English language teaching has a complicated relationship with technology. On one hand, there the teachers and institutions with whom I have worked in my not-exactly-lengthy eight years in the profession who not only still use cassette tapes but would advocate strongly in their favour as a preference over more modern methods of playing audio recordings, bizarre as that must seem to their learners and any outsider who noticed. At the other extreme, there are those who see technology as the solution to every problem. There is the often unspoken but deep-seated worry that the day when machines will do us out of a job is coming sooner than we’d like. There are those who believe the offerings of ed-tech are so substandard to what an actual teacher in a classroom can offer that the robots will never take over – Ed Pegg’s post on the ELT Jam blog would liken these people to the unfortunate management at Ford in the 1970s, who decided not to cheapen their brand by adopting new businesses practices that were showing the beginnings of success for Toyota. He would contrast these people with the clever folks at Intel in the 1990s who made the opposite decision when it came to making cheaper processors, thus ensuring their continued success. There are those people in ELT too, who recognise that times are changing and who are open to changing with them.

By nature, I am reluctant user of technology. If I buy music, it’s on vinyl and when I take photos, it is with my film camera. I have a grudging acceptance of the need for my current, second hand iPhone 4, the first and only smart phone I’ve ever had. By nature, I belong with those people at Ford who were happy doing what they were doing, thinking disruption would never happen to them. But perhaps thanks to the theories and research I’ve been exposed to during this course, I recognise that I need to take steps to counteract these instincts in my teaching practice. There are too many benefits that I would otherwise be denying my learners. Having said that, embracing technology for technology’s sake is something I’m trying to avoid. As Hockley ¹ explains, in her discussion of mobile learning:

‘As with any technology, it is not the technology itself that enhances teaching or learning, but rather the use to which it is put. In this context, it is useful to distinguish between mobile learning activities that focus on consumption of content, and activities that encourage the production of language.’

This week I have been trying to think about how I could put technology to use for the benefit of  my evening exam class who are preparing for Cambridge First. These are self-funded, adult learners who typically work in low paid jobs. I feel a special responsibility to these learners, who work so hard in order to be here and often have a lot riding on exam success. There is no capacity to extend the number of classroom hours (90 over 18 weeks) so it falls to me firstly to facilitate maximally beneficial self study time and secondly to ensure the best possible use is made of our limited classroom time. Using a flipped classroom model has worked quite well to this end.

It is relatively easy to assign a reading or listening task to be done at home, likewise writing and grammar or vocabulary work are relatively straightforward to arrange. I could – and sometimes do – make use of technology in order to do this. For example, through the course’s college-established Moodle page. In these cases, in Puentedura’s ² terms, this would be using technology as a substitution, the most basic level of his ‘SAMR’ model which seeks to explain how technology can be used in teaching and learning. I decided to see if I could use TED-ED and the learners’ own mobile devices to design a lesson for my Cambridge First class which would focus on the speaking exam – something I have never previously set in a structured way for an outside class activity. I was aiming for a redefined task (the ‘R’ in Puentedura’s model) – one in which the technology would allow for a task that would not have been possible otherwise.

Once again, I have used Jolly & Bolitho’s ³ framework for materials writing, which has five stages, to guide the design process.

Identification

Who are the learners in question and what do they need? I’ve already mentioned some of the constraints my learners are under above. There is further description of this group of learners in my previous post on designing a worksheet.

Exploration 

What will be required of my learners in their speaking exam? To explore this, I have consulted the Cambridge English First Handbook for Teachers, which explains how the task is structured and what the learners need to demonstrate to examiners. This was the basis of the multiple choice section of the lesson as well as the discussion questions.

Contextual Realisation 

As TED-ED facilitates the building of a lesson around a video, I decided to select a video of candidates undertaking a part of the speaking exam. There are various videos in which teachers give a demonstration but I wanted my learners to watch an authentic attempt at the task – authentic in this sense meaning that it is being carried out by those for whom it was intended. The reason for this was my hope that my learners would be more comfortable evaluating a peer in terms of both strengths and weaknesses and that by doing so, they would be better prepared to evaluate the recordings of their own performances at the end of the lesson. I chose this video.

Pedagogical Realisation

I wanted this lesson to serve as an introduction to or a review of the requirements of the task candidates attempt in speaking part 3 and I believe a video is a good way to communicate the stages of the task clearly. I chose multiple choice questions as a way of focussing my learners’ attention on the key timings and stages of the task.

I selected the candidates repeated error with ‘how about…’ as the subject of another multiple choice question. Firstly, because I wanted to draw attention to the fact that the text in use was an example rather than a model and as such is open to critique. Secondly, because I wanted to highlight the language of suggestion, used here by the candidate to bring up the next point and move the conversation along. ‘How about…’ and similar phrases are crucial for successful performance in this part of the speaking exam.

There were two reasons behind my decision to include the evaluative questions. I hoped they would serve as a way to focus the learners’ attention on what the examiners are looking for – under the pressure of the task, I have often witnessed nervous students failing to listen to their partners, instead spending that time planning what to say next. This leads to a disjointed, non-conversation which examiners would consider a poor example of interactive communication. Furthermore, I anticipated that evaluating another’s performance would contribute to their developing abilities to evaluate their own attempts. My learners are used to recording themselves speaking but still tend to be overcritical and to focus on their grammatical mistakes. I believe that embracing the use of mobile technology in these classes has resulted in a redefined task, in that learners are able to listen to their recordings and benefit from the reflective process that goes along with that. This is a good example of what Hockley ⁴ referred to when she advocated in looking beyond commercially produced software:

‘For teachers to take full advantage of the potential of mobile learning, it requires a shift in thinking about not just where mobile learning can take place, but also a realization that mobile or handheld devices have many more affordances than simply the consumption of language in pre-packaged apps.’

I hoped that this guided evaluation of a genuine attempt at the task would help them get more out of their own version, which concluded my TED-ED lesson.

Physical Production

The final stage was accomplished using the TED-ED lesson creator software. This presented no technical challenges to the non-designer and I was happy with the way it turned out. As Jolly & Bolitho point out, the final stage is use in (or in this case, outside) the classroom. Once my students have had a chance to test it out, I’ll report back with any further thoughts for improvements.

References