Don’t limit a child to your own learning,

for he was born in another time.

Rabindranath Togore, poet.

This week’s session is about materials and digital technology and the subject is very close to my heart.  I see the development of digital technologies as one of the greatest changes in the education in the last 10-15 years.

Academics highlight numerous benefits of implementing  information and communication technology (ICT) in the EFL classroom. It’s changing the way we think. It’s changing how we communicate. It’s changing how we access information. It’s changing the way we use materials. Maley (2011, citied in Tomblinson 2012) points out ICT can free ‘teachers and learners alike from the constraints of the coursebook’. Most teachers seem to agree that using technology in the English language classroom is a norm, and using and extending digital literacy skills is expected as a part of a 21^st-century education curriculum ( Hasper, 2016).  Stanley (2013) adds that technology should always be part of what a teacher is currently doing with a class and shouldn’t be something special, done as a break from regular classroom learning or as a reward for good behaviour.

Some, however, are sceptical about the benefits of technology. They argue that there is no pedagogical value in using it for teaching and learning and it is a distraction in the classroom or even a gimmick (Robb, 2016). They refer to it as Everest syndrome (Maddux, cited in Stanley, 2013). Named after George Mallory’s reason for wanting to climb Mount Everest, this refers to a situation where teachers using IT ‘because it is there’.

Another obstacle of embracing digital technology within an educational setting, in my opinion, is it is transitional.   There are a lot of people in education who didn’t grow up in the world where all these amazing technological tools existed. They still do, to some degree, think of them as exotic. Somebody once said ‘Technology is something that happened after you were born’. I think that’s right. You can imagine, 30 years from now, we’ll get a generation of kids looking back at a picture of you and your Iphone with a patronising smile. And this is exactly where another problem lies – the fear. The fear of being replace by a computer.  I don’t think technology will ever replace a human tutor. Or at least not during our lifetime. Quite the opposite,with the advent of technology more and more teachers are becoming authors and developers in their own right, self-publishing their own books and apps (myself included). So none of this should be seen as a threat to a teacher’s future.

So, what is the answer to the pedagogy vs technology debate? The question, in my opinion, is not whether or not to use technology, as the presence of technology alone, no matter how advanced, does not equal transformation. The important question is when to use technology. What are the pedagogical implementations and knowledge needed for the process to be successful?  The following frameworks can be used to evaluate it.

Hasper (2016) suggests her FACE IT key principles based on Griffith & Burns (2012) ideas of effective learning practice.

She argues that technology can be implemented effectively at each of the stages. For example, Google drive can be used for peer feedback whereas voicethread.com records your oral feedback.  Hasper (2016) points out that the rise of technology dramatically increased our opportunity to move away from teacher-centred learning and towards giving learners more choice in their learning process. Technology, she continues, can be used to challenge our learners , for example, using acceleread.com to develop their speed in reading. Finally, technology can be used to increase students’ engagement using todaysmeet.com – a platform for a project work or piktochart.com – a great tool to present project work results visually (Hasper, 2016).

Similarly, Saumell  (2016) considers ways of helping to decide how and when to use technology based on  6 principles for meaningful technology integration. These are:

1. Meaningful technology integration focuses on the learning task and not the technology.
2. Meaningful technology integration involves the students (as opposed to just the teachers) actively using the technology.
3. Meaningful technology integration works well for your specific context.
4. Meaningful technology integration addresses 21^st century skills’ issues and digital literacy training.
5. Meaningful technology integration facilitates learning activities that would be more difficult or impossible without the technology.
6. Meaningful technology integration breaks down classroom walls.

As Bill Gates once said ‘ technology is just a tool, in order to enhance learning, teachers are more important’. I couldn’t agree more. Technology is a fantastic tool available to us, but only our experience and expertise as teachers can transform it into an effective tool.

As we can see, technology has become an integral part of education, and for language teaching this change in the nature of context is extremely important.  In this light, it is important to acknowledge the trends and future predictions of such development.

Walker, A. & White, G. (2013) predicting the technology trends of the future, refer to ‘On the Horizon’ report , which each year attempts to forecast the future of learning technology.  The 2012 report identified  the following prediction:

• In one year or less- mobile apps and tablet computing
• Within two to three years – game-based learning
• Within four to five years – ‘the internet of things’

What I find particularly interesting is that in 2016, I, an average ELT teacher, am working on developing my own mobile game app for ELT classroom. If this is not the indication of a success prediction, I don’t know what is 🙂

Looking at the current report we can see the following areas of important developments in educational technology cited for 2016:

• In one year or less – Bring Your Own Device (BYOD), Learning Analytics and Adaptive Learning
• Within two to three years – Augmented and Virtual Reality, Makerspaces
• Within four to five years – Affective Computing, Robotics

While some seem pretty farfetched as a prediction, others I can definitely see making their way into ELT classroom.

Take, for example, augmented and virtual reality. Personally, I have been successfully  using both of these technologies in my ELT classroom for months. In my earlier posted I mentioned the application of augmented reality (AR) to ELT classroom and even made my own materials using it.

Last seminar I also demonstrated the use of virtual reality (VR) via Google cardboard – a budget version of a VR viewer that now you can even get for free .Very often it’s mentioned that technology breaks down classroom walls and VR couldn’t be a better example, as within seconds students can be transformed anywhere in the world.  Here is an interesting article on how wearable technology can be used in education.

Another one of my personal interests is adaptive learning.  Last year I attended a conference organised by ET Professional titled Adaptive learning in practice.  There were some fascinating discussions and predictions  about how adaptive learning will shape the future of  ELT. Phillip Kerr’s blog offers great guide into the world of adaptive learning and here is the list of his predictions.

I would like to finish by quoting Steve Wheeler – the author of ‘Learning with ‘e’s ‘ blog.

‘’So the future of technology supported learning is uncertain and contested. Are we being made more intelligent by our habituated uses of technology, or are we becoming smarter because we have more opportunities to create our own content, and think more deeply about it? Does our collective increase in intelligence owe itself to better connections with experts and peers, or should we simply put the growth of knowledge down to a natural, progressive evolution of the human mind? Is technology actually a threat to good learning, creating a generation of superficial learners, or do interactive tools such as social media and search engines provide us with unprecedented access to knowledge?

Such questions are exactly what the study of the future is all about’’

Tomlinson, B. (2012) Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching 45 (2): pp. 143-179

Robb, K. (2016) Mobile technologies, friend or foe? Modern English Teacher, 25(2), pp 19-21

Hasper, A. (20016) Keep calm and F.A.C.E IT: ICT is the least of your concerns! Modern English Teacher 25(2), pp 8-10

Saumell, V. (2016) Principles for meaningful technology integration. Modern English Teacher 25(2), pp 15-17

Stanley, G. (2013) Language Learning with Technology: Ideas for Integrating Technology in the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walker, A. & White, G. (2013) Technology Enhanced Language Learning: Connecting theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

This week we had to work in groups again and analyse a unit from a coursebook. We had to develop a taxonomy of task types and see what type of tasks are used in the unit. We chose English File third edition Upper-Intermediate as 2 teachers in our group of three have been currently using it.

It makes sense to start by asking what a ‘task’ is.  How does it differ from, let’s say, ‘an activity’ or ‘an exercise’? Ellis (2003) provides a good summary of task definitions, drawn from both research and pedagogic literature.  A broad definition, such as provided by Long (1985), includes tasks that require language, e.g. booking a table and tasks that can be performed without using language, for example, painting a fence. However, more narrow definitions, such as those of Richards, Platt, and Webber(1985) and Nunan (1989) define task as an activity that necessarily involves language.

Personally, I believe in our context we should be concerned with tasks that involve use of language. However, this poses another  question: should the term ‘task’ be restricted to activities where students’ attention is focused on conveying a message or should it include any kind of language activity that gets learners to demonstrate their knowledge?

Ellis (2003) adopts a narrower definition and defines a task as ‘an activity that calls for primarily meaning-focused language use’ as opposed to an exercise that is ‘an activity that calls for primarily form-focused language use’.  Johnson (2003), however, argues that the definition of a task is much broader and calls it everything ‘we give students to do in classrooms” (Johnson, 2003: 4).  Ur (1988)  supports  this idea by saying that  “the function of the task is simply to activate the learners in such a way as to actually get them to engage with the material to be practiced”( Ur, 1988: 17).

I tend to agree with the last two definitions as I believe that the overall purpose of tasks is the same as exercises – learning a language. Therefore for the pre- seminar  task I am going to use a broader definition of  task than merely meaning-focused language use.

When it came to evaluating the unit from the coursebook we decided to do so according to different systems. Jane was working with the task taxonomy suggested by Maley (2011), Victoria focused on language skills and I used Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive objectives.

Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues designed this model to provide a way to describe levels of thinking. The taxonomy essentially is a hierarchy with Lower Order Thinking skills (remember, understand and apply) at the bottom and Higher Order Thinking Skills (analyze, evaluate and create) at the top. I decided to use this model as I remembered the talk by Steph Dimond-Bayier I attended a while ago. She was using Bloom’s taxonomy of thinking skills to illustrate how very often in the classroom we focus on Lower order thinking skills (LOTS) and not much on Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS).  I totally agree with Steph Dimond-Bayier. I find it particularly difficult when teaching EAP classes where students are required to think critically but many learners are lacking such skills.  Many EAP coursebooks approach critical thinking in a superficial way: while ‘think about it and discuss’ sections usually involve critical thinking, such an exercise on its own does not  really help learners to develop their skills.

Evaluation results

My evaluation of the unit showed that most of the tasks require Lower order thinking skills, ‘understand’ and ‘remember’ in particular. This is perhaps not surprising for a general English book, however, I wish that coursebooks  would include a broader range of tasks that develop not only basic language skills, but also life skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, prioritising, decision making that our learners need in order to be effective  learners, effective professionals and effective citizens.

Jane was analysing the unit using  the task taxonomy suggested by Maley (2011). This is her conclusion.

Classifying  27%

Summarising 26%

Evaluating 19%

Predicting  15%

Problem-solving 11.5%

Revising/editing 7.7%

‘As there was very little room for learner interpretation in the answers to most of the exercises, I thought that most of the material was used in an inauthentic way. There are some examples of opinion-gap tasks, but these are typically discussions as an introduction to the text and not a main feature. There is not much opportunity for learners to respond to the text in a personalised way before answering closed questions’.

Victoria was focusing on language skills and found a  good balance of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation and skills. This is very interesting, as it is exactly what the book claims to have.

Here is Victoria’s findings.

Ellis, R (2003) Task-based language learning  and teaching. Oxford:OUP

Johnson, K. (2003) Designing Language Teaching Tasks. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Maley, A. (2011) Squaring the circle – reconciling materials as constraint with materials as empowerment. In: Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials Development in Language Teaching. (2nd edn) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.379-402.

Ur, P. (2009) Grammar Practice Activities: A practical guide for teachers. (2nd ed) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

As I mentioned earlier, today we had a feedback session where our worksheets were peer reviewed.  And what an exciting session it was! To say that I was impressed by the materials my peers created is understatement. Everyone did a fantastic job!  It was particularly interesting to see that one of my peers created a worksheet for the same exam task as me. Although the way we approached it was different, it was good to see that we used similar teaching strategies.

My work received a lot of attention and people seemed to be impressed.  I partly expected it due to the wow factor of augmented reality (AR) . I was, however, looking for some critical feedback so I could improve my work.  Here is the feedback from my peers:

I found the comments very useful and it just shows how beneficial peer reviewing can be.

Positive points:

Innovative use of technology

Engaging visual/kinaesthetic activity

Makes a very dry task interactive and collaborative

Really testing students’ skills

Looks appealing and professional

The content of the reading text is interesting

Nice layout

Great warmer

Negative points

1. Is it reliant on every student having a smart phone and Aurasma or can it be done without?

And we are back to the classic technology vs pedagogy argument. What can I say? Can this activity be done without the use of technology? Yes. After all, we have been doing jigsaw reading activities with the strips of paper for years. Is it the case of using technology for the sake of using technology? I don’t think so.  I’m going to use Vicky Saumell’s (2016) principles for meaningful technology integration to demonstrate.  Firstly, the focus is on the learning task and not the technology. Technology is used to transform what is usually a dull and non-communicative  reading task into one with genuine engagement and collaboration.    Secondly, this activity   involves the students (as opposed to just the teachers) actively using the technology.  Thirdly, the use of AR addresses 21^st century skills’ issues and digital literacy training.  Finally, technology integration works well for my specific context. Although my school doesn’t provide mobile devices, my students have no problem bringing and using their own phones. Also for this activity, for example, it is not necessary for everyone to have a mobile phone as students work in groups and one device per group is enough.  All these factors, according to Saumell (2016), are signs of meaningful  technology integration.

2. When doing black and white copies of the worksheet, some parts of the worksheet won’t be seen well/will consume lots of ink?

This is an interesting comment as I initially designed this worksheet to be used in its digital form. In my teaching I am trying to be as paperless as possible and this is where technology helps. I’ve decided to stick to my beliefs and am going to demonstrate the improved version of this worksheet in a digital format that can be viewed on a computer as well as a mobile device.

           3. The title gives it away too much.

Fair point. I agree that a good title should be intriguing. I came up with a new title.

This is the updated version of the worksheet.

I additionally made some design changes, added more instructions and prompts. I also completely redesigned exercise 3, making it more of a guided discovery task rather than eliciting.

My next step was to evaluate my material using the evaluation framework we came up with in week 3.

Here is what I found.

MATERIALS SHOULD : 

Overall, I feel that the task I have designed scored fairly high. I think the most important points of this activity are that it is engaging and motivating, easily adaptable and not only helps to develop exam skills but other life skills too.

The drawback of it is, however, the fact it relies on technology available to hand and the technological competence of a teacher and students. But as I demonstrated above, such technology integration is meaningful

Saumell, V. (2016) Principles for meaningful technology integration. Modern English Teacher 25(2), pp 15-17

As part of the module we were required to create a worksheet for a particular class.  As I have been currently teaching Exam Skills I have decided to design my materials for this class. After doing some reading about worksheet development and design I have chosen to use Jolly and Bolitho’s (2011) sequence of material design process.

I like this model as it’s fairly simple and straightforward. The authors do point out, however, that it is a  simplified version of the design process and that the real process might not necessarily be carried out in the same order.

So here is how I followed these sequences:

1. IDENTIFICATION

Teaching exam classes can at times be a real challenge.  Although exam students are generally motivated and work hard towards their goals, preparing for exams can be very stressful for them. From my personal experience I found that students prefer (and sometimes insist on) doing a lot of practice tests in such classes, however, I don’t entirely agree with it.  By simply doing practise tests, exam classes can become very boring.  It can also demotivate some students if they do badly. There is no collaboration among the students as everyone does their tests individually. Teaching turns into testing.

I believe exam preparation classes should not just be exam practice, but also teach students examination techniques and encourage peer collaboration. With this material I attempt to make a reading activity a bit more kinaesthetic by turning it into a jigsaw puzzle.  Each puzzle piece represents a part of the text that students can see by scanning the piece with Aurasma app on their mobile phones. The students in this class are in their early 20s and familiar with mobile technology, and using a new application shouldn’t be an issue. They are also used to using a screen, rather than paper, for reading.

By integrating mobile technology into the lesson I hope to bring a fun element into what could be a studious and dry exam class.  Doing something out of ordinary can create a memorable experience so the students are more likely to remember what was taught in the lesson.   In order to complete the task students will need to negotiate and work together which brings speaking element into this reading lesson and makes it more collaborative.  Digital literacy skills exchange might take place when students are discovering the use of augmented reality and teaching each other how to use it.

2. EXPLORATION

Very often, regardless the exam they take, students find the reading component the hardest. This is perhaps because reading tasks require not only a good range of vocabulary to get the gist, but also reading techniques. When it comes to exam reading, students feel it is important to understand virtually every word in the text to complete the  task, whereas in reality if they are good at reading techniques they can do it without understanding the text fully. Therefore, I believe reading skills training is absolutely crucial for these kind of learners.

3. CONTEXTUAL REALISATION

The reason behind using a jigsaw puzzle is to highlight what students do wrong while doing this type of exam task. Often learners make the mistake of connecting sentences because they are describing the same idea but are not linked cohesively and vice versa.  Similarly, a puzzle piece could fit into a grid because it has the right shape but wouldn’t work because it has the wrong picture paten. I am hoping that by doing this activity students will understand the structure and development of a text better.

4. PEDAGOGICAL REALISATION

Next step was to choose a text I was going to turn into a jigsaw puzzle. I wanted to find something my students might find interesting and relevant to them.  I have chosen a story of Tom Davies, a young British cyclist who cycled around the world last year. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/09/teenager-completes-round-the-world-cycle-trip

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33842738/londoner-tom-davies-19-becomes-youngest-person-to-cycle-the-world

The event is fairly recent and the fact that the cyclist is in his early twenties might help my learners to identify with him.

Although the AR puzzle is the central point of this activity, I didn’t want it to overtake or dominate the class but instead act as a facilitative tool for collaboration and learning. I started thinking about what other activities I was going to use and the how I was going to structure my lesson. This is what I came up with:

1. Warmer: to activate the learner’s schemas and to elicit some of the language related to challenges
2. Pre-reading : to pre-teach and explain any difficult vocabulary
3. Exam skills: to elicit and revise reading techniques
4. Instructions: to explain to the students how to complete the puzzle task
5. Task: to let students start the task
6. Follow-up: to read the complete article and highlight the linking devices

5. PHYSICAL PRODUCTION

This was the most time consuming but equally the most interesting part of the process. The worksheet design was pretty straightforward  as I already have a good knowledge of graphic design.

Augmented Reality Reading Worksheet 1

Augmented Reality Reading Worksheet 2

Augmented Reality Reading Worksheet 3

The making of the AR jugsaw puzzle, on the other hand, was a totally new experience.First, I bought a couple of DIY jigsaw puzzle sets (Tiger is a great shop for it).

Then I needed to find a way of making some sort of pattern on each puzzle piece so it can serve as a trigger image. I couldn’t use an existing jigsaw puzzle with one complete image, as students would just follow the pattern of the image and not the text.  Another complication was that each piece should be unique enough so the software doesn’t confuse it with another piece and display the wrong bit of text.  Eventually I decided to use a set of stickers with as many different colours and patterns as I could find (Amazon is a great place for it) and started creating.

Once the puzzle was completed it was time to link it with the text. I split the text into 25 parts (the number of puzzle pieces) making sure each part could be linked to another by a linking device. I then printed and scanned them. Next step was to use Aurasma app and connect each puzzle piece with the printed part of the text.

The following stage was the testing stage and this is where I run into a problem.

The issue was the type of stickers I used.  They were reflective and would look different depending on the light, meaning the software couldn’t correctly recognise the tiles. I made the puzzle in the evening with a fairly dim light and it worked fine, but then I asked my husband to test it again for me in the morning in much brighter conditions. It failed to work. Well, live and learn! Meanwhile, I had to totally re-design my puzzle.

This time I needed to find some plain stickers. (photo).  It worked without a problem and the puzzle was finally completed.

6. STUDENT USE OF MATERIALS

As we were given 4 weeks to develop this worksheet over the Easter break, I actually had a chance to test my materials with my class in an observed lesson. I knew that trialling something totally new (and relying on technology to work) in an observed lesson was risky but I believe if, as a teacher, you feel inspired this shouldn’t stop you. The lesson went extremely well and I received positive feedback from both my students and my tutor. My assessor felt ‘it was an effective use of mobile technology that didn’t dominate, instead facilitated the transformation of what could have been a very dry, non-communicative lesson into one that generated genuine engagement and collaboration.’

7. EVALUATION OF MATERIALS

Although I have tested my materials in class and got positive feedback from my assessor, I am looking forward to demonstrating my work to my colleagues next week and receiving their feedback. I am excited to hear what alternative ideas other teachers can offer, as I would like to develop my material even further.

What I have learnt:

-Trailing and evaluation are essential in successful material design.

-Be prepared to go back to square one and re-design your materials. It shouldn’t put you off.

Jolly, D., & Bolitho, R. (2011). A framework for materials writing. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 107– 134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.