Author Archives: Mark Thomas

Summary

Posted on by

Over the course of this module I have researched, explored and questioned the many elements of material design. A blog is a great way for a teacher to reflect and monitor progress as part of a their personal development. I am very grateful for this type of assessment and I feel it has been of huge benefit to me professionally. My hope is that within the posts of the blog, the main ideas and themes about what I see as important to material design come through.

At the heart of material design are the needs of the students. This essential element is where everything grows and develops from. The SLA approach, the content, the tasks and the evaluation, are all predetermined by those for whom they are being designed.

It is important for the teacher to consider their own approach to ELT. Their principles must be present in the materials so that the teacher will believe in what they are doing and what they are asking others to do.

Students, teachers, institutions and materials are inextricably linked and there is a symbiotic relationship between them. This means that all of these stakeholders should be part of the evaluation process. Evaluation can at first sound judgmental and finite, when in fact it is evolutionary and infinite. It is the one element of the module I feared the most, but has become nothing but positive professional development. I have a greater confidence in my ability to micro- and macro-evaluate materials at any stage of the process. Having examined my beliefs, I feel confident in my ability to generate evaluation criteria that are open and honest while always remaining true to the context in which they are to be administered.

There is no escaping the changing landscape of ELT materials. As the world adjusts and creates new and exciting to ways to communicate and share information, the culture of ELT must do the same. Modern-day students demand a ‘real’ learning experience and teachers need to recognise that the creation and dissemination of materials needs to become more accessible and engaging. There are so many types of media that can be used for input, production and assessment, this blog being a good example. I don’t want to suggest the use of technology for technology’s sake, but we need to look at the world in which we live and make sure our materials represent the best possible means of promoting positive language acquisition and learning.

Finally, I feel that this module has given me the confidence and the tools to become more of a contributor and collaborator in the world of ELT materials. This is may be in the role of a creator, or an evaluator but definitely as an all round appreciator.

6 Minute English from the BBC

Posted on by

The BBC’s language learning service is an excellent multi-modal website with both general and specialised language foci. The 6 minute English section is a stand-out section for me.

6 min

6 Minute English

The clue is in the title. The recordings are based on current events in the UK and around the world. The themes are varied and rich, with several years of archived footage. The recording is normally a dialogue between the presenters, and contains authentic sound-bites from real news interviews. Prior to listening there is a multiple-choice general knowledge question about the topic, which is then answered at the end. This provides an engaging lead-in and gets the students thinking. Listening comprehension is supported by a list of 8-ish items of lexis or chunks. The items all have hidden and retrievable definitions underneath. These can be used as a lead-in or as a consolidation exercise. The audio script also has brief descriptions and definitions within it, which adds variety to the input. This is further supported with a language focus roundup at the end. All recordings have a full PDF transcript that can be downloaded or printed. This allows for differentiation and alternative methods of input and consolidation exercises. It is free to use and can be accessed (internet access and licenses permitting) by students outside of class, and could be part of their extramural activities or homework.

I cannot recommend this web page enough and the BBC for that matter. This resource definitely ticks a lot of the principles that I set out at the start of the blog. It has ‘real’ world functional language and can be perceived as relevant and useful. It has wide and varying amount of content that would appeal and engage. There are examples of authentic language use as well as the more manufactured dialogue which gives a good balance.

 

SoundCloud

Posted on by

logo

SoundCloud is something that I have been using for the past year or so. I have found it invaluable as a way of recording speaking practice to track progress and assess students. Speaking can be really difficult to monitor and give constructive feedback on; when you have a larger class-size, the time and resources are just impossible to manage all at once. SoundCloud is a free application that has a rich resource of audio material, it also has a simple mobile phone application that allows students to record and upload to a private and secure location.

Student Benefits

Record audio on phone or laptop
Upload, store and listen later
Evaluate and perfect
Monitor long-term progress

Teacher Benefits

‘Follow’ students
Give comments and feedback
Set homework tasks
Record audio for listening practice
Encourage independence

Here is an example of a student who has recorded himself practising the speaking coursework, which he then uploaded onto my SoundCloud page where I could listen and leave him comments.

Speaking example

I urge you to give it a go. My students were sceptical at first but they have really taken to it.

Worksheets

Posted on by

The seminar this week was about coming together, evaluating and critiquing the materials we had personally developed. There were a lot of very professional and inspiring examples of what we teachers can produce for ourselves. It was a terrific experience to see what people can do using ‘everyday’ tools such as Word.

The materials that I created and adapted are based on the EAP course I teach for Foundation English. Academic English acknowledges the need for students to understand and describe Processes. The scheme of work asks the teachers to build up the individual language features of process writing: passive grammar, cause and effect language and sequence markers. At the same time, students will be developing their note-talking skills, listening, and writing.

Rationale for the lesson:

This task takes place midway through the course as part of a formative assessment. The students will have performed several tasks of Bloom’s taxonomy in order to build their Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, and Analysis. This is task moves up to the next level and asks students to synthesise the work they have done before. The approach is one that is slightly more focused in order to be assessed with more validity and reliability.

The content is about chewing gum, which I feel is accessible to most students and an unusual food item that will engage the students. Similarly, video is used as input in order to combat the more ‘dry’ paper-based visual representations of processes they may have previously encountered (see adaption post). The use of audio mirrors the actual coursework method.

ingred

 

The weird secret ingredients in chewing gum – Jimmy’s Food Factory – BBC One

The students’ performance of this task will inform them, and the teacher, about their current understanding of the necessary language functions, and skills ahead of the final assessment. Initial feedback and evaluation of their work will be from peer-reviewing the notes. Peer-reviewing attempts to heighten awareness and practise autonomous reviewing of work, but has reliability issues.  Therefore, this is followed by a more formal assessment and feedback from the teacher. The final coursework has a clearly defined marking criteria that should be used at this stage too. This will give valid and reliable feedback

The lesson procedure:

The students will discuss the topic and focus on key vocabulary prior to listening. They will watch a short video describing the process of making chewing gum. While they listen they should make notes using the worksheet provided. Once the notes are compiled they will discuss and share their notes with their peers. This will lead into a writing task, where they will write an academic descriptive essay of the process.

Chewing Gum Process

First Worksheet Rationale:

Sheet One:

The first paragraph aims to remind students that they are consolidating the listed language functions and skills. This is to make sure that they start to think about what has been covered.

The ‘lesson plan’ section briefly explains the procedure of the lesson. I find that this works well with some students as it gives a structure and helps to consolidate at the end of a lesson as part of a review.

The ‘discuss’ section of the worksheet starts by activating schemata about chewing gum and asks the students to predict what they will hear. This will also start to prepare them for the language needed for the task.

Vocabulary section: chewing gum has some very unique and specialised lexis for its ingredients which might be negative distractors during the listening. Therefore, I feel it is necessary to pre-teach some of them. The portion of the video where the ingredients are described is played as a means of input for the vocabulary and also to get the students use to the video itself.

Sheet Two:

The page has been separated into the main steps that take place during the process. There are some gaps that have been filled as a means of supporting weaker students and are concurrent with the design and layout of coursework. Here a linear vertical structure has been used. This should help the students to follow the process and select the correct information for each stage.

Seminar feedback

The comments from my peers were overall positive. The task had a suitable approach, and the timing and the purpose seemed to match the task they were being asked to do. They felt that the sequence of information on sheet one was counterintuitive and that the lesson plan should be at the top/start. Overall, there was a sense that the worksheet could be more uniform and clearer (some boxes were slightly out of synch etc). On sheet two, they thought that the information given to the students (in the boxes) was over simplifying the task. From a personal perspective, on viewing the designs and effort of other peoples’ worksheets, I felt that my work looked flat and unengaging.

Final Draft Worksheet

Final Worksheet Changes:

Having followed several of Jason Renshaw’s materials-design tutorials on YouTube, I started to edit and adapt my original worksheet.

Have a look and please give me your feedback.

• I feel that the worksheet is more engaging and professional looking

• Sheet one is clear and framing the different activities and tasks helps to keep focus

• The buttons and layout of sheet one meet the expectations of other materials for ELT. However, one colleague questioned its similarity to the actual coursework worksheet.

• Sheet two has been colour-coded and a horizontal process format used. Overall, it feels easier to follow and is not as dumbed down.

• To offer differentiation, a second sheet two has been created with video exerts used instead of headings. This will help lower level students to track the progress of the process.

Principles and evaluation

The final draft of the worksheet and the lesson as a whole could be seen as a more engaging way to get the students involved in the task.The worksheet’s opening activities will activate the students’ schemata and contextualise what they are about to listen to and make notes about. The worksheet also highlights what they have practised so far and where this activity fits into their progress. This enables them to perceive its relevance and use, as well as giving a balanced approach to the progress they are making for the coursework task. The peer discussion will provide an opportunity for them to use language in order to communicate their ideas, and aid competence in this area.

The video and audio elements would support learners throughout the input. The dual-input functionality of video should contextualise the information more clearly. The note-taking exercise mirrors the demands of the final task (coursework) later in the term. Again this gives it credibility and relevance.

In terms of a pre-evaluation, the worksheet looks engaging as does the use of video for input. Analysis pre-evaluation would stand up to scrutiny because it addresses the need of the student within the macro-context of the course. The timing of the exercise works as part of the students’ progression and what they need to be able to do at this stage of the course. The approaches are both experiential and elicitative because the tasks encourage language discovery and communicative purpose (materials-as-content and materials-as-language). There are two possible sheets to aid differentiation, which addresses the possible needs of the learners.

 

Task Evaluation (Pt2)

Posted on by

Throughout this blog the idea of evaluating tasks has been central to the on-going evolution of material design. Ellis (1998) states that evaluation can be used to determine the pedagogical merits of one activity or it can be used to facilitate the process of curriculum development. This is what Ellis calls micro-, and macro-evaluations.

Macro-evaluation can be defined as evaluation that seeks to answer one or both of the following questions:

1. To what extent was the programme/project effective and efficient in meeting its goals?
(Accountability evaluation)

2. In what ways can the programme/project be improved?
(Development evaluation)

Macro-evaluations are less likely to have much concern for the teachers in the classroom, whose focus is on the learning and development of the students. They are less likely to look at a programme as a whole, and will focus on whether specific activities and techniques appear to ‘work’ in the context of a particular lesson. A teacher’s macro-evaluation is probably going to manifest from a whole host of micro-evaluations, taking place throughout the set period of time. Micro-evaluations are characterised by a narrow-focus on specific aspects. In terms of materials, we might ask whether a particular activity is effective or efficient in achieving learning goals. Although, to determine these two states as satisfactory is difficult to do without a systemic and principled approach to evaluation.

As mentioned in my previous post, re: evaluations of course books and materials. The evaluation can be conducted at one or at all three stages: Pre-use, during use, and post-use. Similarly, tasks can be evaluated at different stages of planning, use and reflection. Ellis (1989) suggests that you can start with an external evaluation (pre-use) examining the tasks claims about: intended audience, proficiency level, the context in which writers of materials intend them to be use, the way the language has been organised into teachable units, and the writer’s’ views on language and methodology. This is can be followed by an internal evaluation (in-depth) investigation of the aspects of presentation of the materials, the grading and sequences, the kind of texts used, and the relationship between exercises and tests.

With some many considerations and the many different reasons for evaluating a task, a balance needs to be found based on the purpose and context. When looking at using authentic texts for example, there is a positive aspect of naturally occurring language input, but this may have an equal weighting of the negative considerations for vocabulary overload. The overarching theme (throughout the blog) being that it must be the needs of the learners that are at the core of these considerations.

There are seven dimensions of evaluation put forward by Ellis (1989) that are applicable to both micro- and macro-approaches:

I. Approach
II. Purpose
III. Focus
IV. Scope
V. The evaluators
VI. Timing
VII. Types of information

Taking these seven dimensions into account, I will look at how they would apply to a micro-evaluation of a task.

The approach is about looking at the method or beliefs that the task is created for. Approaches are not polarised but are part of a large spectrum. In an attempt to simplify this Ellis (1998) bookends the spectrum with two generalised models: focused and unfocused tasks i.e. more behaviourist and objective moving toward communicative and sociocultural perspectives. The approach needs to classify:

  • The type of input (e.g. verbal or nonverbal) and
  • The procedure i.e. activities the learners are to perform (experiential or elicitative language use).
  • The language skills the students are going to be using (receptive or productive).
  • The intended outcome of the task, that is, what the learners will have done on completion of the task.

The approach informs the second dimension, which is to reflect on the purpose of the task. This is also connected to the timing dimension. The purpose is trying to measure and give feedback on learning, or to develop and reflect on the task (accountability and development). A full description of the purpose requires objectives of the task, ‘real’ world or pedagogic to be clear. Real world is asking learners to approximate in class what is required of them outside, whereas pedagogic requires some language activity which is not found in the real world but does facilitate language acquisition. In the context of micro-evaluation it is difficult to establish whether the learners acquired new linguistic knowledge or improved fluency.  Therefore it may be necessary to evaluate whether the hypothesised methods effects on language acquisition have been achieved instead of defined learning objectives. Commonly, timing looks at whether the task is going to be formative or summative in its feedback. Micro-evaluations can do both depending on when the task is completed within the curriculum. The task’s timing will go some way to  aiding the data that determines its focus.

Focus is looking at the effectiveness and efficiency of the task. This appears to be a difficult dimension to evaluate. Firstly, it may be necessary to judge what and how well something has been learned upon the task’s completion. If the learner shows gains in those aspects of language proficiency, which were the starting objective, then the task can be considered ‘effective’. If something is learnt is hard to clarify and requires scope. To glean if something is efficient it would need to be compared to other tasks that have similar structure and objectives, which is very difficult to do. It must also use the same types of information. This data can be drawn from traditional objective models such as test scores. While, a more holistic approach could be considered, where the evaluation is directed a greater variety of information such as: documentary information of student work (coursework), self-reflection and discussion of progress and development, and observational feedback from the classroom.

To recognise which of these types of information is needed, one must address the scope. This tries to value if the task meets its ‘stated’ goals, or whether to examine the goals themselves (are the goals appropriate for the learning question). The internal scope uncritically accepts the goals of the programme, while an external scope submits the goals for critical scrutiny. External evaluation of scope will inquire if unpredicted learning has taken place. Two types of information collection should be considered: information relating to the outcome of the task that is the focus of the evaluation. Secondly, the data relating to whether, the learners can perform the task (or similar ones) without pedagogic support?

Finally, the evaluators themselves need to be considered. Who is conducting the evaluation? Are they within the institution or and external candidate? Internal evaluations may be considered more effective as it needs involvement from ‘all stakeholders’ who have investment. However, outside ones may offer a more objective, ‘fresh’ perspective and may give more credibility. Another option is for an advocacy evaluation, this asks various parties to argue their case for their own bias and stances. It can be argued that this is more likely to foster development, but only if that is the goal of the evaluation (Ellis, 1998). An evaluation needs clear distinctions between its conclusion and recommendation. In the cyclical nature of materials design, recommendations should be given based on the conclusions drawn from the seven dimensions all being considered.

Evaluations are very difficult for me to comprehend out of context. It is important to remember that it is the clarity of what is being evaluated that must come first. The systemic and principle approach can only work if it is guided by its purpose. I feel that the more I engage with task creation and evaluate the approach and scope of my tasks. There are going to be suitable for my students, and the curriculum aims and are more likely to satisfy the focus of macro-evaluations both internally and externally. Evaluation will also allow for more reflection and development of my teaching beliefs, style and effectiveness.

References

Ellis, R. (1998) The evaluation of communicative tasks. In: Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials development in language Teaching. (2nd ed) Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press. Pp212-235.

Ellis, R. (2011) The evaluation of communicative tasks. In: Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials development in language Teaching. (2nd ed) Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press. Pp217-238.

 

Tasks (Pt1)

Posted on by

This seminar (Week 7) looked at what a task is. At the start of this course a material was defined as anything that aids the learning or acquisition of language. Therefore, what is a task? Ur (1988) describes a task as something that activates engagement with the materials being used. It should have a clear objective, language system or skill usage. To stimulate engagement the task must demand the student to actively participate receptively or productively (or both).

Ellis (1998) describes the different components of a task:

• An activity of some kind
• It has specified outcomes
• Language comprehension or production or both
• Learners focus their attention principally on meaning rather than form

There is clear overlap here with Ur’s description. However, Ellis excludes the ‘typical’ grammar exercises found in course books taking a Present, Practice, Produce (P.P.P) approach to language learning. This is due to their requirement for a focus on form. However, it could be argued that language awareness activities, in general, could also fall under this descriptor and may not be ‘seen’ as a task if the learners are attempting to discover linguistic phenomena.
Shalvelson & Stern (1981) as cited in Nunan (1989:47) offer another theory of what a task is composed of:

1. Content – subject matter to be taught
2. Materials – the things that the learners observe or manipulate
3. Activities – the things which the learners and teachers will be doing in the lesson
4. Goals – the teacher’s general aim of the task
5. Students – their abilities, need and interests
6. Social community – the class as a whole and its sense of ‘groupness’

This may seem more comprehensive but it does appear to cover a lot of the same themes. If a material is anything that aids the acquisition and knowledge of language, then a task is the specific description of how and who will be interacting with the material and what they are expected to do with it. In some ways a material is a stick and task is a fishing rod (as the old analogy goes).

Another dimension that Ellis (2012) has added to a task descriptor is the idea of them being focused or unfocused. The former affords ‘discrete’ or ‘controlled’ language features to be practiced through communication, while the latter aims to have communication as the foundation for language to be acquired at the point of need. This notion brings into focus two different approaches to material design and teaching. Task-supported Language Teaching (TSLT) is traditionally found in the pages of course books, ones with a structural syllabus using PPP. Materials are divided into units that are sub-divided into skills, language, and functional tasks, as a means of scaffolding knowledge in preparation for a final activity. Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) supports the idea of communication with unfocused activities and tasks that create a ‘need’ for certain language functions.

The TBLT supports a socio-cultural perspective that aligns itself more with my own beliefs of ELT. However, this is may not be as simple as it first appears. The courses that I teach on are academic in content and are judged on coursework receptive and productive tasks that are scored using a uniformed marking description. This means that pressures are put on both students and staff to try and reach certain targets. With that in mind more rigid and focused approaches need to be taken in order to meet deadlines. Having observed the teachers that I work with and by reflecting on my own practice we find ourselves in a situation of a more eclectic and mixed method approach using both TSLT and TBLT. This suggests to me that the needs of the students and situation come first and leaves less room for rigidity of approach. The coursework tasks are uniformed and are marked with marking descriptors. Yet it is still the teacher who has control (in my situation) prior to the assessment and they can create and adapt tasks accordingly. Therefore, teachers can set the purpose and scope for their task evaluations as means of development and reflection.

Task types and taxonomies

There are various types of tasks that an ELT teacher encounters through published materials and peer created tasks. Different task types lend themselves to more focused or unfocused approaches and this is quite apparent when flicking through any published course book. Loosely speaking they could be set along a Kline (see below). There are of course more task types to consider. As mentioned above several tasks will make up a single lesson and this may require a mixed approach of focused and unfocused activities.

Gap-fill – Matching – Compare and Contrast – Reformulate – Project work

Focused Unfocused

Over the years I have encountered Bloom’s taxonomy of learning and teaching. During an in-house training session at Bellerbys College I was given this helpful description of applying Bloom’s Taxonomy to task design.

Blooms taxonomy and task design HO

Each level/stage moves from the more focused mastery tasks to the more open and unfocused developmental ones. For me it perfectly sums up the process and the type of tasks I create and adapt for my students throughout a term. It also makes it clear that the tasks are not more communicative or more difficult problems to solve. It is describing how learner becomes more autonomous by using the skills they have mastered and applying them to the unfocused and more cognitively demanding tasks. This is, in many respects, similar to the Zone of Proximal Development [put forward by Vykotsky) that asks learners to push themselves beyond their current level to acquire new knowledge.

Now having looked at what a task is, it is important to address the issues and considerations of evaluating a task.

References

Ellis, R. (1998) The evaluation of communicative tasks. In: Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials development in language Teaching. (2nd ed) Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press. Pp212-235.

Ellis, R. (2011) The evaluation of communicative tasks. In: Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials development in language Teaching. (2nd ed) Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press. Pp217-238.

Nunan, D. (1989) Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Ur, P. (2009) Grammar Practice Activities: A practical guide for teachers. (2nd ed) Cambridge: Cambrdige University Press. (See section 3 – Activties pp. 11-26)

Tom Ottway

Posted on by

Tom started by giving us a brief introduction to his current role and C.V. of materials design. The first project that he worked on was one that was free of remit and was told do what he liked. Tom mentioned that it was nice to have the shackles of a traditional coursebooks removed and could consider his own beliefs and theories behind designing and producing materials. The intended audience was for out-of-school children during their summer holidays to engage and get them to keep using English. The materials were heavily influenced by film and the presentation was clearly aimed at its intended users.

An interesting point that Tom made was about the use of video in course books and those publications trying more mixed methods and approaches to input. He suggested that some, if not most, publishers go for a 90 – 10 split when deciding on the type of materials. The 90 percent is the usual and ‘conventional’ way and 10% is a new or more experimental approach. This again is a disheartening critique of the publishing world and makes me question the idea of ‘new’ literacies that seem to be discussed a lot but not put into practice.

Tom spoke about using Brainshark, which is a presentation tool essentially. It uses images (still) and audio to great effect. The content is available online and can bring normal Powerpoint presentations to life. It also enables better pacing and contextualisation.
However, he warned that you must check the terms and conditions, “think about who owns the content?” Where is it hosted? All YouTube videos that a teacher creates and posts on the website are in effect the property of google. He believes that Photo stream with audio is as good as video. He also supports Gavin Hockly’s view that suggests Flickr with audio is a very good option and is compliant with self-created content and Creative Common laws. This is nicely linked to last week’s talk about visuals and the benefits of Flickr as a resource.

Tom gave excellent rationale for using video in the classroom for ELT:

• Motion
• Narrative
• Rich
• Authentic
• Genre rich
• Investment
• Ripe with message
• Full of life
• Accessible and mobile

Another key term that was discussed was Digestibility. This is a key factor when considering the use of video. If a video that is watched by 5 million people around the world why not use it in class?
As mentioned above the autonomy that modern technology and connectivity means that teachers and students can shift from curators of materials to creators. In general, we start off as curators of video content and hopefully can develop into creators.

As mentioned in my video post the pedagogical benefits of motion pictures need to be considered carefully. They are not just for presenting input or taking a fun ‘break’ they need to be applied as part of a structured and layered lesson plan.

Ted-ED

Posted on by

An absolutely invaluable piece of software that I have been using in the classroom is the TedEd website. TED (https://www.ted.com/talks) is a great resource for video content. I will let TED describe what it is and what is does so I can do it justice:
“TED is a non-profit organisation devoted to spreading ideas, usually in the form of short, powerful talks (18 minutes or less). TED began in 1984 as a conference where Technology, Entertainment and Design converged, and today covers almost all topics — from science to business to global issues — in more than 100 languages.”
Our Mission: Spread ideas
“TED is a global community, welcoming people from every discipline and culture who seek a deeper understanding of the world. We believe passionately in the power of ideas to change attitudes, lives and, ultimately, the world. On TED.com, we’re building a clearinghouse of free knowledge from the world’s most inspired thinkers — and a community of curious souls to engage with ideas and each other, both online and at TED and TEDx events around the world, all year long.”
Ted have gone one step further and have developed their own education based website (TedEd) that can stream any of the Ted talks available online and any video from one of the partner companies YouTube. As YouTube is third most popular websites on the internet, this adds a wealth of video that can be used in an interactive blended or flipped learning experience.
Flipped Learning is explained in the infographic below. Essentially, it is about flipping the classroom. The students will be asked to watch a video as a means of input prior to a class. This input will mean they are prepared and ready for in-class activities, where the teacher can spend more time and focus on what is being produced and for any gaps in knowledge. This is something that I have been keen to explore and have used over the past year or so with my classes.

flipped

TedEd allows its users to create engaging lessons based around a video from the mentioned sources. It is simple and free to use and has a catalogue of lesson available to used directly or adapted accordingly.

teded open

The format is fairly simple to follow. You find a video that you feel is relevant to your topic. The video is embedded into the ‘Watch’ section of the page. This is the immediate input at the start of the page/lesson and is in essence the primary input for what follows. The next section (if you want it to be) is the ‘Think’ section. This is where questions related to the video can be prepared. These can be open or closed, and offer immediate feedback for any misunderstanding. The input is always available and ready to be watched again if the students need to review and consolidate. The third section of a TedEd lesson is called ‘Dig Deeper’. Here is the part of the lesson aimed at giving extra input and in any form of media deemed relevant; this adds a very connective and multimodal element to the lesson. It affords the students an opportunity to discover and explore the themes and topics at a ‘deeper’ level. The final section is aimed at preparing and performing a form of discussion. The ‘Discuss’ section can be used to set up pre-class tasks, to bring thoughts together, or give more activities that will aid the work to be done in the lesson.

myted

Here is a lesson that I have created for my class. http://ed.ted.com/on/rdfdFEUG#watch

Normally, in a class I would ask the students to watch the video and make notes as the first half hour of the lesson. The second half would be spent using notes to support a discussion/debate about the topic. By flipping this model and asking the students to complete the TedEd lesson, it meant that the entire lesson was dedicated to the discussion, which is what they were being assessed and graded on. This led to far more informed and meaningful discussions, the register and level of discourse was improved greatly. This may, in part, be due to the topic being engaging. However, it is my belief that the input being presented at the students own pace, and the ability to have feedback on understanding, to research and discuss the themes being discussed ahead of the lesson has had a very positive impact.

Video

Posted on by

Act I

(Setting the scene and background information)

Since L’arrivée d’un train en gare de La Ciotat wrote itself into urban legend by making the audience scream and flee the cinema, so began the a public’s interest in the art of moving pictures. Their impact can be seen and felt throughout society and around the globe. The earliest use of motion pictures in the classroom occurred in America in 1910 (Snelson and Perkins, 2009). Silent films provided educators with a new mechanism for making instruction more concrete, realistic and visual. Through film, students could witness far away lands, visit dangerous places and witness natural phenomena, which is something textbooks were unable to provide to those seated in the classroom.

By the late 1920’s, a new capacity was introduced to film with the arrival of the sound (films known as “talkies”). The element of audio opened up even more pedagogical affordances for the utilisation of film in the classroom. Images and audible language exposure offered a multi-functional input stream that could contextualise language and give examples of authentic use.

Fast-forward several decades, and movie theatres and projectors were being replaced by video recording technology. This innovation extended the capacity for the professional and amateur recording of materials. Video recording and cassettes provided opportunities for more mobile input and gave greater control of editing and playback options. It became possible to escape the constraints of broadcast schedules that did not correspond to classroom schedules. In addition to this, the process of recording videotape footage of sporting events, science experiments, or local history could be easily accomplished with portable video cameras. This pathed the way for new possibilities for assessment and student-centred creation of materials (Snelson and Perkins, 2009).

The emergence of commercial videodisc players began in the late 1970s and early 80s. They introduced more advanced levels of access to material in the classroom. In addition to these more advanced features, DvDs (as we know them) gave not only greater control, but also the capacity to store text, charts, graphs and audio in addition to video. With a videodisc it was possible to jump directly to video segments without having to rewind, search, and play as was necessary with videotape (Snelson and Perkins, 2009). DvDs gave an efficiency to video input that earlier display options could not provide.

The arrival of the computer, mobile devices and the internet have been the most significant evolution of video and its use in education. In fact, media players that enable video playback on computers have existed since the early 1990s. However, video streams from online services allow users to view media instantly through the internet rather than waiting for a lengthy download or needing a disc (Snelson and Perkins, 2009). This development has meant that video input in education has gone viral (and the term “viral” has become part of everyday lexicon). Using streamed video as part of ELT materials is convenient and pedagogically advantageous. This has seen a massive increase in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). It is redefining how, when and where we teach and learn.

Act II

(The current landscape)

Online video has permeated the internet and has become an incredibly popular media among its users. Teachers with access to interactive whiteboards or any device that is capable of playing streamed video will no-doubt be visiting YouTube or Vimeo for free-at-the-point-of-use materials. There has been a meteoric rise in online video content, and YouTube is ranked the third most popular website in the world (Wikipedia, 2015).

table

The wealth of available material online has drawn attention from institutions and businesses alike. For example, YouTube EDU was established in March 2009 with leading colleges and universities contributing to it as a means of creating online courses and educational content of a professional standard. At the same time, many leading publishing companies are moving their focus to more open online courses and e-publication of material.

The use of online video has not only empowered teachers, but technology has also put the student in an advantageous, autonomous position whereby they can create their own content. Some of the most significant changes are the options for video capture, editing and delivery. It has given rise to new approaches of language production and reception, such as the popularity of video-based storytelling. This has been enabled largely by innovations in video production and distribution (Robert Godwin Jones, 2012). Another shift has been the greater array of capturing options: inexpensive camcorders, built-in webcams and mobile phones. The quality of the recording devices has much improved over the years. The most intriguing new capacity for mobile-produced video is not only its quality, but also its distribution capabilities through instant connection to the Internet.

The global reach is not enough, it is the multimodality offered by online video that empowers language-learning on a greater level. The HTML ‘embedded’ code, provided with YouTube and other services, can be pasted into online discussion board posts for students analyse and respond to. Students may record video responses, link web pages, or create something and share through any medium they choose. This adds a new dimension to discussion boards and general correspondence whereby students can see and hear each other rather than simply read text responses.

Act III

(The final debate/battle)

One of the salient benefits for moving pictures in the classroom is the capacity to preserve real-world events, depict motion and change the speed of recorded phenomena. This gives instant, contextualised input and opportunities for examples of authentic language use. Video moves beyond the page of any textbook and brings events to life (authentic or re-enactment). It is this capacity that can engage and motivate students at all levels. In modern-day classrooms video input is almost expected.

The use of visual and audible input means that students have a greater range of semiotics to which to attach meaning and from which to glean understanding.The ability to navigate directly to short, focused video segments like those commonly found on YouTube enables the visual and auditory attributes of video to be exploited without losing student attention during a long-playing presentation. In contrast, there could be information overload and it may add to confusion or misunderstanding. The issue of appropriacy is a key consideration; the internet has every subject imaginable and teachers need to check before use or be be prepared when trying out ‘off the cuff’ video.

Instant, global distribution means that students can be exposed to both native speaker and non-native speaker language-use. This tallies with the idea that classrooms should not be Anglo-centric and can help students with English as a lingua franca which may be their context. A variety of input and output experiences may also benefit monolingual classes.

It is the huge scale of video resources that has made online videos so adaptable and appealing. There is probably the right video input that you need online, it is just a question of finding it. If it can not be found, there is little to stop a teacher from creating it themselves. With so many input options, video is used with all types of materials. Materials-as-content can use video to elicit discussion and debate about a topic, while materials-as-language can be used for activities such as listening gap-fills, summary writing, and language noticing activities. The same clip could be used for a myriad of different lessons and learner levels which add to its economy.

Portability, low cost, and widespread access have promoted mobile phones to a high level of importance among learning technologies. Video recording and sharing lend themselves very well to this technology. They give autonomy to the student to actively or passively engage with video inside and outside the classroom so that they are being exposed to the target language.

Zhang, Zhou, Briggs, and Nunamker (2006) conducted an empirical study that showed interactive video groups achieved both significantly higher learning gains and higher levels of satisfaction than the other three groups. This group also had random access to video content whereby they could select and jump from video clips of interest. This has similarities with the array of online video services available today.

Doubting Voices

Snelson and Perkins (2009) highlighted that as early as 1922 the pedagogical benefits attributed to educational film were based on unproven and unscientific psychological principles. Castro used phrases such as “doomed” and “swift disillusionment”, while warning against blindly accepting promises about the use of film that it is not capable of fulfilling.

Ormer (as cited in Snelson and Perkins, 2009) explained “the effectiveness of films depends on how well their content is related to a specific instructional objective. There is nothing in a motion picture presentation, per se, that guarantees better learning”.

Clark (1983) (as cited in Snelson and Perkins, 2009) wrote “the best current evidence is that media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in nutrition”

Access and sharing capabilities also open the teacher and the student to copyright infringements and inappropriacy of the content. In spite of there being filters and blockers teachers can use, that fact the internet offers instant continual access to millions of hours of free video content is likely to throw up some unpleasant surprises.

A discussion about video needs to strip away the surrounding affordances that are mere add-ons. The key issue is whether using video in an ELT context satisfies the needs of the students and the task at hand. There is no escaping the potential that video has for engaging and motivating students, while offering comprehensible and contextualised input. Whether this means that learning and the acquisition of language will be improved is unclear. It is powerful part of the teaching arsenal and a great way to empower students to create their own content.

References

Bailey, R. & Dugard, C. (2007) Lights, camera, action!: Digital video in the languages classroom. London: CiLT.

Godwin Jones, R. (2012) Digital video Revisted: storytelling, conferencing and Remixing. Language Learning & technology 16 (1): pp 1-9. Available from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/emerging.pdf (accessed 2 April 2015)

Snelson, C. & Perkins, R. A. (2009) From silent film to YouTube[TM]: tracing the historical roots of motion picture technologies in education. Journal of Visual Literacy, 28 (1), 1.