Talk from EuroCALL Teacher Ed SIG symposium on designing CALL courses for future teaching contexts

1. COURSE DESIGN FOR PRE-
SERVICE SECONDARYTEACHERS:
Collaboration and reflection in a short, multilingual CALL course
EuroCALL 2014 Groningen, the Netherlands 21 August 2014
SHONA WHYTE
UNIVERSITÉ NICE SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS
FRANCE

2. COURSE DESIGN FOR PRE-
SERVICE SECONDARYTEACHERS:
Collaboration and reflection in a short, multilingual CALL course
EuroCALL 2014 Groningen, the Netherlands August 2014

3. DESIGNING COURSES FOR FUTURETEACHING 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)

4. 1.Techno-pedagogical competences
Guichon & Hauck, 2011, in Whyte, 2014

5. 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”

6. DESIGNING COURSES FOR FUTURETEACHING 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)

7. 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

8. Whyte, 2012, 2014
Ongoing teacher education research:
2 Beliefs about technology for language teaching

9. Whyte, 2012, 2014
Ongoing teacher education research:
2 Beliefs about technology for language teaching
what activities do these
pre-service teachers design?

10. PRESENT STUDY

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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?

14. DATA
!
collaborative websites
teaching activity report
reflective blogs
social media participation
final reflective paper
1. General views
first session activity: pros and
cons of technology integration in
language classroom
final activity: reflection on own
technology orientation
(technophile or technophobe?)
!
2. Teaching activity: describe and
evaluate class activity involving
technology

15. RESULTS

16. Motivation Learning Authenticity Efficiency Institution Colleagues
10 14% 14 19% 9 12% 24 33% 7 10% 9 12%
RATIONALE FORTECHNOLOGY USE
{
teacher/teaching
{
learner/learning

17. Proportionofargumentsadvanced
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Learning Authenticity Efficiency Institution Colleagues
12%
10%
33%
12%
19%
RATIONALE FORTECHNOLOGY USE

18. 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 FORTECHNOLOGY USE

19. 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 culture
LB IWB improvisation 3e edtech trial
SF recipe 3e
translation task
L2 vocabulary
SR personal reaction to topical theme
(Spanish abortion law)
1e L2 culture,
grammar
SR gapfill song 4e L2 culture
TOTAL 10
TASK DESIGN

20. 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

21. DISCUSSION

22. –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?

23. –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

24. –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

25. –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

26. –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

27. –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

28. –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

29. 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

30. –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

31. –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

32. 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.). TheTower 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.
EuroCALLTeacher Education SIG Symposium. Gothenburg.
Whyte, S. (2011). Pre-service teachers' views on technology for teaching and learning foreign
languages. EUROCALL CMC &Teacher Education SIG AnnualWorkshop, Barcelona. PDF