Analysing target language interaction in IWB-mediated activities: from drills to tasks in state secondary EFL classes

Shona Whyte (University of Nice)

Euline Cutrim Schmid (University of Education Schwäbisch Gmünd)

Gary Beauchamp (Cardiff Metropolitan University)

EuroCALL 2014 Groningen, Netherlands 22 August 2014

Background

–Hennessy & London, 2013

One in eight classrooms (34 million teaching spaces) across the world now have an IWB and by

2015, one in five will have one

http://wp.me/p28EmH-46

IWB penetration by country

http://wp.me/p28EmH-46

Interactivity with the IWB

beginner

apprentice

initiate

advanced

synergistic

none

authoritative

dialectic

dialogicinteractivity in teacher

use of IWB

–Beauchamp, 2004 Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2010http://wp.me/p28EmH-46

Interactivity in IWB-mediated teaching

enhanced interactivity conceptual

interactive physical

supported didactic technical

interactivity of teaching

–Jewitt et al., 2007 Glover et al., 2007

http://wp.me/p28EmH-46

– Plowman, 1996

pupils respond to opportunities for interaction which have been designed into the software with no clear purpose - there is no learning gain and

the interactions are empty and passive rather than active

Gratuitous interactivity

– Aldrich et al., 1998

A reactive model of interactivity is one which has been designed to support learning through drill

and practice /reaction and response mode. Conversely, proactive learning is thought to take place through the user being involved actively in

the construction of the knowledge

Reactive versus proactive learning

Interaction hypothesis

negotiation of meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities,

particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways.

Long, 1996

Communicative competence and task-based language teaching

Prioritisation of meaningful communication and interaction over drilling and memorisation of grammar and vocabulary:

● negotiation of meaning and practice in communication (Savignon, 2007)

● use language with an emphasis on meaning to achieve an objective (Bygate et al., 2001)

● three of four dimensions of communicative competence (sociolinguistic, discourse, strategic) presuppose interaction (Blyth, 2001)

Research on the IWB for language teaching

!● increase in motivation, multimodality, and pace (Cutrim

Schmid, 2008, 2010; Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012) ● compatible with any teaching style, including teacher-

controlled whole-class activities (Gray et al., 2007; Gray, 2010)

● long learning curve involving both technical and pedagogical development for teachers (Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012; Whyte et al., 2013)

Challenges for language teaching

!● identifying and exploiting key affordances of novel

technologies for one’s own teaching context (Whyte, 2011) ● adopting strongly CLT and TBLT methods in traditional

state school settings, where rote learning of vocabulary and grammar rules remain common (Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012; Whyte, 2011)

● the specificity of the IWB as a complex tool which can be relatively easily integrated into existing practice but requires teacher support in context and over time if it is to mediate pedagogical innovation (Hennessy & London, 2013)

iTILT project

Design of IWB training

!!

Implementation of IWB training

!!

Use of IWB in classroom

!1st visit 2nd visit

!Selection of video

examples !

Creation of Open Educational Resources

● video recording of IWB-mediated language teaching

● learner focus group interview

● video-stimulated teacher interview

!● 267 videos from ● 81 lessons by ● 44 teachers of ● 6 languages in ● 7 countries at ● 4 educational

levels

http://itilt.eu

–Whyte et al., 2013

IWB use by 44 iTILT teachers

1. IWB access

2. IWB functionalities

3. language competences

–Whyte, Beauchamp & Alexander, 2014

IWB access IWB tools Language competences

clear preference for learner use of IWB

balance between embedding and activity

balanced use of IWB for skills and subskills

limited range of tools and features used

much more speaking + listening than reading +

writing

individual learner at IWB; group work in German

classes

focus on basic features: images, pen + drag/

drop; audio for French teachers

strong focus on vocabulary, also pronunciation and

more grammar focus among German teachers

Limited range of basic features used to teach oral skills and vocabulary

with individual learners at the IWB

Overall IWB use by iTILT teachers

Present study• participants• data

Participants: EFL teachers

France Germany Total

primary 4 4

lower secondary 2 1 3

upper secondary 2 2 4

Total 8 3 11

Teacher M/F Age Teaching Learners IWB Level

AF F 40+ 20+ 9-10 2-3 Primary

BF F 40+ 20+ 8-9 2-3 Primary

CF F 20+ 0 7-11 0-1 Primary

DF F 30+ 4 7-12 2-3 Primary

EF F 30+ 7 12-13 0-1 Lower Secondary

FF F 20+ 2 11-12 2-3 Lower Secondary

HF F 40+ 20+ 16-17 0-1 Upper Secondary

IF M 30+ 10+ 15 4-5 Upper Secondary

BG M 25 + 2 11-12 0-1 Lower Secondary

DG F 40 + 20 + 16-17 5 Upper Secondary

EG F 25 + 4 15-16 2 Upper Secondary

Video clips (54 activities)

France 33 Germany 21

Round 1 26 Round 2 28

Primary 15 Secondary 39

Analysis• drill• display• simulation• communication

Language Context Planning (task as plan)

Control (task as process)

!Drill !!!!

•!pre-planned language

•!(choral) repetition •!feedback on form

•!limited attempt to contextualize language

•!focus on linguistic form

•!entirely pre-planned by teacher

•!teacher controls access to board and turn-taking

!Display !!!!!!

•!input/output goes beyond minimum target items

•!some open questions

•!limited attempt to contextualize language

•!no simulation of real-world activity

•!mainly pre-planned by teacher

•!some unplanned production

•!mainly teacher control

•!practice of pre-selected language elements

!Simulation !!!

•!some focus on meaning

•!some feedback on content

•!interaction based on communication

•!meaningful context

•!role-play: pretending to be someone in a real-life activity

•!some space for learner choice

•!teacher expands on activity

•!learner-oriented activity

•!voluntary participation and choice in how to participate

!Communication

•!focus on meaning •!feedback on content •!genuine

communication •!learner choice of

forms

•!authentic context, real-life activity

•!participants' own opinions or reactions

•!open activity with space for learner choice

•!preparation by learners

•!learner controlled activities

•!space for spontaneous interaction

Findings

Overview of interactivity types

DRILL DISPLAY SIMULATION COMMUNICATION

18 33% 22 41% 5 9% 9 17%

Development over time

DRILL DISPLAY SIMULATION COMMUNICATION

Round 1 7 27% 11 42% 4 15% 4 15%

Round 2 11 39% 11 39% 1 4% 5 18%

French and German teachers

DRILL DISPLAY SIMULATION COMMUNICATION

French teachers

13 39% 15 45% 3 9% 2 6% 33

German teachers

5 24% 7 33% 2 10% 7 33% 21

Total 18 33% 22 41% 5 9% 9 17% 54

Primary and secondary teachers

DRILL DISPLAY SIMULATION COMMUNICATION

Primary 11 73% 3 20% 1 7% 0 0%

Lower secondary

3 15% 12 60% 1 5% 4 20%

Upper secondary

4 21% 7 37% 3 16% 5 26%

Discussion

Summary of findings" general preference for activities involving lower levels of

interactivity" drilling mainly in primary classrooms; communication

restricted to secondary classrooms" more drill and display activities by French teachers, more

variety in German classes

lower levels of

interactivity

basic IWB tools and features

involving single learner at IWB

reactive (gratuitous) interactivity

–Teacher CF primary, novice teacher & IWB user

“We repeat and repeat it. They will try to guess, so we hear different words, different names of

animals. And finally, we repeat and repeat and repeat, and they learn it. They remember it.”

Pedagogical orientation - French primary

“ I think it makes it less painful. Because all the info is just there, in front of them. So the drilling is not as painful as it can be sometimes […] and the drilling is

also part of language learning.”

– Teacher EF lower secondary, experienced teacher, novice IWB user

Pedagogical orientation - French secondary

– Teacher HF upper secondary, experienced teacher, novice IWB user

“ It's obviously a very big defeat for the classical idea of learning by rote, learning pattern drills: ‘I

can sit here and concentrate on this and later on that will be beneficial to me.’ But you know, we

have to live with the times”

Pedagogical orientation - French secondary

– Teacher DG upper secondary, experienced teacher, experienced IWB user

“First I realised that there is a problem that the whiteboard is in the centre of the lesson and not

the students ... and so we decided this time to make students talk and not use only the whiteboard as

the most important tool. So I think that’s very important. Not to forget that the most important aim of the lesson is to make the students talk and not only use the whiteboard with the pen.”

Pedagogical orientation - German secondary

– Teacher EG upper secondary, novice teacher and IWB user

“But I think they are too little active for me. So I would change this with the laptop thing that I told you. Yes, this I would do when they work in pair

work, or maybe individual work. And then you can do that again together as a group [on the IWB].”

Pedagogical orientation - German secondary

Possible explanations

• early stages of IWB adoption not associated with pedagogical transformation

• core beliefs about second language teaching and learning lead to resistance to CLT and TBLT

• institutional influences: • less CLT orientation, primary ELT training in France• more TBLT in Germany

Conclusion

Implications

● no clear-cut positive effects on classroom interaction associated with IWB use

● more classroom-based research in state-school settings involving teachers in collaborative action research

● stronger focus on teacher education in design and implementation of communicative tasks

Further reading

● Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (Eds.) Teaching languages with technology: communicative approaches to interactive whiteboard use. A resource book for teacher development. Bloomsbury.

● Whyte, S., & Alexander, J. (2014). Implementing tasks with interactive technologies in classroom CALL: towards a developmental framework. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 40 (1), 1-26. PDF

● Whyte, S. (to appear). Implementing and researching technological innovation in language teaching: the case of interactive whiteboards for EFL in French schools. Palgrave Macmillan.

Referenceshttp://wp.me/p28EmH-46