TED and Me

Since my experiment with using GoAnimate in the classroom, I have been discussing with people at my university about the possibility of  developing an in-house animation movie-making software for educational purposes (in my case, for language purposes). Some have expressed encouraging interest in the proposition. Others, and I see their arguments, asked me: why spend money developing the software when there are others freely available online? A good question.

I suggested that a Language Centre in-house software is needed because:

• available software is not culturally appropriate for our students;
• available software does not consider end-user rights; we would want students to hold IP for their creations;
• no available software has every feature that we require for language learning objectives (for example: voice for speaking practise, collaboration or community elements for social learning, or grading management, etc. all in one);
• we can adapt the software to measure the intended learning outcomes of Language Centre courses;
• the LC could license the software to other universities, secondary and primary schools;
• we can ensure that an in-house software would be more accessible to our students;
• we can address the various copyright issues that appear when using someone else’s software; and
• we can control security, making the system as private or as public as needed.

This is how I backed up my proposal:

A pilot run using free online animation software provided by a third party to motivate students and evaluate their language acquisition occurred during the 2009 EAS summer course. After the completion of the course, students were asked to complete a questionnaire asking for their opinion about using the animation software. Feedback was overall positive; however, some students did comment on the limitations of the freeware used.  The next step in the action plan would be to develop software that suites the needs of our students.

The interactive web-based suite of animation movie-making tools incorporate text, audio and video, which re-enforces students’ abilities and the accessibility to experiment, learn, and reflect on their language acquisition, offering new ways for students to present their work and to reflect upon it.  Typical student activities which will be supported by the tool are: identifying, explaining, and correcting common errors in English; listening and speaking for social interaction; and speaking and listening for critical analysis and evaluation.

Teaching and learning

The tool will encourage a constructivist approach to learning.  The constructivist conditions for learning suggest that using multiple modes of representation can be juxtaposed to deliver the same content through visual, auditory and tactile sensory modes, with the content complementing one another (Driscoll, 2005, p. 399). An animiation movie-making software like this would be an example of how the production of learning content can help students take ownership for their own learning, in the process promoting their own understanding of a subject matter.

This project also reflects the Seven Principles For Good Practice in Undergraduate Education by Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson (1987) and the SECTIONS model by Bates, A.W., and Poole, G. (2003).

Collaborative Learning

Chickering and Gamson (1987) note that “learning is enhanced when it is more like a team effort than a solo race. Good learning occurs when it is collaborative and social, and working with others often increases involvement in learning. Sharing one’s ideas and responding to others’ improves thinking and deepens understanding”. An in-house animation tool will encourage students to collaborate through its animation making tools. In addition, students will be encouraged to share their creations with others through the web based network by adding each other as a “friend” or tagging their favourite animations.

Encourages Contacts Between Students and Faculty and Prompt Feedback

With an in-house animation tool, students can learn socially through collaborating, editing, proofreading, and reviewing their animations, through formal assessments, and through peer evaluation. The participatory culture that this type of tool encourages allows students to view, comment, rate, and recommend other students’ work. The tool would be a place where students can also learn what their fellow students have done in other language courses. It is also a collection of work that can be incorporated into each student’s ePortfolio. Faculty can view, rate and comment on students’ work through asynchronous tools, a grading system, and email.

In addition, an animation tool like this will be an interactive tool that:

1. allows instructors to design learning activities that use digital storytelling where students create:

• stories to show evidence of language acquisition (written or spoken).
• personal narratives that contain accounts of significant incidents in one’s life (reflection);
• historical or current event documentaries that examine events that help students understand past and current issues (academic/non-academic); and
• instructional stories designed to inform or instruct viewers on a particular concept or practice.

2. allows students to develop media-related skills in (based on Jenkins, 2009):

• Affilitations: memberships – formal and informal – in online communities centered on the student created animations.
• Expressions: producing new creative forms of content and knowledge based on the intended learning outcomes of a course.
• Collaborative problem-solving: working together in teams – formal and informal – to complete tasks and develop new knowledge through digital storytelling.
• Circulations: shaping the flow of media, such as animation blogging or sharing animation movies online.

The use of narratives encourages a ‘language across the curriculum’ practice by integrating improvement in English language communication skills.

The new software will also: enable students to experience peer engagement, reflection for deeper learning, and project-based learning; enable students to experience peer evaluation and teacher-student evaluation to measure learning outcomes; enhance the abilities of students and staff to monitor difficulties and gauge improvement; enhance faculty-student and student-student interaction; and enable and encourage students to take a more pro-active, independent attitude toward their education and a more creative attitude to their work.

References:

Bates, A.W., and Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 79 – 80.

Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Pearson Education Inc.

Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.