TED and Me

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted!

Below is the PPT from my presentation in Cambodia at the CamTESOL conference last week. Despite massive food poisoning (not from eating in Cambodia, but Hong Kong just before flying out), I managed to present! The talk was about using free online animation tools for teaching English as a Second Language. Enjoy.

I’m giving a short presentation for staff develoment tomorrow and thought that I’d share my abstract and slides. Comments most welcome.

Abstract
In this session, we will explore the affordances and limitations of Web 2.0 technologies in today’s language classroom. Wikis, podcasts, machinima, animation, storyboards – in many ways these free online resources give learners new opportunities to be independent in their study and research; they encourage a wider range of expressive capability; they facilitate more collaborative ways of working; and they furnish a setting for learner achievements to attract an authentic audience. But this does not mean there are no consequences or issues when using them (for example: copyright and Terms of Use).

After a 20-minute introduction of some of tools and the theories behind
why and how they can be used in the language classroom, we’ll open the discussion to everyone to talk about how we can (or whether we should) use Web 2.0 technologies in our language courses. We’ll also discuss the concept of “digital literacy”. What does that mean? And whose job is it to teach students how to be digitally literate?

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.

As I trudge through my MET courses, I’m introduced to useful resources that I would like to share on this blog. One of the more ueful resources introdced to me recently includes: Seven Principles For Good Practice in Undergraduate Education by Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson. Here they are:

1. Encourages contact between students and faculty
2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students.
3. Encourages active learning.
4. Gives prompt feedback.
5. Emphasizes time on task.
6. Communicates high expectations.
7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

A more recent article considers technology: Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever by Arthur W. Chickering and Stephen C. Ehrmann. By combining the Seven Principles with the SECTIONS model, one can think more critically while considering what and how to implement any technology into a curriculum.

Perhaps, one of the most common reasons why I see instructors (and students) at my university shun learning technologies is because the learning curve is too steep. Following that is the fact that some technologies are not tested enough, or they constantly need technical support. I can then understand the frustration and skepticism the arise from these problems.

I mentioned in my last post the SECTIONS model created by Bates and Poole, which is as follows:

S “Students: what is known about the students – or potential students – and the appropriateness of the technology for this particular group or range of students?

E Ease of use and reliability: how easy is it for both teachers and students to use? How reliable and well tested is the technology?

C Costs: what is the cost structure of each technology? What is the unit cost per learner?

T Teaching and learning: what kinds of learning are needed? What instructional approaches will best meet these needs? What are the best technologies for supporting this teaching and learning?

I Interactivity: what kind of interaction does this technology enable?

O Organizational issues: what are the organizational requirements and the barriers to be removed before this technology can be used successfully? What changes in organization need to be made?

N Novelty: how new is this technology?

S Speed: how quickly can courses be mounted with this technology? How quickly can materials be changed?”

Students, is, of course, extremely important. And the accessibility of a technology for students, and whether it is appropriate for their learning needs must be considered. But it is the Ease section that I see as important for lowering the learning curve and raising acceptability of technologies by teachers and students. one of the Web 2.0 applications that I mentioned in my last post was Jing. What I like about Jing is its ease of use. It’s simple, but it gets the job that I expect done. For example, here is a potential activity for ESL purposes: I can ask my students to capture a video using Jing of them operating or running another application on their computers, and, while doing so, cite instructions of how to use that application. This would be a great activity to practise technical English and give instructions for specified audiences and purposes. And, because Jing is quit intuitive, the technology does not overwhelm the learning object: to practise English for a specified task.

As I mentioned, I have seen how any lack of eas of use hinders a technology’s acceptance. One particular application (Check My Words) that we use at our university has undergone many tranformations because of this. When it was first released, it was confusing to some teachers and students. But after listening to their concerns or problems, the designers of the application found ways to make it more intuitive — it’s easier to use; what followed was that more people are using the application. And with good results, I think.

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