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.

Go figure that, after submitting my MET assignment (see previous post), I would discover alternatives to the “traditional” CMSs (Blackboard) and OSS CMSs (Moodle).

A new form of CMS in the market is the Social CMS, which I believe to be following the infrastructure of online social networks like Facebook. The example I’m talking about is Schoology.

From their brochure:

Schoology has created a course management system built on a social network. While current course management systems utilize some social network features, Schoology has taken a unique approach by first building a social networking platform and then adding in the essential course management tools.
A social network provides objectivity, allowing searchable profiles for users, groups, courses, assignments and schools. Instead of interacting with just an interface or website portal, users can interact with dynamic profiles, greatly enhancing the learning experience.
Schoology provides students and educators with all the  essential course management tools, including an online gradebook, student roster, course assignments, school events, class attendance, user management and online report cards. These tools are seamlessly integrated with Schoology’s social network to create the ultimate digital and interactive educational environment.

Schoology seems to be taking into account what I expressed early: Web 2.0 technologies need to be considered as competitors/alternatives among the more “traditional” CMS.

Good. But I’m still not convinced. The infrastructure still seems to be restrictive, limiting pedagogy. True: they’re going with the online social network trend; and, yes, communication and collaboration opportunities seem to be seriously taken into account. But what about being able to incorporate other online technologies, like Second Life, animation-making tools, or wikis. It seems, in this case, that a CMS is just a CMS. Students and teacher are restricted to a set/narrow pedagogical approach within 4 digital walls.

Do we really need another confined digital learning space? Or should we find new ways to harness the affordance of digital technologies for learning.

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.

In August, I introduced GoAnimate to my university students (Early Admission Students) and asked them to choose an area in grammar that Chinese speakers often have difficulties with. This could have been prepositions, vocabulary (commonly misused words), tenses, and so on. First, I can gave them a short example:

GoAnimate.com: frightened vs frightening by smcminn

Then I ask them to create a story (approx. 3 minutes long) where a grammar error occurs causing some misunderstanding and, eventually, the discovery of the grammar rule. The results were interesting. Here’s one example:

GoAnimate.com: EGG animation by Paddy and Terence by Paddy Cheung

More examples can be found here. (Just a warning: some are good, some are bad.) I would need to rework the activity to ensure better quality, and, perhaps, less offensive creations.But that’s the idea of experimenting, isn’t it. You learn from what works and what doesn’t.

After the task was completed, I asked students to complete a questionnaire. The results, I think, are mainly positive. I’m excited to explore the use of animation in the classroom some more.

Wow. I always had a hunch, but I have never really looked closely at the Terms of Service for some of the most well-known social software sites out there. I say wow because I now realize that my rights are not as protected as I (naively) thought.

One of the ETEC565 Toolkit exercises asks us to choose 4 social software sites and:

Read each TOS thoroughly, highlighting key language, and ascertain:

1. Who “owns” materials posted by members?
2. For what purposes can these materials be used?
3. Would using each site be appropriate with your students?
4. In your opinion, how well are the privacy interests of members represented?

I chose 4 that I either use often or have experimented with: Facebook, Second Life, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Out of the 4, I would say Twitter protects the privacy interests of its members the most. In fact, I feel quite confident now in using Twitter more for this reason.

Second Life comes in, well, second – a distant second. The ToS gives Linden Labs permission to use your content for promotional purposes, unless members – in writing – ask them not to. This is the same for Facebook and LinkedIn, although Facebook seems to be a little sketchier about the rights of its members. It seems that they try to get away from any responsibility for whatever backup, copied, remixed content of its members is still out there, giving them the go ahead to use that, too.

The main reason for these ToS is allow the companies to use whatever they seem fit for promotional purposes, which is not surprising. I mean: they are businesses. But what concerns me is the number of educators and students that may be using these services without realizing that their content is no longer 100% theirs. How much trouble could this cause down the road for schools, teachers and students? I wonder with some concern.

In ETEC565, we were asked to:

Select one of the web 2.0 tools from the ones listed on the page (or others that you know of if you want), and create a short media piece that tells a story.  You can tell a story about yourself or about some issue.  You can also use the tool to tell a story that could be used in your classroom in relation to an activity or part of your curriculum.  You choose.

I chose goanimate.com to tell my story. You can read more about why here.

I also said in an earlier post that I would comment a little on Jenkin’s book. I’m about halfway through and i think that it’s been a very informative read Here are just a couple of points from the bookthat I’d like to highlight (I also talk about this on my digital story page).

Jenkins identifies four activities youth should develop skills in, especially in today’s media changing word:

• Affilitations: Memberships, formal and informal in online communities centered around various forms of media, such as Friendter, Facebook, metagaming, etc.
• Expressions: Producing new creative forms such as digital sampling, skinning and modding, fan videos, fan fiction, ones, or mash-ups.
• Collaborative problem-solving: Working together in teams — formal and informal — to complete tasks and develop new knowledge, such as through Wikipedia, alternative reality gaming, or spoiling.
• Circulations: Shaping the flow of media, such as podcasting or blogging.

I believe goanimate.com offers students a chance to develop these skills. However, Jenkins makes a good point that in order for activities to work, and to create an effective participatory culture, cultures (that is educational, national, etc.) must support them (2009); the curriculum must recognize and support these types of technologies and activities. Jenkins also says: “inter-activity is a property of the technology, while participation is the property of culture”. I think that that is an important point to remember.

Jenkins also identifies and discusses three problems:

• the participation gap (similar, but not identical to the digital divide)
• the transparency problem (do youth have deeper understanding of hoe media shapes their perception of the world)
• the ethics challenge (i.e. copyright issues)

In honour of my classmates …

GoAnimate.com: ETEC Life form discovered! by smcminn

I’ll write more about what I think about the pedagogical values of goanimate and similar tools soon.

SIDE NOTE: I just bought the book Confronting the Challenges of Particpatroy Culutre by Henry Jenkins. So far it’s a great read! (I’ll comment more after I’ve read a bit more.)

I’ve been playing around with some Web 2.0 applications. I created this animation using www.goanimate.com. I’m thinking of having students use this tool to create storyboards, which, I think, has a lot of pedagogical value. Have a look and let me know what you think.

GoAnimate.com: frightened vs frightening by smcminn

Like it? Create your own at GoAnimate.com. It’s free and fun!

Joys and dangers can arise from any MET forum discussion. The joys are the myriad of new tools I learn about. The danger — the amount of time I spend playing with those new tools. Within the first week of the MET course ETEC565A, I have been introduced to a few promising Web 2.0 applications. The time I spent play around with them … well … flew by. Here are a few of the things:

1. Jing — Snap a picture of your screen, or record video of onscreen action. It’s free.
2. zotero — A wonderful researching tool that assists with note taking, citing sources, and creating bibliographies. Just try it.
3. voki — Create a speaking avatar. Not sure of how to use this one, yet. But it looks interesting.
4. Adobe Buzzword — Visit Adobe’s Acobat.com. It’s all the buzz. Seriously. This may be better than Google Docs.

After playing with these, it may be interesting to see how each one fits into Bates and Poole’s SECTIONS framework. I’ll comment more about this later.

Bates, A. W. and Poole, G. (2003) Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. New York: Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated.