage of content determination and role assignation or in the integration stage where the teacher role is subsumed into the collaborative function.

Integrated Wiki Use:

This article suggests integrated wiki use take as its first premise a complementary and supportive function and that the wiki should be introduced at the beginning of the course and referred to continuously throughout the course (Kessler 2009: 81). On course completion, learners can take the space as their own and continue a peer-supported learning environment outside the classroom, although the teacher may wish to preserve the wiki to maintain the integrity of the records, or for demonstration purposes.

Both Konieczny (2007: 22) and Mindel & Verma (2006: 13) provide a range of uses for which wikis can be employed. These can, within integrated wiki use, be categorised and extended in three modes: administrative, referential and developmental.

It is important to note that all wiki content and use should be negotiated with class members and not imposed upon them. Equally, it is not advocated that all of these ideas should be used on the same wiki, rather that participants should be able to select those ideas that meet their needs.

Administrative Use:

Administrative functions relate to documentation that allows teachers and learners to provide an online record of course related administration. The teacher or course administrator may wish to “lock” some of these pages, i.e. to prevent editing by learners, to preserve the integrity of the records.

Possible uses include:

Attendance records
Homework tasks
Homework records (which tasks learners have performed)
Marks, grades and feedback
Learner self-assessment or learner diaries
Course syllabi
Timetabling
Sign up sheets

Referential Use:

Referential functions are intended to provide an evolving resource of course content and additional materials for learners. Such materials can be teacher led, but learner generated, i.e. the teacher can create page stubs, but learners can create the content, although there are some items the teacher may wish to post. The teacher will need to review learner generated content to ensure accuracy.

Possible uses include:

Vocabulary Lists or Glossaries
Grammar Reference sections
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) sections
Collaborative lecture notes
Lesson reviews and content
Exam strategies & task types
Links to additional resources

Developmental Use:

Developmental functions are intended to assist learners improve their abilities. This article has suggested a difference between integrated wiki use, where the wiki is a supplementary component of an existing course, and wiki-based developmental tasks, where the task is used as an isolated lesson. There is some cross over between the two, as many tasks can be used in either scenario. The ideas presented here focus on developing the skills of reading, listening, writing and speaking, but it is not suggested that these be the only focus of integrated wiki use. Language development is also a priority and though there are ways in which integrated wiki use can support this, space considerations prevent a full discussion here.

Reading & Listening:

Wikis provide an ideal forum for helping learners to access texts. The posting of a text or podcast on a wiki and the inclusion of some guiding questions can allow learners to demonstrate their interpretation, question each others’, and collaboratively arrive at an overall understanding of the text or podcast. Such synopsis or summarising tasks allow for more personalisation of the content, as learners can post a link to external web content that is more individually meaningful and about which they have personal knowledge or experience. Learners can subscribe to podcasts that appeal to them personally, posting summaries of the content as each new episode of the podcast is released.

Tasks can be generated that relate to other aspects of understanding texts. Jumbled texts where learners re-sequence paragraphs or sentences can help learners arrive at a deeper understanding of text structure, linking and reference devices. Discussion questions can help learners identify opinion, tone, purpose and attitude, or to highlight features such as exemplification or comparison.

Equally, a wiki can be used in concert with a class reader or a set book. Farabaugh (2007) details his use of wikis with a literature class examining Shakespeare’s sonnets, where students examine continuous themes and build up a collaborative resource of knowledge and interpretation on the subject. Wiki-based discussions building up pen portraits of key characters or summarising plot development can help learners to a fuller understanding of the texts.

Writing:

The affordances of wikis, the ability of the teacher to review individual saved edits, and the ability of learners to read, review and comment on each others’ work, has already led many researchers to comment on the suitability of the wiki for a process approach to writing e.g. Parker & Chao 2007; Talandis 2007.

Badger & White (2000) contrast the product, process and genre approaches and argue that “An effective methodology for writing needs to incorporate the insights of product, process, and genre approaches.” (ibid: 157). Their model (see figure 5 below) offers a number of opportunities for possible input from teachers, learners and texts:

Within a wiki based genre process model, teachers, learners and texts can have input at every stage of the process. The situation can be given on a wiki home page and learners can, either through aggregated content or through use of discussion boards, discuss their conception of the task: who they are and who they are writing to (tenor), what they are trying to achieve (purpose), what they need to include (field), and how they are going to present it (mode). (ibid: 158)

Teachers can provide models of tasks, good or bad, for learner criticism and comment, to familiarise learners with genre features. Learners can create individual pages to construct a plan and a draft. Learners can examine each other’s work, editing for content and accuracy. As each iteration of the text is saved, it is published, thus omitting that stage of Badger & White’s model, although a final version can be printed for assessment purposes.

Wiki-based writing can also be used to focus on accuracy. Kessler (2009) outlines a collaborative writing project where participants made corrections to each other’s work throughout the project. This approach raises learners’ awareness of the types of mistakes they make, allowing them to avoid repeating the error, and provides an opportunity for clarification of language points if disagreement occurs regarding the nature of the error. Teachers may wish to monitor such activities and comment on the validity of any corrections made.

Speaking:

Development of the speaking skill is not normally associated with a text based medium, yet the technology is available to make this possible. By using free software such as Audacity or Audio Dropbox, learners can record themselves performing tasks and can post audio files on the wiki. It is possible to create You Tube video performances to post on the wiki, although this raises internet security issues, particularly with young learners, which would need to be addressed.

Learners can create audio or video presentations on a topic of personal interest or related to ongoing class work. Classes that need to practice particular speaking tasks, for example with language exams like FCE, IELTS or TOEFL, would be able to perform and post their practice attempts. This is a useful strategy for practicing tasks with time limits. Tasks like these can either be conducted in class or as homework. The tasks outlined above relate to monologues and recording dialogues is more logistically complex, but can be achieved in class.

Making and posting such recordings affords an excellent opportunity for peer review, peer critique and peer teaching, as well as providing an opportunity for self-assessment. Learners can become more aware of paralinguistic features of their discourse and work to eliminate them where they intrude or to develop alternative strategies. Learners are able to see any progression and development in their speaking skill by referring to earlier attempts and contrasting them with later efforts. Furthermore, it offers teachers an online record of their learners’ performances for more detailed analysis and assessment, rather than having to rely on classroom monitoring.

Conclusion

This article has argued for differentiating between wiki-based tasks and integrated wiki use. It is clear that to fully integrate wiki use into a course, an implementation strategy is necessary. Learners should be familiarised with the affordances of the specific wiki. Learners should discuss how the wiki can benefit them and see wiki use as occurring over the entire course. Learners can be guided in deciding the purpose and content of the wiki by reference to the three modes use: administrative, referential and developmental. Once learners have made these decisions, roles and responsibilities can be decided based on needs and wants, with the teacher ensuring learners do not remain solely within their role, but interact and contribute to other aspects of the wiki. The teacher can also contribute to aspects of the wiki, but in a collaborative, not authoritative way. Building the wiki in this way should prove motivating to the learners, who can contribute at their own level of competence, with autonomy but as part of a related group.

References & Reading:

Alm, A. 2006. “CALL for autonomy, competence and relatedness: Motivating language learning environments in Web 2.0.” The JALT CALL Journal 2/3, 29-38
Badger, R. and G. White. 2000. “A process genre approach to teaching writing.” ELT Journal 54/2: 153-160.
Farabaugh, R. 2007. “’The Isle is Full of Noises’: Using Wiki Software to Establish a Discourse Community in a Shakespeare Classroom.” Language Awareness, 16/1: 41-56.
Kessler, G. 2009. “Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing.” Language Learning and Technology, 13/1: 79-95.
Konieczny, P. 2007. “Wikis and Wikipedia as a Teaching Tool.” International Journal of Instructional technology and Distance Learning, 4/1, 15-34.
Mindel, J. L. and S. Verma. 2006. “Wikis for Teaching and Learning.” Communications of AIS , 18/1: 2-38.
Parker, K. R. and J.T. Chao. 2007. “Wiki as a teaching tool.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3: 57-72.
Seely Brown, J. and R.P. Adler. 2008. “Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0.” EDUCAUSE Review 43/1: Retrieved: May 19 2009 from http://foruminnova.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/minds_on_fire.pdf
Sharma, P. and B. Barrett. 2007. Blended Learning: Using technology in and beyond the language classroom. Oxford: Macmillan Education
Talandis Jr., J. 2008. “Web 2.0 in the ELT classroom: An Introduction.” In K. Bradford Watts, T. Muller, M. Swanson (Eds.), JALT2007 Conference Proceedings.Tokyo: JALT.
Waters, A. and M.L.C. Vilches. 2001. “Implementing ELT innovations: a needs analysis framework.” ELT Journal 55/2: 133-141
Wheeler, S., P. Yeomans and D. Wheeler. 2008. “The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning.” British Journal of Educational Technology 39/6: 987–995
Wales, J. 2005. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Retrieved: May 19 2009 from http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-March/020469.html
English Wikipedia Statistics Retrieved May 19 2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics

Are you worth your learners’ attention?

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:36:49 GMT

One of the contributors to the debate on student fees in UK universities raised an interesting point the other week. Roger Moss, in breaking down the fees students pay when compared to what they get, calculated that they paid approximately £92 per seminar. What else, he wondered in his letter to The Independent, could they have spent the money on? Tickets to see Rihanna live in concert? Seats at a Premier League football fixture?

This made me think: What do my learners pay per lesson and – more importantly – do they get their money’s worth?

So I dug out my trusty calculator and went off to look at the school’s price list…. and without breaching confidentiality I worked it out something like this:

Most of my classes work out at roughly 15 euros per student per lesson. Alternative spending ideas? For my learners maybe the following:

Murakami’s new book 1q84 in hardback.
One, maybe two games for the PSP.
A new CD or two.
A pizza or a cheap meal out with friends.
Anywhere between 10 and 15 pints of beer….
3 packets of cigarettes
Cinema tickets (three of them with a student discount)
A combination of the above?

Which makes you think…. if say, you do a vocabulary lesson with 10 key items in it, then each word costs your students €1.40. That’s quite expensive really. No wonder some students write everything you say down – it’s just a value for money calculation.

Of course, that’s just the calculation per student… if you assume a class of say 12 students, then you have to start asking yourself whether your class is worth €180. That’s a lot of money. I think I can quite honestly say I don’t always manage to provide €180 worth of learning.

This is not to go down the road of commercialising education (at least any more than it already is). I have in the past complained of learners that they insist on seeing language learning as a product that they can simply take off the shelf and consume much as they would go and do their weekly shopping in the market. This is unfair to many people who do put a lot of time and effort into their language learning, but equally it is a pervasive viewpoint. The better metaphor is that of a gym: I pay my monthly fee and I go twice a week and do my workout, but I don’t hold it against the gym if I fail to make progress. I might seek their advice on switching to a more effective routine, but if outside the gym I do nothing to help myself, who else do I really have to blame? In my own personal experience I (some time ago) stopped going to the gym. I did this for three reasons: firstly I felt I didn’t have enough time to make the commitment. Secondly I was coming out of the gym with no sense of achievement or accomplishment at what I had done. Thirdly, given the previous two items – why waste the money?

There is the concept in education of the take-away item. Something people walk out of the room with that they can take away and use immediately to their benefit. For example – ten years ago on my CELTA, I was part of a group when Jayne Silva (the tutor) demonstrated what she called “Backs to the Board” and which my students now refer to as “the chair game”. I use it with every class, at least once a fortnight. For me – that activity was worth a lot more than €15!

For a nurse on a busy ward dealing with an irascible english speaking patient, the phrase “You want the moon on a stick, you do!” was her take-away item of the week. For a group of students preparing to give presentations, comments about the importance of making eye contact. For one sales rep the expression “I can’t :::::: you. :::::: breakin ::: p” (to get out of unwelcome conversations with a colleague).

The take away item doesn’t of course have to be a handy hint, tip or useful phrase – ideally it should be something more than that – it should be something that makes learners walk out of the classroom with a spring in their step or something your teenagers are still talking about (in a good way!) as they amble down the corridors. Halfway across town from the school and on my way to a business class I spotted a seven year old girl proudly showing her father a handout from her lesson (and this is why we put logos on all our handouts!) and explaining it all as they waited for a bus. The take away item should be something that provides that sense of achievement – that sense of being able to do something for the first time or do something better than you’ve ever done it before.

It’s difficult to get that into every lesson, but if I got that out of every lesson? I wouldn’t mind paying fifteen euros a pop!

Making Mistakes & Error Correction

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:30:18 GMT

Simon Thomas answers the question “What causes ESL students to make speaking and writing errors? “ quite comprehensively in a recent blog post at efl-resource.com.

He looks at the differences between “mistakes” (lack of knowledge or understanding) and “slips” (performance errors) – which I think is a distinction originally made by Pit Corder in his 1981 book “Error Analysis and Interlanguage“. Simon goes on to look at possible causes and possible solutions to learner errors.

Since I started typing this – Simon’s just published a further three posts extending and developing the topic (though I haven’t had a chance to read them all yet!):

If you’re a glutton for the error correction punishment, then why not also look at Alex Case’s 2008 checklist of how to arrive at “A Well Balanced Use of Error Correction” from the Using English site?

Or get some great ideas from Colin Barnett’s onestopenglish article on Conversational Feedback and Effective Error Correction?

Or look at Scott Thornbury’s musings on the nature and source of mistakes (a brief look at the interference debate) in “E is for Error“?

There’s also an ELTChat summary by Michelle Worgan (containing some nice links to methodology articles and materials) on “How do you deal with fossilized errors and help students improve their accuracy?” which is worth reading.

Essential Criteria for Effective Learning?

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:45:23 GMT

This was the question posed the other week on my MA discussion boards: ”Based on your teaching experience, write down the criteria you think are essential for language learning.” And it’s a good question. In many respects the ultimate teaching question as it really gets down to the core elements of your pedagogical belief system – what do you know, or failing knowledge, what do you believe to be true?

So… I had to think about that one for a bit…

But what I eventually concluded was:

Relevance, engagement & use.

Whatever goes on in the classroom has to be relevant to the learners in some way. Either by being set in a context that the learners have themselves experienced, or that they hope to experience, or that they feel they might experience anyway. Hence a module on job interviews with teenagers might not at first seem relevant, but by situating it in a context where they’re applying for a job they hope to get after university, it became relevant in the classroom (albeit, not for all of them!).

This leads to learners being engaged – with the language, but also with the learning process. If learners feel as though they can be passive “participants”, sitting there at the back, hiding away in the corner, and get away with it – it’s likely that the learning process will not be as effective. Selecting task types that appeal to different learning styles, or tasks that involve collaborative or competitive elements can help with this – as can selecting materials and topic areas that are relevant to learner lifestyles.

Use. I find it difficult when I look at materials and realise that they’re basically coming at things from a PPP (Present Practice Produce) approach – but that something’s different. It’s not all there – ah – one of the “p”s is missing! It’s very frustrating when learners are presented with a language point, then do a gapfill and then…. move on to something else. What a wasted opportunity! Admittedly it can be difficult to create authentic situations in which learners might express regret (I wish I hadn’t eaten that chocolate cake) – but an essential part of any lesson must surely be an opportunity for learners to DO SOMETHING with the language they’ve been exposed to in the class!

So these are my ideas – entirely subjective – I’d be very interested to know how far this gels with anyone else’s experience or thinking.

Not everybody has smart boards…

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:30:42 GMT

A fact that was brought home the other day when a training seminar got rescheduled because half the projected attendees didn’t have Interactive Whiteboard technology available to them…..

So here’s a nice post from Vicky Saumell’s Educational Technology in ELT blog on 40 Things you can do with a Data Projector in an EFL/ESL lesson.

Some of the ideas will need a little adaptation in order to integrate them seamlessly into your lessons. Plus, I’m afraid I have to take issue with the first one “Watch a film”. If learners want to watch a film, they can do it on their own time! Class time is way too valuable!

Are Flashcards an Effective Learning Tool? (Voxy Blog)

Anonymous — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:30:47 GMT

The Voxy Blog has an interesting infographic for teaching and teacher development, examining the question: “Are Flashcards an Effective Learning Tool?” . I suspect most YL teachers (especially those at Primary level) are thinking “well duh” at this point.

The infographic was developed at least partially in promotion of one of Voxy’s i-phone apps, which should probably be borne in mind. While I think there are great arguments in favour of flashcard use in teaching (most of which are neatly summarised in the infographic), I’m not so sure about digital flashcards on i-phones. I can see how it might benefit an individual learner working with concrete nouns, but possibly not a busy teacher dealing with a class of 30 or so six-year-olds! I suspect it depends on how you can use the i-phone app and what it lets you do, but this isn’t clear from the information. Can you link it to your interactive whiteboard? Printing?

I also take issue with the uncited assertion that “high frequency words” are mostly “content words” – in fact this pdf of the top 300 high frequency words gives the top 25 words as articles, prepositions, pronouns and auxiliary verbs. As does this list of the top 1200. In both lists the first “content” word appears at number 43 – “said”.

The counter arguments given in the graphic are also worth thinking about – simply showing learners an image once may not lead to learning. Little and often seems to be the general consensus: Remember to Recycle and Revise!

Right at the bottom of their post, they include links to an additional eleven related posts from around the EFL blogosphere.

Overall? Interesting points, but not so sure about the tactics and doubts about the product!

More than one way to catch a fish – The great schools revolution?

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:30:02 GMT

A colleague of great experience in both TEFL and the UK education system, and whose opinion I greatly respect, once asserted that TEFL was at the forefront of educational experimentation and research, formenting new pedagogical techniques and ideas and pushing the boundaries of what is meant and expected by the terms “teaching” and “learning”. State educational systems, by and large, are forever caught up in the bureaucracy that attempts to administer, manage, measure and standardise them. Reaction times are correspondingly slower. Whether this is a fair comparison or not, I’m not sure.

The characterisation of state education systems as monolithic and unwieldy is perhaps a cliche. I’ve met some incredibly innovative, energetic and creative teachers working within their national state education systems. Possibly the difference is highlighted better in the following video – taken from the excellent BBC series “The Blue Planet”:

In this metaphor, the state is represented by the Sei Whale and the rest of us by the tuna. We have broadly the same goals and generally get there in the end – we just approach things in a slightly different way. This does unfortunately leave the learners cast in the role of the sardines, desperately trying to escape and be left to get on with their lives without too much further education taking place….

The internet has allowed teachers to connect with like minded individuals in ways not previously possible. In simple terms we don’t have to suffer in silence in a corner of the staffroom just waiting to have the eagerness extracted from you in the drudgery of daily routine. You can find and share ideas with people who think like you do. We can and have created these “Communities of Practice“.

That’s why I think one vital factor in The Economist’s Reforming education: The great schools revolution article has been overlooked. Governments might be learning from each other and “drawing on examples of good practice from around the world”, but governments don’t educate people. Teachers do.

I can see there is a role for governments in setting standards and goals to be attained. After all, if you take your car to the mechanic and he messes about for three weeks before handing you back you still un-fixed car, you aren’t going to be best pleased and I see no reason why the same principle shouldn’t be true in education.

I just can’t help but feel that the majority of good teaching in the world takes place despite the management systems set up in oversight – not because of it.