teyl seminar papers 2005-6 edited.pdf

7/24/2019 TEYL Seminar Papers 2005-6 edited.pdf

1/113

1This Material is Copyright Dept. of Educational Studies 2010

Teaching English To Young

Learners

Third International TEYL Research

Seminar 2005-6 Papers

Edited by Annie Hughes and Nicole Taylor


2/113


The Department of Educational Studies, University of York, is well known for itsdelivery of the award-winning MA in TEYL

The MA in TEYL is a two-year part-time distance course, allowing students tostudy from anywhere in the world throughout their studies on the programme.

The programme comprises 8 multimedia self-study modules, plus participation inan annual Preparatory Course with cohort colleagues. Students submit

Assignments, after each module. Assessmentis by submission of these eight

module Assignments, some of which require the carrying out of small-scaleclassroom-based research projects.Students can choose to focus on a range oflearner age groups for individual module assignments

There are four programme start dates each year, as follows:- Online each October or February- Athens cohort with a one week face to face Preparatory Course each June.- Singapore cohort with a one week face to face Preparatory Course each

November.(new face to face cohorts are also being planned for Switzerland and Japan)

Emphasis in the MA in TEYL is on the l ink ing of theory

and pract ice, making extensive use of materia l from

authent ic c lasses.

For fur ther informat ion contact:MA Programme Administrator, Department of Educational Studies, University of

York, York YO10 5DD, UKE-mail: [email protected] / Telephone: ++44 (0)1904 433688 / Fax: ++44 (0)1904

433459

MA in Teaching English to Young Learners (by Distance)


3/113


Contents

Annie Hughes Foreword 5

Barbara Brezigar How Does the Introduction of an English SpeakingPuppet Influence the Use of English in GroupSpeaking Activities?

6

Mary Carney An investigation considering differences in 11-12 yearold Hong Kong Chinese learners' attention whenvisual input is illuminated by the projected light of aninteractive whiteboard in a darkened classroom, andwhen it is not, using a normal whiteboard in a fullylighted classroom.

14

Carolina Garrido Reflective Learning:Can reflection increase the amount of L2 used in theclassroom?

27

Kate Gregson Does the medium affect production?A comparative study of computerised and paper-based media in writing with young learners.

34

Genji Hatta Storytelling at a Primary School in Japan. 42

Sara Khoury Can Using Coloured Paper Affect The Amount YoungLearners Write?

50

Falko Lechel What is the effect of using childrens songs on younglearners understanding of basic nouns?

58

Michelle Martin What is the effect of speech bubbles on structuralaccuracy when writing stories compared with storywriting in text boxes in a group of 10 to 11 year oldChinese learners?

68

Liliane Pessanha Sense of Achievement: Fading like a Flower? 75

Rosemary Smeets Can Young Learners Acquire Vocabulary EasierWhen Using Their Preferred Learning Style?

85

CarolaVonWippern-Dochart

Do Various Ways of Presenting and PractisingVocabulary Make a Difference in Long-TermReceptive Memorization.

101


4/113



5/113


Foreword

I am really thrilled to be able to write a forward to this fascinating collection ofpapers following the 2005 and 2006 International TEYL Research Seminar held atYork.

The papers from the International TEYL Research Seminar held at York inprevious years have been really valuable for both MA in TEYL students and othersof us involved in TEYL in many ways, according to feedback we have had fromour readers. I am sure that this present set of papers will be just as valuable andimportant to us all, too.

There are eleven papers included in this collection. The topics within them rangefrom the influence of puppets in group speaking activities through to the effect onlong-term recall of different types of vocabulary presentation. There are stopsalong the way into the effective use of interactive white boards, the effect ofreflective learning on L2 production, a comparison of computerised and paper

based media in YLs writing, a look at story telling in Japan, a study of the effectsof the use of coloured paper on the amount that young learners write, a look at theuse of song and its effect on comprehension of nouns, a comparison of speechbubbles and text boxes in story writing, an investigation into motivation and senseof achievement in a Brazilian context and a study of whether using a preferredlearning style can make vocabulary learning easier. Each of these papers dealswith fascinating and exciting areas within TEYL, I am sure you will agree.

It is easy to forget that all these papers, from well-established specialists and newspecialists in the field of TEYL, alike, are often the result of months, andsometimes many years, of research. The papers dont always clarify how

frustrating the bad times were or how exhilarating the good times of the researchwere for these individuals, but we know all the writers will have experienced both!We are so glad they did so as otherwise we would not have such a wealth of datato refer to or such interesting reflections and results to read about. Each of thesepapers will inform TEYL practice for all of us.

Given this, I would like to thank all of the writers of the papers as I know their workwill inform, illustrate and instruct those of us reading about their experiences. Weare very grateful to read about and reflect on this research in order to inform ourown TEYL practice. All of the papers in this publication are inspiring and thought-provoking and will make lots of us want to rush out and continue in these areas of

research.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Nicole Taylor for all her work inthe editing and preparation of these papers for publication.

Annie HughesSenior Teaching FellowDepartment of Educational StudiesLangwith CollegeUniversity of YorkYork, YO10 [email protected]


6/113

6This Material is Copyright Barbara Brezigar 2010

How Does the Introduction of an English Speaking PuppetInfluence the Use of English in Group Speaking Activities?

Barbara Brezigar

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this action research was to find out whether English speaking puppetsmake nine to ten-year old children use more English during group speakingactivities.

For the purpose of this research five English lessons were partly recorded,transcribed and analysed, learners were asked to answer the questionnaires, theywere also interviewed and the teacher used check-lists when observing the class.

The words child, learner and student will be used as synonyms and referred to asshe and the word teacher will also be referred to as she.

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

The project presented in this assignment took part in a state compulsory school inSlovenia. The selected class was the fourth grade with nine-year-old children whostarted to learn English in September 2003. In the fourth grade children have twoEnglish lessons per week, each lesson lasts forty-five minutes.

RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT

It is incredible to see how the children trust the puppet. They believe that

the puppet sleeps, that it watches over them, that it learns together withthem, that it listens to them. Children possess that faith and sincerity thatsometimes get lost by adults (Koroec 2002:24)

Work motivation is extremely high and that is an important reason forincluding the puppet in the educational process as a means to reach thecurriculum goals (Koroec 2002:29).

Besides the theoretical background about puppets and the positive sides of usingthem in the classroom another reason for this project arose from inside the class.It seemed that children forgot to speak in English and the writers generalimpression was that children seemed to use Slovene relatively often during theEnglish lesson.

On these bases the writer decided to introduce first an English speaking puppetanimated by the teacher and then English speaking puppets which would beanimated by children.


7/113


THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

THE PUPPET AND THE CHILD

In the childs fantasy each object has its own life and soul. Objects and toystake over the function of the imaginative world in which the child dictatesthe rules and searches for possible solutions to (her) unsolved problems.According to Vygotsky, these kinds of games improve all steps in childsdevelopment. Surprisingly, puppetry integrates nearly all disciplinesimportant for this development: perception, comprehension, movement, co-ordination, and interaction with the environment, speech, and narration(Majaron 2002a:62).

Considering Majarons statement might be enough to persuade a teacher tointroduce the puppet and by using it offer children the possibility to learn moreeasily and spontaneously. By using a puppet in the lessons children might bemore relaxed and motivated and so the affective filter, which can, according to

Krashen, block learning (Lightbown and Spada 1999:40), might be reduced.Similarly Majaron points out that

the puppet provides the child a kind of cover, behind which she can hideHence, the puppet helps the child to communicate much morespontaneously, avoiding stressful relations, especially with adults. (Majaron2002a:61).

Besides motivating children for work and reducing the affective filter the puppetoffers much more.

Children who are accustomed to using puppets in their everydayconversations, have richer vocabulary, they are able to understand thesemiotic-symbolic value of visual signs and the language of non-verbalcommunication (Majaron 2002a:61).

It seems that visual signs and non-verbal communication might be very importantin communication. According to Slaven this maybe even more important when thespeaker does not have a wide vocabulary (Slaven 1991:52).

Majaron also states that the child will, by accepting non-verbal communication asan important part of everyday relations supported by narration, enrich her

vocabulary (Majaron 2002a:64).Considering all these it could be summarised that regular use of a puppet mightstimulate learning and offer the teacher the possibility to reach not only linguisticgoals but also to offer the child a better possibility to become more self-confidentand to learn many communicative skills that seem to be very important ineveryday communication.

THE PUPPET AND THE TEACHER

Hamre explains the art of animation very simply. To animate is to give life andsoul to lifeless material (which) is based on the perception that things and


8/113


materials contain energy and an inner dynamic. (Hamre 2002:5). Neverthelessthe art of animation seems to be more difficult. In fact, according to Hamre, ateacher should be trained for this (Hamre 2002:3) and even after training theteacher might not be able to animate a puppet. What seems obvious fromliterature is that the person who wants to animate a puppet should believe thatpuppetry and puppets are magic (Hamre 2002).

A teacher might think that she could easily avoid the problem of using a puppet bygiving puppets to children but according to Majaron this might not be considered agood solution since he states that children can learn the skill by simply watchingtheir teachers frequent use of the puppet in dialogical plays (Majaron 2002a:3).

DESIGN AND PROJECT METHODOLOGY

THE PROBLEM

As has already been stated students in the observed classroom often seem toswitch to Slovene when working in groups. For this reason the aim of this actionresearch was to find out if the introduction of English speaking puppets wouldincrease the use of English during group speaking activities.FIRST CYCLE - BASELINE DATA

The baseline data were collected in March 2004. Children were used to the videocamera but nevertheless the video camera had been brought to the classroom amonth before so that children could get used to it. The action research was carriedout only by observing one group of four children.

FORMING THE GROUP

Since experience shows that children work best when they choose their mates inthe group, children were asked to write the names of two classmates with whomthey would like to work in the group. The data were analysed and the groups wereformed. The class was divided in two five-member groups and two four-membergroups. The observed group was selected by lot.

COLLECTING DATAThe data were collected by video recording of the observed group. The videocamera was placed near the observed group. All the groups were given the sameactivities. For ethical reasons and in order not to influence the results by lettingchildren know which group was selected for observation, all other groups were

video recorded in the following lessons.

THE SECOND CYCLE

The first change was introduced in mid March 2004. An English speaking puppetwas brought to the classroom. After a month another puppet was brought into theclassroom and replaced the first puppet since the first puppet missed her familyand so had to return to England.


9/113


COLLECTION OF DATAThe data were collected through video recordings, questionnaires and the fishbowltechnique where a group of children observe another group and take notes orwork with a check list. Since children were not used to fishbowl technique, thisway of observation was introduced before the collection of data. As all the groupshad to be recorded, different ways of collecting data offered the possibility to get

data although another group was recorded.

THE THIRD CYCLE

The second change was introduced at the end of May 2004. Finger puppets wereanimated by children.

COLLECTION OF DATAThe data were collected through video recordings, interviews and questionnaires.For ethical reasons all groups were recorded, interviewed and givenquestionnaires.

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The video recordings of the observed group were transcribed and analysed. Fromthe transcription the number of switches between Slovene and English wascounted. The Slovene language was analysed in order to find out whether it wasused with words that children had not learned yet or it was used to say thingschildren had already learned in English. The English language was analysed tofind out whether children used single words, chunks or sentences. In this case achunk was defined as a collocation of two or more nouns used as a subject

without a verb or object (example: a big and yellow robot). A sentence wasconsidered when children used at least a subject and the object; the verb mighthave been left out. All the questions were also considered as sentences if theyhad an object although the syntax or grammar were incorrect.The questionnaires and check-lists designed for fishbowl technique helped tocollect the data about how often students spoke English and Slovene, if the wordsspoken in Slovene had been learned in English, if the observed students usedmostly sentences, chunks or words when speaking English, and how groupmembers understood each other.

More qualitative data were collected with questionnaires about the puppet Linda,

the reports on puppets Linda and Koala and with interviews that were carried outat the end of the third cycle.

FINDINGS

GROUP SPEAKING ACTIVITIES WITHOUT PUPPETS

The findings show that students from the observed group used English relativelyoften during the activities. In the activities that had been done before the firstpuppet entered the class, the use of English was around 77 per cent.


10/113


Students never used Slovene in order to finish the activity. Slovene was mostlyused in order to clear some organisational problems in the group. Students usuallyused Slovene to discuss turn-taking. From time to time students spoke duringdifferent activities in Slovene.Analysing the transcription dated 2.3.2004 it could be clearly noticed that after thefirst two activities (Point to the Named Object and Find Out the Correct Picture)students became more relaxed and enjoyed the third activity (Put Pictures in the

Correct Order) and they switched to Slovene more often since they seemed to beeager to guess the correct answers. Especially in the second part of the thirdactivity the use of Slovene increased to almost 28 per cent but most of the wordsspoken in Slovene had not been learned yet.

When using English, students formed sentences most often, but it could be notedthat questions were mostly formed with mistakes although the students had beengiven an example of the dialogue.

In the transcription dated 23.4.2004 the observed group was also video recordedwhile working without the puppet. The results show that the percentage of Slovenespeech dropped to around 3%. One reason for this might be the knowledgestudents had acquired during the lessons, but the other possibility might be thatthe puppet influenced their work, since they had already been working with thepuppet Linda before this lesson.

GROUP ACTIVITIES WITH HAND PUPPETS

The analysis of both transcriptions, the one with the puppet Linda and the one withthe puppet Koala, show that students used less Slovene when working with them.

In the activity where the observed group worked with the puppet Linda the use ofSlovene dropped to less than 16%, which means that students used 7% lessSlovene than in the activities without a puppet.

Students used Slovene to say that they had finished. Further analysis shows thatstudents used Slovene when they did not know English. Sometimes students usedSlovene to translate Lindas question to another student in the group.

When speaking English students still used many single words during the activity,but it should be noted that the aim students saw in the activity was to fill in all thegaps as quickly as possible and such an aim might have influenced their way of

speaking.

The analysis of the questionnaires that were given to students of the observedgroup on other occasions show that all the students tried to use English as muchas possible but they still used Slovene for discussing the organisation of theactivity. But it should be noted that when comparing the two questionnaires of6.4.2004 and 20.4.2004 the difference in using Slovene as little as possible isnoticeable.The check-lists of the fishbowl technique show slightly different results, but itshould be remembered that the group was observed by different students eachtime. Nevertheless it can be seen that the use of Slovene dropped from one

observation to another.


11/113


When working with the puppet Koala, the percentage of Slovene utterancedropped by another 6% compared with the activity with Linda and so was justabove 10%. It might be argued that the improvement of results is not due only tothe puppet since more than one month passed between the observed activity withLinda and this one. It could then be said that the results might have been alsoinfluenced by the knowledge students acquired during this month.

When students used Slovene they still used it to discuss whose turn it wasalthough they had heard the phrase many times.The analysis of the use of Englishalso gave good results since all the students used sentences at least 50% moreoften than single words.

Considering the questionnaires about Linda, the writings about Koala and Lindaand the interviews it might be concluded that students liked to work with both ofthem. It also seems that they really tried to speak more English and that theybelieved both of them helped them to learn English.

GROUP ACTIVITIES WITH FINGER PUPPETS

The analysis of the questionnaires and the interviews about finger puppets showthat students seemed to like them and they felt they spoke more English whenusing them. In the questionnaires students stated that they always used Englishand never Slovene, which is the best result presented up to now.

The analysis of the transcribed lesson with finger puppets, on the other hand,shows completely different results. From the transcription it can well be seen thatat the beginning of the activity students had the puppets on their fingers but they

did the activity without really speaking through the puppet. This did not last longand students started to use puppets for the activity. But the results are not asgood as those shown in the questionnaires. Students used Slovene 21% of thetime, which is just 2% less than in the first transcription. Students used Slovenenot only when they did not know English but also with phrases and words they hadalready learned. Further analysis of the English speech also shows that studentsdid not perform as well as they did with hand puppets. The use of sentenceslowered and the use of chunks and single words increased.An important fact that can be noticed from the transcription is that students movedthe puppet away when they spoke Slovene.It also seems that students sometimesremoved the puppets when they were not sure about what they should say.

According to the theoretical presentation of puppets in childrens development,finger puppets should also offer better results.The reason for such results might bein the fact that the activity students were doing with finger puppets was designedto practice new vocabulary.Students seemed to know that finger puppets could speak only English and thismight be the reason why they moved them away when they wanted to speakSlovene or when they were not sure about their English utterance.

The use of a puppet who was able to speak English but who could also makemistakes when speaking might offer better results, since it would offer the child the


12/113


possibility to hide behind the puppet and the mistake would not be made by thechild but by the puppet.

The findings clearly show that hand English speaking puppets that teachers bringand animate in the classroom positively influence the use of English. Childrenseem to like them and believe they are alive and can help them speak English.According to interviews, children were not afraid of the puppets and they liked

them even more if they were playful and lively. Judging from the results it mightreally be said that puppets are magic.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

The action research that was carried out is a case study. For ethical reasons andwith the aim not to influence the results, the learners did not know which groupwas being observed. This made collecting data more difficult since all the groupshad to be video recorded at equal intervals. Consequently the time needed to getdata from video recordings was long. Maybe a better method would have been tobring more than one video camera into the classroom but such a solution wouldhave caused other problems, especially from the economic point of view.Furthermore another problem encountered in connection with the video recordingwas the influence of the video camera on learners. Although this generation isused to being video recorded it still seems that they behaved differently when theywere recorded and so they spoke loudly enough only when they were convincedthat their speech was correct, but when they spoke between themselves inSlovene or when they were not sure about the correctness of their speech theyspoke in a low voice, which made the transcribing very difficult and time-consuming.Another problem that seems important was the problem with the fishbowl

technique. The learners were not used to such work and it took a long time toprepare them for such an observation. It might be said that not all learners wereequally skilled at such an observation. The data collected by fishbowlobservations, which included learners who had problems with learning English,seem less objective. The teacher should have selected the students that weremore objective but from this new ethical problems might have arisen.

Finally the problem with designing appropriate activities for the collection of datashould also be mentioned. It should be noted that the action research was carriedout in the class where English lessons were compulsory with the prescribedcurriculum to be followed. This fact narrowed the possibilities for designing

appropriate activities for data collection. And after all, when the suitable activitieswere designed, it sometimes happened that a learner from the observed groupwas absent.

It could be said that all the mentioned problems might have slightly influenced theresults of the action research. It could be argued that a long-term action researchwould offer more objective results.


13/113


CONCLUSION

The action research presented dealt with the influence that an English speakingpuppet might have on the use of English in group speaking activities.

The findings of the research show that the introduction of an English speakingpuppet which is animated by the teacher positively influences the use of English

and makes the children more relaxed and spontaneous.

The use of the puppets which were animated by children did not increase the useof English, and by this the results do not coincide with the theory about thepuppets. Maybe the reason for such results was in a relatively short period duringwhich the action research was carried out, and because of this it might beinteresting to further investigate the influence of the puppet in the childs hands.

REFERENCES

Hamre, I. (2002) The Learning Process in the Theatre of Paradox. In Majaron, E., Kroflin,L. (eds.)

The PuppetWhat a Miracle! (pp. 61-68) Zagreb: The UNIMA, Puppets in Education Commission.

Koroec, H. (2002) Non-verbal Communication and Puppets. In Majaron, E., Kroflin,L. (eds.) The

PuppetWhat a Miracle! (pp. 15-32) Zagreb: The UNIMA, Puppets in Education Commission.

Lightbown, P. M., Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned.Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Majaron, E. (2002a) Puppets in the Child's Development. In Majaron, E., Kroflin,L. (eds.) The

PuppetWhat a Miracle! (pp. 61-68) Zagreb: The UNIMA, Puppets in Education Commission.

Majaron, E. (2002b) The Puppet in the Formation of a Young Person. In Koroec, H., Majaron, E.

(eds.) Lutka iz vrtca v olo (pp. 5-8) Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education.

Rixon, S. (1991) The Role of Fun and Games Activities in Teaching Young Learners. In Brumfit, C.

Moon, J. and Tongue, R. (eds.) Teaching English to Children: From Practice to Principle.(pp 33-

47). London: Longman.

Slaven, G. and A. (1991) 'Ali are you a boy or a monster?'. In Brumfit, C. Moon, J. and Tongue, R.

(eds.) Teaching English to Children: From Practice to Principle.(pp 33-47). London: Longman.


14/113


An investigation considering differences in 11-12 year oldHong Kong Chinese learners' attention when visual input isilluminated by the projected light of an interactive whiteboardin a darkened classroom, and when it is not, using a normalwhiteboard in a fully lighted classroom.

Mary Carney

INTRODUCTION

Children seem less able to give selective and prolonged attention tofeatures of learning tasks than adults, and are more easily diverted anddistracted by other pupils (Cameron 2001:15).

Bruners scaffolding studies suggest that teachers can help support learners by

focusing their attention (Bruner in Cameron 2001:8:9) which Vygotsky (1978:31-36) considered to be a "dynamic system of behaviour affected by speech andaction". Whether or not pre-adolescent young learners (YLs) attention, theirdistraction by other pupils when reading aloud and silently, and their subsequentrecall of what was read, varies according to lighted medium and classroomenvironment, formed the idea for this study.

With this in mind, the action research set out to consider differences in 11-12year old Hong Kong Chinese learners' attention levels when written language isread illuminated by the projected light of an interactive whiteboard (IWB) in adarkened classroom, and when it is not, using a normal whiteboard (NWB) in awell lit classroom.

An Interactive whiteboard (IWB) is a large, electronic screen the size of a normalwhiteboard, providing an illuminated image for collective viewing, and can beutilised in classrooms as a computer, whiteboard or video screen.

TEACHING CONTEXT AND LEARNER PROFILE

The research was carried out in a large, semi-private Hong Kong language centrewith over 11,000 students, of whom approximately 7,000 are young learners, and

where IWBs became a compulsory teaching aid for its 130 teachers fromSeptember 2003.

Over a series of 80-minute lessons between May and mid-July 2004, two groupsof learners were studied in order to increase data reliability. All subjects hadattended the language centre for 9 months. Spoken/written English levelsreflected a mix of Chinese-medium school-goers (receiving one hour of Englishper day), and English medium school-goers (learning subjects through English),although different starting points in English learning was evident, from 9 years toone year.


15/113

15This Material is Copyright Mary Carney 2010

Homogeneity was assumed from shared L1 (Cantonese), syllabus, teachers (4across 4 terms), familiarity with communicative language learningactivities/routines, newness to the teacher researcher (TR) from May-July, and amale majority. Group A (GA) comprised 10 girls and 11 boys, and Group B (GB)8 girls and 13 boys. Attendance in both groups was consistently 21/22, althoughclass capacity was 24.

RESEARCH BACKGROUND

The role of lighting in classroom performance is documented in US studies fromthe mid-1930's to 1997 (Cash 1993; Phillips 1997; Jago and Tanner 1999), manyclaiming that appropriate classroom lighting reduces off-task behaviour, improvestest scores and overall achievement. The effects of light 'therapy'(strengths/colours) on child dyslexia, learning difficulties, poor concentration, andperformance in US mainstream teaching contexts are also documented, manystudies pertaining to the idea of "good" lighting equating with "good" learning

(Ferenczi 1997).

Other sources provide insight into the positive effects of light therapy on affectivedisorders, e.g. binge eating, depression and SAD - seasonal affective disorder when winter light affects mood and behaviour negatively and other disorders(albeit adult related) such as Alzeimers disease, jet-lag, and shift-work insomnia(Kasof 2002; Phillips 1997; Hathaway 1994; Ferenczi 1997; Van Someron 2004;Downing 2004).

Indoor dim lighting has been found to curb inhibitions, encouraging binge eating inolder teenagers (Kasof 2002) and studies using artificial dawn simulation (Terman

1996; Brainard 1997) were effective in waking teenagers from their sleep(Brainard 1997). What may explain some of these studies' outcomes is the brain'spineal gland, which is affected by light (Macpherson 1995;www.crystalinks.com/thirdeyepineal.html).

The hypothalamusnerve centre for primitive physical and emotional behaviourreceives and sends light/dark information via the retina and nerve impulses, to thepineal gland. When light does not stimulate the hypothalamus, melatonin ahormone derived from serotonin (a mood-enhancing substance) which controls thesleep/wake (circadian) cycle - is released (Macpherson 1995). Although, asreported, light may strengthen the circadian cycle, lower inhibitions and affect

mood, no satisfactory physiological or biochemical mechanism explains its effect.The pineal gland's function, and the mechanism by which light works on the brain,therefore remain unclear (Ferenczi 1997).

Although differences in YLs' attention levels when focused on the IWB (withclassroom lights switched off), or NWB (with lights on), was the focus of thisstudy, skepticism was adopted from the outset, given the dearth of physiologicalevidence regarding the role lighting plays in child attention-focusing. However,although previous classroom IWB studies appear not to have focused on itsilluminating effect on learning, distraction levels have been studied in IWB-usingclassroom contexts where children have multiple learning difficulties (O'Sullivan

2004). The distractibility of over-emphasis on the IWB presentation process in UKmainstream Primary classrooms, has also been noted (Cogill 2003).


16/113


METHOD

Baseline data was collected in early June 2004, using daylight only. A lessoncomprising in-house material focused on the topic of The Body. Learners wereasked to brainstorm and then memorise 7 collocational phrases read from a wall,and recall them and the order in which they had been read, in writing. Scripts were

collected and checked for order recall accuracy.

BASELINE COLLOCATIONS

1. Shrug your shoulders

2. Nod your head

3. Pat your stomach

4. Smack your forehead

5. Rub your elbow

6. Scratch your ankle

7. Blink your eyes

This was followed, in subsequent lessons, by double cross-over experimentaldesign which reversed the whiteboard medium and classroom lightingenvironment, during two cycles of tests. Each lesson, learners read seven sets ofcollocationally patterned formulaic phrases1) aloud and 2) silently, from alternatewhiteboards, later recalled the order in writing. Scripts were checked for orderaccuracy recall.

Therefore over 8 weeks, once a week, within each lesson, alternate group oflearners read from the illuminated IWB in a darkened classroom. A second group

of learners read from a normal whiteboard in a fully lit classroom. Learners' writtenrecall of the order of each collocational set of 7, was tested after reading, bothaloud and silently. Test results were examined along with video evidence,interview and questionnaire data, for insight into the effects of classroom lightingon the learners attention levels. The video data was examined using abehavioural checklist quantifying behaviour indicative of poor or improvedconcentration.

Qualitative data was collected. Learners completed a questionnaire describingtheir attitudes to the interactive whiteboard. Semi-structured interviews allowed forelaboration. Interviews with small groups elicited further views on the IWB, the

NWB, and on classroom lighting. Informal interviews were conducted withteachers and groups uninvolved in the research, for comparative purposes. Fieldnotes were kept. A journal reflected on progress, and on questions which theresearch raised while in progress.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Analysed results from recall tests and video data for both groups, first separated,then triangulated, produced overall gender-divided patterns.


17/113


Language order accuracy recall

The baseline averages (using daylight) revealed higher language order recallaccuracy among girls.

Subsequent test results from both groups - GA and GB - revealed that the orderof language items was listed more accurately, generally, after learners read from

the IWB with the classroom lights off. However, girls, overall, recalled languageorder slightly more accurately (65%) than boys (60%) from both types ofwhiteboard and their respective classroom lighting environments.

In both Cycle 1 and 2, boys scored, overall, lower than girls on remembering itemorder from the NWB with lights on, the lowest accuracy average being 40% forGA boys. Both boy groups performed significantly better recalling from the IWB.

GB remembered the order of language items more accurately, overall, in bothCycle 1 (71%, using NWB with classroom lights on), and Cycle 2 (75%, using

IWB with lights off). GA's accuracy averages were moderately lower than GB inCycle 1 (60% using IWB) and significantly lower in Cycle 2 (45% using NWB).

Closer examination revealed that GB girls generally recalled language ordermore frequently and accurately than GA/GB boys and GA girls, although GB boysoutshone them on one IWB test with lights off (84%).

Video analysis

The behaviour of three girls and two boys (per group) videoed while readingchorally and silently from both mediums, was matched to defined categories

indicating attention level. This was analysed according to medium, reading task,group and gender.

When reading chorally from the IWB, the results suggest GA were minimallydistracted, and GB even less. The NWB, conversely, appeared to induce moredistraction in both groups during choral reading, albeit minor.

Silent reading produced an altogether different pattern. GAs fidgeted more,dividing eye-gaze from both boards - the NWB inducing significantly morerestlessness (double the amount of divided eye contact with the board, andspoken instances). GBs fidgeted almost to the same degree as GA reading from

the NWB, and general distraction was less apparent when the IWB was used forsilent reading.

The gender divisions according to task and medium revealed that when readingaloud, boys in both groups, overall, seemed slightly distracted, dividing theirattention, minimally, from both mediums. Girls were more minimally distractedand only from the NWB. Boys also appeared distracted reading silently from theIWB, and girls, less.

However, silent reading from the NWB, produced the most dramatic results inboth sexes. Attention, overall, was low in both boys and girls, although the boys

fidgeted, divided eye-gaze slightly more than girls, and chatted! GA boysappearing more distracted than GB boys.


18/113


BEHAVIOURAL CHECKLIST

READING ALOUD

Behaviour observed whilelearners focused on IWB withclassroom lights OFF and alllearners are reading aloudchorally, for 1 minute

Frequency of behavioural occurrence notedduring a 1 minute video sequence whilelearners read chorally. The language is hand-written on IWB in RED with e-pen. Overheadlights switched OFF

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

Eye gaze direction divided 0 0 0 0 0

Fidgets 0 1 1 0 0

Disrupts task 0 0 0 0 0

Asks teacher irrelevantquestions

0 0 0 0 0

Engages in horseplay withnearby learners

0 0 0 0 0

Speaks to nearby learners 0 0 0 0 0

SILENT READING

Behaviour observed whilelearners are focused on IWBwith classroom lights OFF -learners look at language onboard in silence for 1 minute

Frequency of behavioural occurrence notedduring a 1 minute video sequence whilelearners read silently. The language is writtenon IWB in RED with overhead lights switchedOFF

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

Eye gaze direction divided 0 3 2 1 0

Fidgets 0 2 1 0 1

Disrupts task 0 0 0 0 0

Asks teacher irrelevantquestions

0 0 0 0 0

Engages in horseplay withnearby learners

0 0 0 0 0

Speaks to nearby learners 0 0 0 0 0


19/113


Learner Questionnaire results

The learner questionnaire, overall, revealed positive attitudes towards IWB use.Most GA and GB respondents - 42 in total - considered lessons to be moreconsistently interesting with the IWB. Over half GAs thought this never happenedwith the NWB, about which most GBs were, curiously, less dismissive.

Over half GAs considered IWB-writing always more interesting than drawing,although less than half GBs felt this. IWB-drawing, conversely, drew a more evenspread of GBs, the majority expressing neutral opinion.

Tentative consensus suggested improved comprehension of teacher explanationwas supported by IWB-use. Overall, over half positively viewed the IWB's effecton memory, although some GAs 'always' remembered with the NWB, somethingdenied by all GBs!

Most GAs preferred IWB-presented grammar and video, with mixed ratings onvocabulary, reading writing, speaking and listening. GBs preferred the IWBmostly for writing, vocabulary, and video, and other activities to different degrees.

What all children liked about the IWB fit under fixed categories. GAs prioritisedvisual impact (28%), user-friendliness (24%), and ludic value (19%), commentingless on efficiency and interest-value. Uncertainty about preference was alsoevident (9%). GBs valued user-friendliness most (19%), although less than GAs,and equally to interest-value. Emotional and aesthetic impact (not visual) andhygiene were mentioned.

Learner dislikes induced specific GA views, highlighting technical problems,although not user-unfriendliness. Turning lights off, expense, and missingauditory support, were disliked. 14% disliked nothing.

GBs expressed stronger attitudes. Over half defended the IWB, disliking nothing,although some implicitly criticised teacher-centredness. One disliked the screen'sbrightness, one criticised illegibility.

Learner Interviews

Girls (from GA and GB) preferred classroom lights off (with IWB) - one for better

clarity (GA), the other (GB) did not know why. Neither expressed how they feltwith lights off. Boys disliked lights off, complaining of poor visibility. However, allfelt they attended more to the IWB than NWB with classroom lights off. Identifyingwhat they liked about the IWB, efficiency, variety, entertainment value, andviewing ease were mentioned. No correlation was apparent in same-sexresponses. One GA male listed five aspects, perhaps learning-style related.Nothing was disliked, although one boy mentioned illegibility.

The possible unrepresentativness of a reduced sample prompted a second semi-structured interview with a group of 22 11-12 year olds, enquiring, whole-class,about IWB-likes and dislikes. Most liked hygiene, efficiency and colour, favouring

viewing-ease and video use, less. Teacher-centredness and technical breakdown


20/113


was disliked the most. Expense and illegibility were isolated. An interview (forcontrast) with teenagers revealed applause for efficiency, but overall cynicism.

TRIANGULATION & DISCUSSION

Comparative evidence, cross-analysed, produced some significant patterns.Accurate language order recall averaged 62% overall, perhaps suggesting a

practised routine in Hong Kong Chinese mainstream Primary School learning,medium-regardless. It may also reflect learners' questionnaire ambivalencetowards 'always' remembering better through one whiteboard medium or the other.Collocation order accuracy averages produced generally higher cycle averagesthan baseline averages. Increasing familiarity with language (verbally/visually) andtask routine over a short time period might explain this, although some lexicalknowledge had been evident at the outset.

However, IWB with lights off produced generally more accurate recall, correlatingwith video evidence (showing learners better behaved and more on-task), and with

learner questionnaire opinion, where over half considered the IWB morememorable, perhaps reflecting Vygotsky's belief that external stimuli raises theeffectiveness of children's short-term recall (Vygotsky 1978:45).

If language order recall was equated with attending better in this study, then cycleaverages, video evidence, and learner views on the IWB's attention-gainingpotential might initially suggest unquestioning IWB-success at enhancing attentionon and recall of, written language highlighted by projected light on a large screen,in dim surroundings.

However, sub-analysis by group and gender showed that such a conclusion might

be over-simplistic.

Despite a lower baseline average than GA, GB proved strongest in all recall tests,and in confidence, with questionnaire data revealing general unconcern aboutmedium, non-rejection of the NWB, some neutral and less extreme opinions thanGA, although overwhelming defence of the IWB.

Conversely, GA appeared weaker at recalling language order and many opinionslacked confidence and conviction. For example the NWB was considered stronglyunmemorable by some. Although low (45%) GA's actual NWB recall average wasabove their baseline, and recall was evident.

Gender recall result analysis revealed a consistent but mediocre female GA, and apowerful GB female group, scoring highly in all tests, highest on the NWB, andopening, perhaps, a triangulatory Pandora's box. Unfortunately, questionnaireanonymity excluded gender opinion correlation, and just one interview with a GBgirl (revealing an IWB at her school, her bemusement with it, and association with'good' lessons) and video observation of three girls (showing attentive behaviour),provided scant cross referencing. Knowledge of the learners provided fewadditional clues although more Chinese medium school (CMI) than EnglishMedium School (EMI) goers were evident.

The claim that girls rely on the verbalchannel more then boys, who attend betterto visualinformation (McGuinness 1997) was not evident in recall tests (invalid) or


21/113


video tests (valid). On video, both sexes strayed off-task more when reading thesets of collocations silently using both mediums - the boys the most, although lesswhen reading from the IWB.

However, significant recall was apparent in both boy groups using the IWB (theGB boys' accuracy jumping considerably) compared with the NWB, possiblysuggesting a better male response to visuals illuminated by projected light.

Technical breakdown, and learner unfriendliness correlated in both groupsopinion. The concern about teacher-centredness, perhaps reflects McCormick &Scrimshaw's (2001) belief that where IWBs are used merely as whiteboards, theydo little to develop the interactivity fundamental to enhanced learning. Thequestion this perhaps poses might be whether 'enhanced learning' is immediatelyrecognisable from such an expository approach? And although scaffolding inintention, could this be criticised as encouraging a behaviourist style of learning?

In language acquisition terms, behaviourism (responding to stimuli) is thought to

support the acquisition of vocabulary and grammatical morphemes (Lightbown &Spada 1999:26). Secondly, repetition, focusing on form, noticing errors, storingand retrieving information are considered to be important learning strategies forEFL pre-adolescents (Cameron 2001; Williams & Burden 1997:150). Additionally,as mastery of Chinese ideographs through academic emphasis on memory andattention to detail is thought to strengthen Chinese childrens' perception of stimulias whole, fostering high spatial intelligence (Harris Bond 1991), the procedure formeasuring attention was considered appropriate.

Research has shown that pre-adolescent memory is more logicalised, and torecall is to think(Vygotsky 1978:50-51).Batstone (in Cameron 2001) recommends

isolating form, and 'zooming in' on details, before leading to activities moremanipulative of language. Evidence from the learners' subsequent production ofthe language in role play demonstrated meaningful and constructive use.

Both Vygotsky and Feuerstein (in Williams & Burden 1997:42), believed theteacher's 'mediator' role was a key factor in effective learning, in selecting andshaping learning experiences and children's responses to them, ensuring thelearner interacts with the materials in various ways until they become self-directive. The learning experience was considered by the teacher-researcher to beshaped through alternating classroom lighting environments. The learners' self-directiveness was perhaps apparent towards the end of the study, when the

effects of scaffolded memorisation appeared to support use of the language inmeaningful contexts.


22/113


Summary of total average %'s of correctly ordered responses

Total Group Results by Medium & Group:

Medium Group A correct order Group B correct order

Baseline (FC &daylight)

34% 26%

Medium Group A correct order Group B correct order

IWB + lights OFF 60% 75%

NWB + lights ON 45% 71%

Totals 52% 73%

Total Results by - Cycle & Group:

Medium Group A correctorder

Group B correctorder

Totals

Cycle 1 60% IWB 71% NWB 65%

Cycle 2 45% NWB 75% IWB 60%

Baseline Averages by Group & Gender:

Basel ine memory test Girls correct order Boys correct order

GA f/cards + daylight 44% 24%

GB f/cards + daylight 30% 23%

Cycle 1 Averages by Group & Gender

Cycle 1 Memory test Girls correct order Boys correct order

GA IWB + lights Off 60% 60%

GB NWB + lights ON 85% 58%

Cycle 2 Averages by Group & Gender:

Cycle 2 Memory test Girls correct order Boys correct order

GA NWB + lights ON 50% 40%

GB IWB + lights OFF 66% 84%

Total Group Results - by Gender

Medium Girls A Girls B Boys A Boys B

Baseline (FC &daylight)

44% 81% 24% 23%

Medium Girls A Girls B Boys A Boys B

IWB + lights OFF 60% 66% 60% 84%

NWB + lights ON 50% 85% 40% 58%

Total 55% 75% 50% 71%


23/113


Total Gender Results - Both Groups

Medium All Girls AllBoys

F'cards & daylight 61% 23%

Medium All Girls AllBoys

IWB + lights OFF 63% 72%

NWB + lights ON 67% 49%

Total 65% 60%

Total Results - both groups

Medium Bothgroups

F'cards & daylight 30%

Medium Both

groupsIWB + lights OFF 67%

NWB + lights ON 58%

Total 62%

REFLECTION

The principle post action research concern was the breadth of data collected andits near unmanageability, learner questionnaire anonymity resulting in incompletegender analysis (although perhaps increasing validity), superfluous data createdby teacher questionnaires, and overall data reduction prior to triangulation.

Another concern was behaviour measurement with video, which although usinglow-inference descriptors (O'Sullivan 2004), might have increased in validity ifrated by more observers - fidgeting possibly signifying distraction for one, andconcentration for another.

Results, it was felt, cannot be read in black and white, e.g. concentration, recalland dim lighting is 'good', fluorescent brightness, distraction and poor recall, 'bad'.The variables associated with 'attention', and the un-firmness of evidence of theeffects of lighting on it, encourage a degree of detachment from the findings.

REFERENCES

Brown, H. Douglas (2000) Principles of Language teaching and learningNew York: Addison &

Wesley Longman

Bearne, E., (ed) 1995) Greater ExpectationsChildren Reading WritingCassell

Brumfit, C (ed) (1983) Video Applications in English Language TeachingEnglish language

teaching documents:114 Pergamon Press in association with the British Council

Buzan, T., (1974) Use your headAriel Books BBC Books

Cameron, L (2001) Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press


24/113


Cartwright C & Cartwright P (1984) Developing observation skills New York McGraw Hill

Cohen L, Manion L and Morrison K (2000) Research methods in education:5th edition London:

Routledge Falmer

Elliott, J.(1991)Action Research for Educational ChangeMilton Keynes:Oxford University Press.

Fisher, R. (1995) Teaching Children to Learn - Nelson Thornes

Fisher, R. (1990) Teaching Children to thinkNelson Thornes

Harris Bond, M., (1991) Beyond the Chinese Face - insights from psychologyiOxford University

Press

Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1999) How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press

(Revised Edition)

Macpherson, G.,(ed) ( 1995) Black's Medical Dictionary38th Edition A & C Black Publishers

McGuinness, D. (1997) Why children can't read Penguin Books

Thornbury, S. (2002) How to Teach VocabularyLongman

Van Lier, L. (1988) The classroom and the language learnerLongman

Vygotsky, L.s. (1978) Mind in Society. London: Harvard University Press

Wallace, M., J., (1998) Action Research for language teachersCambridge

Watkins, D, & Biggs, J (eds) (1996) The Chinese Learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual

influences

Williams, M. and Burden, B. (1997) Psychology for Language TeachersCambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Wood, D. (1988) How Children Think and Learn(Chapter 1) Oxford: Blackwell.

Articles:

Cameron, L., (2003) Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children in ELT Journal

Volume 57/2 April 2003 Oxford University Press

Dahlin, B., & Watkins D. (2000) The role of repetition in the process of memorising and

understanding: A comparison of the views of German and Chinese secondary school students in

Hong Kong in British Journal ofEducational PsychologyVol 70 Part 1 March 2000 ISSN 007-0998

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003) Problematising Cultural Stereotypes in

TESOL quarterly, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 709-719 (11)

Selinger M (2001) The role of the teacher: teacher-less classrooms in Leask M (ed) (2001) Issues

in teaching using ICTLondon: Routledge FalmerSmith, S., (2003) Using Video to look at Scaffolding in CATS IATEFL YL SIGNewsletterIssue 2/03

Somekh B (2000) New technology and learning: policy and practice in the UK, 1980-2010. In

Education and information technologies5(1)

Tuffs, R. & Tudor, I., (1990) What the eye doesnt see: Cross cultural problems in the

comprehension of video material in RELC Journal Vol 21 No. 2 Dec 1990

Online (Internet) References:

BECTa (2002a) BECTa website.

Online at www.becta.org.uk


25/113


BECTa (2002b) Young People and ICT. Published by BECTA for DfES.

Online at www.becta.org.uk/youngpeopleict

Besa (2001) ICT in UK state schools: A summary.

Online at www.besanet.org.uk

Benya, J. (2001) Lighting for schools. Washington D.C. National Clearninghouse for educational

facilities

Online at www.edfacilities.org/pubs/lighting.html

Cash, C., (1993) A study of the relationship between school building condition and student

achievement and behaviour Blacksburg, Va.: Virginia Polytechnic institute and State University in

National Clearinghouse for educational facilities.

Retrieved from: www.edfacilities.org

Cogill, J., (2003) Some effects on teaching with an interactive whiteboard in a Primary school

Online at: http://client.ac.uk/research/julie-cogill/paper-II.asp

Ferenczi, M., (1997) Seasonal depression and Light therapyMill Hill Essays National Institute for

Medical research.

Retrieved from: www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/MillHillEssays/1997/sad.htm

Gifford, R. (1994) Scientific evidence for claims about full-spectrum lamps: past and future in Full

Spectrum Lighting Effects on Performance, Mood and Health, ed. Veitch J., IRC Internal report

number 659, June 1994. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Institute for research in construction.

Retrieved from http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltest/ir659/Gifford.pdf

Hathaway, W., Hargreaves, J., Thompson, G., and Novitsky, D. (1992) A study into the effects of

light on children of elementary school age (copyright Naturalighting.com)

Heschong Mahone group (1999) Daylighting in schools: An investigation into the relationship

between daylighting and human performance. San Francisco, Calif, Pacific Gas and Electric

Company.

Online at:

www.pge.com/003_save_energy/003c_edu_train/pec/daylight/di_pubs/schools/detailed820App.PD

E

Jago, E. & Tanner, K., (1999) Influence of school facility on student achievement: Lighting, colour.

Athens, Ga,: Dept of Educational Leadership; University of Georgia.

Online at: www..coe.uga.edu/sdpl/researchabstracts/visual.hmtl

Kasof, J. (2002) The effects of lighting on binge eating in Journal of Personality & Individual

differences

Online at: www. psycport.com

Lemasters, L. (1997) A synthesis ofpertaining to facilities, student achievement and student

behaviour. Blacksburg, Va.: Virginia Polytechnic and State University (ED447687)

Retrieved from: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities

Online at: www.edfacilities.org

McCormick, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (2001) Information and communication technology, knowledge,and pedagogy in Glover, D., & Miller, D., Introduction of Interactive Whiteboards into schools in the


26/113


UK (online) published in the International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, November2002

Online at: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll

NGfl (2002) the National Grid for learning.

Online at www.ngfl.gov.uk

O'Sullivan, S. (2004) The use of IWBs & touchscreens by pupils with profound and multiple

learning difficulties

Online at http://www.parkroadict.co.uk/

Pathfinders (2001) Report from emerging findings

Online at www.becta.org.uk/pathfinders

Phillips, R., (1997) Educational Facility age and the academic achievement of upper elementary

school students D. Ed. Diss., University of Georgia

Retrieved from: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities

Online at: www.edfacilities.org


27/113


Reflective Learning:Can reflection increase the amount of L2 used in the classroom?

Carolina Garrido

INTRODUCTION

This paper will focus on the description of the action research project (AR) carriedout by the writer in her own classroom context. The AR arose as an extension ofa previous Classroom Investigation Task (CI), which had focused on the contrastbetween the amounts of L1and L2spoken by the learners and the learnersperceptions of these amounts.

The AR was carried out in Argentina, where the mother tongue or L1 is Spanish.English, L2, is a foreign language, and the learners have no direct exposure to itoutside the classroom. For the purpose of this paper, the terms learners and

teachers will refer to the learners and the teachers involved in the AR.

BACKGROUND TO THE AR

Teachers working in a culturally homogenous classroom where they share theirmother tongue with all the learners appear to be constantly re-defining the rightamounts of L1and L2in their classrooms. They may know that the use of L1needs to be limited if they want the learners to profit from the learning situationand that L1used as a means for communicating in speaking activities or an easyway out of trouble could become a negative element in the learning process (Cole:1998: 3). However, they may also believe that the struggle to avoid L1at all costs

can lead to bizarre behaviour (Atkinson in Cole: 1998: 2) and it might be positiveto integrate communicative methodology with selective and limited use of L1.

Regardless of their positions on this subject, most teachers seem to share thefeeling that even though the majority of learners use L2to carry out activities inclass, only a small number of them resort to it for spontaneous interaction.

Some conclusions drawn from the CI generated the general idea for this AR.First, the amount of L2spoken by the learners was significantly lower than theamount of L2these learners believed they had produced. Second, the teachersand the learners perceptions of the situation varied considerably. For example, inanswer to the question Why do you think you dont speak more English in class?all the learners responded they lacked the necessary language. The teachersreply was that although the learners were able to communicate in L2, they found iteasier and more natural to resort to their mother tongue for spontaneousinteraction.

FOCUS OF THE AR

The focus of this AR was to find out whether the systematic implementation ofreflection as part of the class could lead to the improvement of this situation in two

aspects: reducing the amount of L1spoken in the classroom and bridging the gap


28/113

28This Material is Copyright Kate Gregson 2010

between the way the learners and the teacher perceive what goes on within theclassroom.

REFLECTION

Reflection results from being confronted with a problem (Morgan, King, Weisz andSchopler in Al-Arishi: 2), involving processes such as defining, comparing,

abstracting, generalizing, and making evaluative and judgemental decisions.Within the classroom, reflection entails continually nurturing self-awareness andself-development in the learners. Richards (in Farrell: 1998: 10) states that

reflection refers to an activity or process in which experience isrecalled, considered, and evaluated, usually in relation to abroader purpose. It is a response to a past experience andinvolves conscious recall and examination of the experience as abasis for evaluation and decision-making and as a source forplanning and action.

However, reflection does not seem to be a completely spontaneous process but alearned activity. It seems to be the result of a set of carefully planned experiencesthat foster new ways of looking at and talking about learning (Hoover in Farrell:2001; 2). Thus, teachers may not expect most learners to reflect upon theirlearning process in general or any aspect of it in particular, unless they areprovided with the right activities to develop their reflective skills.

It seemed plausible to this writer that the learners could have been resorting to L1within the classroom context because no systematic attempts had been made toraise their awareness in this respect. Their lack of awareness may have caused

them to dismiss the importance of using L2for spontaneous interaction.

CONTEXT

The AR was carried out in two groups formed by six to ten learners betweenthirteen and sixteen years of age. Their level was pre-intermediate and thelearners had attended two ninety-minute classes a week for four years (34 weeksa year).

The learners beliefs were examined by means of short informal interviews held by

their teacher, usually in L1. All the interviews showed the learners believed theyused enough L2in the classroom and some even claimed to use L2for almostevery utterance they produced. However, the subsequent analysis of the learnersperformance showed they used L1in more than 50% of their utterances, especiallyfor spontaneous interaction.

The teachers opinions were gathered by means of open interviews. The teacherswho had taught these learners previously agreed on their perceptions of thissituation. They claimed the learners were able to communicate their ideas in L2and this was shown in the communicative activities carried out in class as well asin their performance in speaking tests. However, the teachers felt the learners

resorted to L1whenever they needed to communicate with the teachers or theirclassmates for any purpose other than taking part in an activity. Since the


29/113


percentage of language generated by spontaneous interaction is high, theteachers believed the learners would immensely benefit from carrying out thisinteraction in L2.

The interviews also revealed the teachers had attempted to improve this situationin these and other groups in different ways, including fine or reward systems andEnglish-only zones or times, among others. They reported the systems had

worked for a short time but the situation had in most cases returned to its previousstatus once the novelty had worn off. It was agreed by some of these teachersthat the failure of these systems may have been caused by the fact that they wereimposed by the teacher and as a result the learners did not seem to investinterest, effort or attention in them. In addition to this, as the learners consideredthey spoke more L2than they actually did so they may probably have seen nopoint in trying to establish any of these systems or making an effort to increase theamount of L2they spoke.

GENERAL PLAN

The AR was implemented during the second term. No formal system forincreasing the amount of L2spoken had been established until that moment; theteachers had only insisted on the use of L2in class whenever possible andoccasionally asked the learners to repeat what they had said in L1using L2. Thelearners had participated in reflective tasks in other areas, but had never reflectedon their use of L1or L2in class except for the interviews carried out before the ARprocedure started.

The necessary data for the AR was gathered using three different methods. First,

both groups were video taped four times during the AR and the amount of L1/ L2spoken was measured by means of tally sheets with two categories (L1/ L2).

Second, the learners in the experimental group reflected on the process usingreflection journals which contained three sections. Section A was completed atthe beginning and the end of each class and consisted of two diagrams in whicheach learner marked the amount of L1/ L2 they intended to speak and the amountthey considered they had spoken during that class. Section B was a self-observation report which was completed at the end of each week and containedreflection questions on the learners performance during that week. Section C wasan optional free reflection section that included any observations, thoughts or

feelings the learners wanted to record. Although the teacher initially felt thelearners may not want to make the extra effort to write in this section, five out ofseven learners completed this section at least once, and four of them wrote in itregularly.

In addition to this, the learners were given an extra space for reflection, which wasa group discussion held every three weeks to evaluate their progress, suggestdifferent ways of improving the classroom situation or express any opinion aboutthis situation in general.

Third, the teacher recorded her observations on the process in an AR journal.

There were regular entries made at the end of each class and other entries made


30/113


during the planning and implementation of the AR or whenever an idea took shapethat the teacher considered worth recording.

As regards reliability, the use of video recording and tally sheets was believed tobe reliable since, as long as the concept of utterance was clearly defined, theresults obtained would be the same under any circumstances. The use of journalsdid not seem to be reliable to the same degree, as journals were thought to be

very subjective and deeply influenced by circumstances. This method wasselected, however, because it seemed to be important for this AR to capture eachparticipants perceptions, and journals proved to be an efficient way of doing this.

Validity was kept into consideration during the development of the AR, and themethods were regularly analysed in order to discover whether the research wasactually focusing on the points it was supposed to concentrate on.

As regards the ethical framework, the issue of confidentiality and control of theinformation was discussed with every direct or indirect participant in the AR and it

was agreed that no names or specific details would be given and each participantwould have full access to the AR presentation and a translation to Spanish if itwas necessary in order to determine whether they agreed on the release of theinformation presented in it.

PROCEDURE

The learners were filmed during the first class and the awareness-raising activitiesbegan to be carried out during the second class. The following schedule wasdesigned:

Second class

The learners stated the amount of L1/ L2they believed they hadspoken the previous class, when they were recorded.

The learners watched a ten minute sequence of the video recordedthe previous class and completed a tally sheet.

The group discussed their perceptions of the amounts of L1/ L2spoken and the results obtained by using the tally sheet. Thediscussion then moved on to the importance of speaking L2inlanguage learning.

In small groups the learners brainstormed possible ways of

increasing the amount of L2spoken in class and presented theirideas to the rest of the class. The whole group selected one ofthese ideas to be put into practice.

Every class: at the beginning of each class the learners completed adiagram showing the amount of L1/ L2 they intended to speak duringthat class. At the end of the class, the learners completed a similardiagram showing the actual amount of L1/ L2spoken.

Once a week: at the end of the last class of the week, the learners

answered the questions posed by the teacher in section B of theirobservation journals.


31/113


Every six classes:

The learners looked back at all their diagrams for the month andcompleted a flowchart showing the amounts of L1/ L2spoken ineach class.

In pairs, the learners analysed their performance and commentedon it.

The group discussed the conclusions they had arrived at in pairsand evaluated the ideas they had tried during that period.Improvements were suggested for the ideas that had been used andnew ideas were put forward.

Last class:

The learners watched a ten minute sequence of the video recordedthe previous class and completed a tally sheet.

First, the group discussed the differences between the resultsobtained in the tally sheet completed in the first class and the newone. Second, a group evaluation of the whole process was carriedout. Third, each learner individually evaluated the process in theirjournal.

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA OBTAINED

Video Tapes

The first recording made of both the experimental and the control group showed

that L2was used in 33% of the utterances in the experimental group and 36% ofthe utterances in the control group.

The second recording, made ten weeks later, showed the learners use of L2hadonly improved slightly. In this recording, the learners in the experimental groupused L1in 38% of the utterances, and those in the control groups used it in 33%.To ensure reliability, a new section of this class was selected for analysis atrandom, but the results were identical.


32/113


Learner Reflection Journals and AwarenessRaising Discussions

The learners attitude towards the whole project seemed to be positive andparticipative, and this was reflected in the journals and the group discussions. Thejournals reflected an initial impact caused by confronting the learners perceptionsto their real use of L2. Most journal entries written during the following weeks, aswell as the group discussions, showed that the learners believed they weremaking progress and using more L2than they did at the beginning. However, theirexpectations and perceptions of progress did not match the results obtained oncethe last video tape was tallied.

Teacher Reflection Journal

The teacher kept methodical record of everything that was going on in theclassroom as well as her perceptions and feelings. The teachers attitude was

also enthusiastic and her comments showed she believed the learners use of L2to have achieved more progress than it actually had.

EVALUATION

The implementation of the AR was simple and no unpredicted problems emergedduring it. The results obtained, however, showed no significant improvement ofthe situation that needed to be modified. Although the teacher and the learnersstated in their journals that they perceived a smaller amount of L1beingprogressively used in the classroom, the tally sheets showed no importantdifference in the learners performance between the beginning and the end of the

process and no relevant differences between the performance of the experimentalgroup and that of the control group. Because the difference between the


33/113


participants perception and the numbers shownby the tally sheets was marked,new video segments were chosen at random and tallied, but this produced thesame results. Several reasons may exist for the failure of this AR to achieve theimprovement of the situation at the expected level.

First, the whole process was planned by the teacher and suggested to thelearners after planning. Like the systems used by previous teachers, the

organization of this process seemed to require no self-investment or compromisefrom the learners, who were given a schedule, a journal and a set of instructions,but made very few decisions in the process. As a result of this, the learners maynot have committed enthusiastically enough to make the necessary effort toimprove.

Second, a group of teachers interviewed after obtaining negative results arguedthat using L1in the classroom is part of a natural developmental process. Theyclaimed their experience had shown the learners begin to use L2more frequentlyand spontaneously when they become more confident in the language and this

process should not be rushed. Although these claims did not seem to be built onsolid theoretical foundations, they could be related to some extent to the idea ofallowing a silent period or letting learners develop at their own rhythm. It could bethe subject of new AR to discover whether the amount of L2spontaneously usedby the learners actually increases when the learners reach a higher level as part ofnatural developmental process.

Third, the failure in the process may have been caused by the quantity and qualityof activities selected. Even after obtaining negative results the writer believersreflection and awareness-raising could be efficient ways of increasing the amountof L2spoken in class. If this AR were just the first cycle in a larger project, then

the next logical step would probably be to re-design the activities planned usingthe information obtained and plan a second cycle in which the hypotheses couldbe tested again. The second cycle of the AR might produce more positive results.

Finally, the modification of behaviour patterns in general and spontaneousbehaviour in particular may be a slow and gradual process. It may take more thanfourteen weeks to change the ay in which a group has acted for four years. Boththe teacher and the learners recorded positive attitudinal changes in their journals,and these changes may have lead to an improvement of the situation in a longerperiod of time. It might have been interesting to video tape the same groupregularly until the end of the year so as to observe any modifications in the current

situation.

A final point to be made is that, although the expected goal was not accomplished,the multiple reflection processes generated by this project gave its participants anunexpected bonus, which makes it possible to say that the project obtainedpositive results. The learners claimed to have profited from the reflection activitiesand to have gained communication strategies in the process. The teacherqualified the process as beneficial for the learners and enriching for herself sinceit helped her gain new valuable insights on diverse areas of her teaching and herprofessional development. After completing this project the writer feels actionresearch works as a way of improving her own practice and for making real

changes within her context: this project is only the beginning.


34/113


Does the medium af fect produ ct ion?

A c omparat ive study of c omputer ised and paper-based m edia

in wr i t ing w ith young learners

Kate Gregson

INTRODUCTION

The way in which our students () write is much affected by the technology theyemploy to assist them (Levy 1993:223). The integration of ICT (Information andCommunication Technology) into ELT is, nowadays, advocated by many writersfor various purposes, including for the YL classroom (e.g. Monteith 2002, Leaskand Meadows 2000b). One commonly-used application of computers might beword-processors. Indeed, among a sample of 4000 US mainstream teachers,word-processing applications were used almost twice as much as others (Bloomeand Golooba 2002). Daiute (1985) furthermore suggests the writing process isaffected by the tool. Further studies suggest word-processing affects, largely

positively, non-native language writing (e.g. Piper, Neu and Scarcella, alsoPhinney in Slaouti (2000)).

This small-scale research aimed to investigate some effects of word-processingon written production, and thereby its potential in TEYL as well as in theresearchers own teaching context. It further aimed to illuminate its value and,therefore, inform future practice, as Wallace (1998) proposes in discussion ofaction research. This might further adhere to Kemmis and McTaggarts (in Cohenet al 2000:227) definition of AR, concerning improving rationality and justificationof educational practices.

More specifically, research focus was determined as range and accuracy of verbform for relative ease of quantification, allowing objective, quantitative comparisonof sample texts, as recommended by Connor (in Biesenbach-Lucas andWeasenforth 2001), rather than alternative more qualitative and perhaps lessreliable foci. It was viewed as problem-posing, as suggested by Kemmis andMcTaggart (in Cohen et al 2000), and therefore investigative and illuminative.

DESCRIPTION

Data was collected between February and April, 2004. Research was conductedby the writer, who was also the teacher.

LEARNER AND LEARNING CONTEXT

Samples of learners came from two classes of 11-12 year old Hong Kong learnersof extra-curricular English as a non-native language at a language teachinginstitution in Hong Kong, where English is fairly widely spoken and held as animportant skill in the community, with specific proficiency levels required for certainprofessions. Learners came from different schools, with varying IT facilities and

were all in their sixth (final) year of primary education. Their schools were either


35/113


English or Cantonese medium, but all learners mother-tongue was Cantonese.Most learners had been learning English over two years at school.

There were 24 students in each mixed ability/level class, held weekly for 80minutes over 18 weeks. The classes were named CA and CB for the investigationto ensure institutional anonymity. Names were also withheld, groups of learnersbeing coded according to class and sex (e.g. ABM=Class A, group B, Male). Most

students had been attending classes for over a year, and had extensiveexperience of communicative teaching approaches, which probably differs fromapproaches followed in school. The courses pre-defined syllabus was SteppingStones 4 (Ashworth and Clark 1998), unit 3, Space.

The institution operates world-wide, and, in Hong Kong, employs about 120qualified teachers to 11,000 students, approximately 60% classed as YLs (aged 2-16). The Hong Kong centre is reputed internally as a centre of excellence interms of ICT expertise and facilities, and is equipped with interactive whiteboards(i.e. computerized on-line whiteboards) in all classrooms. Six classrooms are

equipped with eight workstations embedded in tables, and there is a computerroom with 16 workstations.

DESIGN

Data was collected by a variety of means, from several sources, aiming toincrease validity and reliability through triangulation, drawing on qualitative andquantitative research methods, involving teachers for their experience andexpertise, also learners for theirs. The main source of data was samples of writingby ten groups of 2-3 learners, five from each class (total 26 learners). Further datastemmed from questionnaires. Field notes, researchers journal, Interactive

whiteboard flipchart files and hand-over notes were also collected for potentialreference purposes. Interviews and focus groups were considered, but felt to betoo intrusive and class-time consuming. All data was presented in numerousappendices.

An ethical concern was that CBs preferred medium (word-processor) was usedinitially, possibly decreasing motivation for paper-based writing. Also, learnerswere not explicitly informed of their status as research subjects for fear atypicalperformance might invalidate data, as YLs may have strong desires to pleaseadults (Cameron 2001).

BASELINE AND BACKGROUND DATA

Baseline data was collected in the first lesson by asking all students to interviewand write about their partner on paper using question prompts designed to elicit arange of verb forms. As a first lesson getting-to-know-you activity, this wasviewed as complementary. Writing was then analysed and incidences of verbforms recorded. Data was used to gauge individuals general writing level, ability,and motivation.

Learners were asked in the following lesson to complete a questionnaire aiming toreveal computer experience at home and school, in particular word-processing,

feelings towards using computers and perceived knowledge and skills includingword-processing and keyboard skills. Data would then be both qualitative and


36/113


quantitative. Although YLs may not have fully developed higher critical thinkingskills, learners were viewed as invaluable information sources, especially pre-adolescents, whose formal operational thinking might be developing in a Piagetiansense (Williams and Burden 1997).

The questionnaire was administered during class-time and students could ask forhelp if necessary. Results were recorded, analysed, then summarised for

reference. Results for selected subjects were cross-referenced with final researchdata.

To expand on baseline data and provide teacher perspective, teacher opinion wasinvestigated through further questionnaires, conducted in March. One (internal)was administered in-house; a second (global) sent over an internal global emailforum to 200 YL teachers in differing contexts. This aimed to increase samples,having predicted low in-house response. Both questionnaires were piloted withthree volunteers, and slight changes made to improve clarity of some questions.

MAIN INVESTIGATION

The main investigation was conducted in two cycles, two weeks apart. Possiblyreducing intrusiveness, the space theme was expanded by adapting the pre-defined syllabus to include an eight-week project with activities linked by content,in which components of a learner-devised story were created where astronauts flyto another planet and meet aliens; planets were createdin February. During cycle1 students created and wrote about astronauts; aliens during cycle 2. Final storieswere created later.

Underwood (in Barker et al 2000) suggests same-sex pairs/groups perform better

through pre-writing discussion on content and noticing of mistakes when usingICT. Bruce and Rubin (1993) suggest social interaction skills develop throughfeedback on writing and sharing ideas; Method and Bosch (2001) also mentionjoint exploration and knowledge building as important to social learning. Ethics,then, and practicalities (24 students, eight workstations) resulted in group- ratherthan individual-work. Students expressed preference for same-sex groups, whichalso allowed possible analysis of gender difference.

In cycle 1, students first read about famous astronauts on-line, extracted andnoted down key information using skimming techniques. They then completed thesame information about an imaginary astronaut before writing about him/her. The

task was designed to elicit a range of verb forms (e.g. present simple for state,present perfect for experience). Pen-and-paper was the medium for CA, word-processor for CB. The teacher-researcher monitored took notes and helped withspelling etc., but not verb form. All scripts were retained, although data was notanalysed until cycle 2 was complete; consistent groupings determined sampling.

Introducing cycle 2, students were shown images of aliens and questioned orallyconcerning information similar to that in cycle 1. Students then completed a similarworksheet to cycle 1, and wrote about their alien in the same way. The mediumwas reversed; CA wrote on paper, CB on word-processor. The teacher-researchercirculated as before. The task was intended to be as similar to cycle 1 as possible

to increase reliability and validity. No writing tasks were set in interim lessons.


37/113


Five groups (two male, three female) were selected from each class. Criteriaincluded attendance and, therefore, continuity, as well as equal balance of male-female groups over the classes. Scripts were then analysed for verb formsattempted and their accuracy. Inaccuracies were categorized according to error.This quantitative analysis was triangulated by impressionistic, more qualitativefield notes. Data was recorded, analysed and summarised by class and group forboth cycles.

FOLLOW-UP

In the following lesson, learners were asked to complete a brief reactionquestionnaire, which aimed to uncover any preference for writing on paper orword-

teyl seminar papers 2005-6 edited.pdf

Documents