This seminar took us back to a question from the very beginning of this module: what constitutes materials? We discussed tangible materials versus the intangible, such as physical worksheets, course books et cetera compared with memory games, discourse, peer checking, ad hoc conversations and so on and returned to Tomlinson and Masuhara’s definition that “anything that can be used by learners to facilitate their learning of the language” (2018, p. 2).

There will be two aspects to this post, the task we were set, and this module, which was delivered completely online. I think that would be an interesting discussion to compare our beliefs, the literature, and our lived experiences. The pre-seminar task we were set was to create online materials that was based on the teacher-created materials from week 7 and the students that had presented online materials for that week were given the choice to present those in more detail focusing on the online nature rather than as materials in general or create some new materials.

With the onset of Web 2.0, I have seen how it has democratised various areas of entertainment from citizen reporting, self-published authors to video entertainment free from editors at large corporations. This has also entered into the space of language education in various forms: asynchronous language teaching videos with comments to interact with the author; online one-to-one tuition open to anyone with internet access with sufficient bandwidth, multilingual code-switching learner-generated materials amongst others. This access “afforded online interaction and user-created materials, and these altered the authorship paradigm, as well as blurring the line between materials and tools that produce them” (Mishan & Timmis, 2015, p. 94). The relationship between materials as product and materials as process are much more tightly interwoven and it is this change in relationship which pushed me towards creating a video:

https://www.powtoon.com/s/eQfeM7XuKUh/1/m

Due to time constraints, and the majority of the time spent investigating the video editing tools, the video was very short and incomplete. The idea was to provide learners with the instructions and the selection of reading/viewing materials in the video so that it was self-contained and the jamboard was separate and could be introduced after viewing the video. This would allow me to set the default time to view each article/video before moving on and ensure that learners would all finish the first viewing approximately at the same time. Video also allows learners to view any part of the video again at their leisure should they want to, in computer science, this is known as persistence and is one of the new affordances of internet connectivity in education. This is the material as product aspect but offers new ways of working that are not possible in the traditional classroom.

Then there is the material as process aspect that the online video creation and editing opened up to the learners. They can create their own videos using the online software and access different modes of communication such as video, images, text, audio, emoji, memes or any combination of those or modes that I have not considered. This affords the learner the opportunity to consider the “redundancies and complementarity between the different modes” (Guichon & Cohen, 2016, p. 663), and facilitates learners’ development in digital literacies so that they “know how to operate these technologies, and to use them safely, wisely and productively” (Dudeney & Hockly, 2016, p. 166). This video creation task could supplant the writing task that Ingunn had proposed in week 7, and had we had more time to discuss and evaluate our ideas, we may have decided upon video creation as a worthwhile productive task.

The way this task is modelled by the input given to the learners is something I value and is something I consider when choosing how to present materials. This is in contrast to Anna and Siân’s branching-narrative reading and discussion task. The complexity of creating such a narrative is challenging for established writers and would most definitely present a challenge to learners. Again, the persistent nature of online pages is something that would be difficult to replicate in the traditional learning environment, especially the ability to give access to an unlimited number of readers (servers willing) at any time of the day. Learners can re-read and try different branches at their leisure, thus reinforcing extensive reading habits and improving reading speed. Editing the manuscript is also much quicker and easier with spell checkers that highlight typographical, spelling as well as grammatical errors. Intellectual property is easier to protect in this instance due to the difficulty of reproducing the manuscript, so should Anna and Siân wish to share the URL, they can retain their credits for putting the work in to produce the story. The affordances of new technology often bring unforeseen drawbacks, in this case we have digital eye strain whose causes include the screen resolution, font size, screen contrast and screen luminance (Coles-Brennan, et al., 2019).

Video and online reading were two areas utilised a lot on this module. Each seminar was preceded by a recorded lecture using the Panopto platform and the key and recommended readings were mostly available online. Let’s take a look at Panopto and the digital books and articles, and the affordances of these platforms of delivery. A key difference between how I intended to use video and the Panopto videos used by the tutors is the flipped  approach where we are expected to watch the video before the seminar not during class.

Layout of Panopto page

Unfortunately, many of the features of Panopto were unknown to me until I looked into it in more detail for this post, and probably to quite a few of the other students on this module are unaware, too. Part of this is due to the Virtual Learning Environment being able to play video directly from Panopto thus severely limiting some of its more powerful functions, and the relatively recent requirement for tutors to use Panopto to deliver lectures.

Panopto Captions function

The persistent nature of Panopto videos means that I can watch the video and jump to any section. This video is only 35 minutes but for significantly longer videos, there is the option to increase playback speed up to two times. Captions are provided to provide another mode of input and was something I found useful when watching these at 1.75 times the normal playback speed. Having the captions available as a transcript is useful to search for keywords and taking notes. The captions are automatically generated, and errors do creep in, for example when Paul stammers on wind at 40”, the closed captions produced won’t wind. However, their accuracy is impressive and when used in conjunction with the audio, there are rarely any issues.

Panopto Discussion Tab

As you can see, there was no discussion for this lecture because this feature was not known about by any participants. One of the criticisms about the video lecture was the lack of opportunity to ask questions that would be available in a live environment. I think this feature would have been invaluable to me and probably to other students. As mentioned before, there are also drawbacks. This feature is separate and distinct from other communication tools that students and tutors regularly use, so would require students and tutors to check Panopto regularly to comment. There would be every chance that discussions would be among very few students if any.

Panopto Notes Tab

Another feature that I would have taken advantage of had I known of its existence, although I replicated this in OneNote, so its usefulness is questionable. Notes are synchronised to the times in the video which is something not available (but replicable albeit requiring more work) when making notes elsewhere. Given that some students made notes on a physical notepad, this feature is nice to have but not essential.

Bookmarks is another useful feature that I would have used but, again, is not essential. It would have made discussing lecture videos during seminars easier with the time stamps at hand and the notes tab.

The search function would have been incredibly powerful when combined with the other tabs. Looking at Panopto holistically, it is a powerful platform and one we did not take advantage of. We griped privately that we rarely ever discussed the lecture video in seminars and the option was there albeit only in text form. This asynchronous text chat function offers opportunities to discuss the lecture in more detail than is possible in a lecture theatre and affords multiple speakers and conversations at any given time spread over the entire lecture. I can imagine Paul and Theresa seeding the lecture video with questions and comments to engage those watching.

When Mishan and Timmis (2015, p. 91) noted that creating materials in an environment permeated by technological “requires fresh thinking in the design of materials within it”, I think that the Panopto suite of functions captures this idea well. Unfortunately, this module is over, and I cannot give you my verdict, based on my experience, of all of its functionality.

Ultimately “what really matters to teachers and learners, however, remains the effect of the particular materials on learners and on the quality of the learning” (Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2018, p. 183), and just having the video playback functions fulfilled the basic requirement and it is pure speculation whether utilising the other areas of Panopto would have brought about greater quality in our learning.

For the reading, it will be relatively brief. Texts were generally available in pdf format to be read either through an online reader or one installed on our device. Standardised formats are a godsend in comparison to the myriad proprietary formats in previous generations. However, in a recurring theme of benefits and drawbacks, the ability to lock documents or heavily control the contents of the pdf made quotations and taking notes more difficult given the normal functionality of word processing on a computer. Inconsistent application of these content locks meant that some documents allowed unfettered use of its contents while others only allowed viewing and nothing else. Others assigned a percentage that could be copied. Although I did not use the functionality of annotating pdf documents, other students did and is something that brings digital documents to parity with the printed text. One of the most welcome advances is the hyperlinked text. When authors give URLs, a quick click and one can view the page in question, whether said page still exists is another problem altogether. That is one of the plethora of quality-of-life improvements that Web 2.0 has brought.

Despite all the advances of technology, one thing that has not changed is that “all material needs to be evaluated in the classroom and adjusted to make it work effectively” (Motteram, 2016, p. 136). Whether that classroom is physical or virtual, the affordances of that environment dictate how and what materials we can exploit. In a bricks-and-mortar classroom, it is infinitely easier to capture language produced by learners to turn that into materials for the whole group, but in a virtual setting, the persistence of text chat opens new avenues to user-generated materials that can be exploited in ways that we have only begun to scratch the surface of. Online promises to democratise the creation of materials and enrich language learning in a way that, only a short time ago, we could not imagine. I believe we are moving beyond merely substituting traditional materials with what is possible online and are well on our way to redefining tasks in ways that were previously inconceivable (Puentedura, 2015).

References

Coles-Brennan, C., Sulley, A. & Young, G., 2019. Management of digital eye strain. Clinical and Experimental Optometry Review, Volume 102, pp. 18-29.

Dudeney, G. & Hockly, N., 2016. Literacies, technology and language teaching. In: F. Farr & L. Murray, eds. The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology. s.l.:Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 166-180.

Guichon, N. & Cohen, C., 2016. Multimodality and CALL. In: F. Farr & L. Murray, eds. The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology. s.l.:Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 660-676.

Mishan, F. & Timmis, I., 2015. Mateials Development for TESOL. Epub ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Motteram, G., 2016. Language materials development in a digital age. In: F. Farr & L. Murray, eds. The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology. London: Routledge, pp. 132-147.

Puentedura, R. R., 2015. SAMR: A Brief Introduction. [Online]
Available at: http://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2015/10/SAMR_ABriefIntro.pdf
[Accessed 6 June 2021].

Tomlinson, B. & Masuhara, H., 2018. The Complete Guide to the Theory and Practice of Materials Development for Language Learning. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

This week’s focus brought the concept of learner profiles to mind. Materials and tasks found in published books have a level of ability in mind, and this extends across all skills and cognitive ability. However, jagged profiles are quite common, where learners are markedly more able in some aspects of language but far less able in others. “Recall skills are more demanding than recognition” (Little & King, 2013, p. 421) and the “visual sense is stronger than the auditory” (ibid), to which Little and King offer their own Spanish skills as an example, noting their reading to be B1 but speaking to be A1 according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2021) and the expectation is that this kind of disparity should be quite common and, anecdotally, matches my experience in the classroom and level testing.

Maley (2011) suggests skills modules that can be tailored to the learner’s ability. This appears to be a possible solution to jagged profiles but there are some inherent drawbacks, namely the need for an experienced teacher to knit the different levels, topics, and language into a cohesive course for the learners. This is before taking into account the mixed abilities inherent in any classroom, where we may find that a CEFR B1 class requires all the levels for all of the skills, and the lesson preparation workload spirals out of control. This conundrum strikes at the heart of difficulties faced in classrooms across the globe, and whether teachers argue for mixed-ability classes or streamed classes, differentiation is the theme that intertwines through all of them. We cannot get away from the need for differentiation.

As a group, we were asked to prepare a short explanation of a task that we have used or have participated in, and thought was particularly effective. Before I continue, we need to define task more clearly because task, activity and exercise are commonly used interchangeably in everyday parlance but have subtle differences. Ellis (2011) places tasks as a subset of activity, but Richards (2021) takes it further and adds exercise as a narrower form of task, ranging from less controlled/focus on meaning to very controlled/focus on form.

A diagram of Richards’ (2021) definition of exercise, task, and activity

Vasiljevic (2011) highlights three components to the task: language input of some kind; a clearly defined outcome; and activities that learners must complete. I think that this is quite a neat summation of a task. Applied to the task I presented to the group; it would pass muster as a task.

The task I presented was a skills-focused task, working on top-down processing, listening, and noticing paralinguistic features of communication. I have used the BBC’s One-minute World News (BBC, 2021) for this task with a range of learners from varying levels of ability. I usually use it as a dictogloss activity with three viewings, the first time silent and the following two times with sound. The aim is to reconstruct the news four-sometimes-three headlines. It has language input, aural and sometimes written text. The goal is clearly defined, and there are activities the learners must complete. Under Ellis’ (2011) terms for defining tasks, my choice would be described as unfocused (generally communicative), input- and output-providing (both reading/listening and speaking/writing), and a closed outcome (there is a clear end).

This is something that I often use to help learners notice the paralinguistic features of communication, and help their communicative competence improve. The items featured on the news are topical and learners will more likely than not have read or heard about one of the featured stories. With many learners having internet-connected devices, it is possible to allow learners to view the video on their own phones or tablets and pause, replay as much as they need. There are some drawbacks as the news bulletin is aimed at native speakers so it may not be suitable for novice learners. Now that the BBC use newscasters with a range of accents, it may prove too challenging for some learners that have not been exposed to a range of English accents. The topics tend to be less upbeat, and learners have complained about the need to remind them about what an awful world we live in. They are also likely to involve politics, which is a big turn off for learners. The one-minute news is only available online so would not be suitable for offline classrooms.

In contrast to the task I presented, Laura offered something much more light-hearted and fun: a bag game. The aim was to create a story from mystery items in a bag, with learners taking turns to fish something from the bag and somehow incorporate it into the story. Based on the discussion of tasks so far and Richards’ (2021) definitions of exercise, task, and activity, this would be more activity than task. Placing this activity at the centre of the lesson with a focus on narrative tenses and storytelling, I could imagine a very fun lesson based on a test-teach-test lesson structure with studying sandwiched between two very fun stories.

With both tasks, I have eschewed any macro-evaluations in favour of micro-evaluations (Ellis, 2011), simply because teachers are very much focused on the effectiveness of the tasks we set our learners, and we rarely look at the overarching success of the course. Both tasks are unfocused and offer considerable challenges to demonstrating learning. With the one-minute news, it is almost impossible to ascertain with any degree of certainty that learners do not practise top-down processing and do not notice paralinguistic features of communication. However, by measuring learners’ output, it can give us some insight into which skills they are utilising to accomplish the task. Similarly, Laura’s bag game used in a test-teach-test structure would give clearer insight into learners’ use of narrative tenses and understanding of narrative structure in English.

You can probably see, from the focus of my presented task, why I liked the skills modules suggested by Maley (2011), but also why I am drawn to these unfocused tasks that have a lot of flexibility depending on what activities the learners are required to complete. I think they offer the differentiation without having to drown in a sea of worksheets and fast-finisher activities, which is ironic that Laura likes to use her bag game as a filler at the end of class when her learners have finished everything she had planned for them too quickly.

References

BBC, 2021. BBC One-minute World News. [Online]
Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02cfn23
[Accessed 3 June 2021].

Council of Europe, 2021. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). [Online]
Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages
[Accessed 1 June 2021].

Ellis, R., 2011. Macro- and micro-evaluations of task-based teaching. In: B. Tomlinson, ed. Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 212-235.

Little, D. & King, L., 2013. A career in phonetics, applied linguistics and the public service. Language Teaching, 43(3), pp. 409-424.

Maley, A., 2011. Squaring the circle – reconciling materials as constraint with materials as empowerment. In: B. Tomlinson, ed. Materials development in language teaching. s.l.:Cambridge University Press, pp. 379-402.

Richards, J. C., 2021. Difference Between Task, Exercise and Activity. [Online]
Available at: https://www.professorjackrichards.com/difference-task-exercise-activity/
[Accessed 3 June 2021].

Vasiljevic, Z., 2011. The Predictive Evaluation of Language Learning Tasks. English Language Teaching, 4(1), pp. 3-10.