using phones for & of oral skills development
DESCRIPTION
Presentation of an exploratory pilot project on using mobile devices for assessment of and for oral EFL skills at the PechaKucha session of the TISLID 2014 conference in Avila, SpainTRANSCRIPT
Using mobile phones for Using mobile phones for the assessment of and the assessment of and
for oral skills for oral skills development in development in
secondary education.secondary education.
Ton Koenraad
Hogeschool Utrecht, University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Education
TELLConsult
GLoCALL 2010
Anglia Network Europe www.anglianetwork.eu
Step by step
- 28 January- 15 April- 20 May- 24 June- Speaking Tests
Examinations
English for Kids FoundationEnglish for Kids Foundation
““Voice for children”Voice for children”
A, not -for-profit organisationA, not -for-profit organisation
EFKF projects:EFKF projects:
India
NicaraguaVery Young
Learners
South Africa Elandsdoorn
Kenia Teacher support
SurinamEDS
GobabisNamibia
Cambodia
Why this Project?Why this Project?
Anglia: flexibility / assessment of
- sharing innovative speaking practice materials - delivery of formal language assessments
English for Kids: mobile as infrastructure, & schools assessment for:
washback effect of testing
Issues to be researched Issues to be researched
general organisationtask and test design, teacher competences face & content validity aspectssystem usability
Research design / instrument development
How it worksHow it works
Teachers:
Personal online workspace to set spoken
questions/tasks.
Questions are easy to set online by using a
microphone or uploading audio files.
Audio player allows teachers to review spoken
work and leave feedback.
Over time teachers establish a digital portfolio
of student work.12
How it worksHow it works
Students:Connect using:
Mobile phonesiPod TouchSkypeLandlineComputer
Access spoken exercises & leave voice responses.
Connect with other students for role play.
Personal online workspace to store work, listen & receive
feedback.
Listen to exemplar and sample questions posted by teachers.13
PilotPilot
2 secondary ed. EFL teachers2 Anglia member schoolsVolunteer students (n= 20) Assessment: asynchronous, interview
formatOral presentation skills
Pre-Questionnaire: Pre-Questionnaire: Learner Profiles Learner Profiles (2)(2)
Aspect Group A Group B
Speaking Skills:(Self reported)
Fairly good Good
Like speaking in class
So, so Definitely
Actual speaking hardly Very frequently
Telecollaboration at school
n/a Slightly more than once
Tel. Experiencein projects n/a
Very occasionally
Tel. ExperienceIRL
seldom seldom
Pre-Questionnaire: Pre-Questionnaire: Learner perceptions: Learner perceptions:
L2 in class & IRLL2 in class & IRLAspect Group A Group B
L2 in lessons Once in 3 lessons
Practically every lesson
Answers /Discussion Only now and then
(very) frequently
Pairwork Hardly ever sometimes
Use of English IRL 1. Chat in games
2. Holidays3. Skype
1. Holidays,2. Chat in
games3. Txt chat
Assessment of Oral skillsAssessment of Oral skills
Aspect Group A Group B
Assessed Tasks in 2010
All: 1 All: 3.5
School reports: Oral skills included?
35% ? 70% ?
Expectations:Is tele-testing valid?
Yes: 35%?: 55%
Yes: 60%?: 40 %
Post: Valid Yes: 60% 40%
TopicsTopics
Introduction/warming up
Your holiday this yearA good schoolSocial networksA million eurosThe climate
Post-Questionnaire Post-Questionnaire (1)(1)
Aspect Group A Group B
Technically OK? Yes So, so
Read Instructions
Yes Sure
Different from expectation
Yes Yes
Questions: complexity,
speed, loudness,
Hard to remember,
Speed bit fast,Not loud enough
Idem, butSpeed OK
Pupils’ CommentsPupils’ Comments
Time constraint is unnaturalWas interrupted: new session neededRetries: worries about costsQuestions could be louderQuestions: peer voice is more inviting
Teacher PerceptionsTeacher Perceptions
System usability-System: fairly user-friendly
Topics- More alignment with pupils’ interests might be needed
Validity-Content measured in time is less suitable as criterion when no interaction is possible- computer-based testing, as such, not perceived as unusual or unfriendly.- Retry option?
Reviewing work onlineReviewing work online
22
Teacher PerceptionsTeacher Perceptions
Teacher competencies:- Knowledge of CEFR -> difficult, training / practice needed- Evaluation categories (content, accuracy, complexity, fluency.) useful; scoring doable in one session.But …would prefer a grading scale that results in a CEF-level: better match to Dutch current grade system
Teacher perceptionsTeacher perceptionsImplementation
- Use as practice material and preparation for speaking test. Actual testing: rather face-to-face
- Gives students the opportunity to practice outside the classroom, extra practice
- Chances for providing individualised feedback
- May help reduce anxiety of insecure & shy students:
Conclusions / next stepsConclusions / next steps
Improve briefing (demo, online tutorial) + raise awareness implications of re-tries
Redesign questions (granularity)
Try-out alternatives:- system access (landlines, computers)- content aligned to syllabus / textbook
ConclusionsConclusions
Pupils, teachers & management have concerns about costs
Also found in other projects:
[…] cost to the end user is a major consideration and can be a barrier to successful uptake when using mobile devices (Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2007)
Thank you for Thank you for your attention.your attention.
Comments, Questions?Comments, Questions?
www.koenraad.info
AnnexAnnex
Literature SelectionResearch data
Learnosity
Literature selectionLiterature selection Collins, T. (2005). ‘English Class on the air: Mobile
Language Learning with CellPhones’, Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’05).
http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/icalt/2005/2338/00/23380402.pdf
Fallahkair, S., Pemberton, L. & Griffiths, R. 2007. ‘Development of a cross-platform ubiquitous language learning service via mobile phone and interactive television’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23 (4), 312-325.
Kukulska-Hulme, Agnes; Sharples, Mike; Milrad, Marcelo; Arnedillo-Sanchez, Inmaculada and Vavoula, Giasemi (2009). Innovation in Mobile Learning: A European Perspective. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), pp. 13–35.
Literature selection Literature selection (2)(2)
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G. & Sharples, M. (2004). ‘Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning’. FutureLab Report 11. http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Mobile_Review.pdf.
Sharples, M. (Ed.). (2006). Big issues in mobile learning. Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative, University of Nottingham, UK.
Shield, Lesley and Kukulska-Hulme, Agnes (2008). Special issue of ReCALL on Mobile Assisted Language Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Thornton, P. & Houser, C. (2005). ‘Using mobile phones in English education in Japan’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, (3): 217-228.
Pre-Questionnaire: Pre-Questionnaire: Learner Profiles Learner Profiles (1)(1)
Aspect Group A Group B
Group size 12 8
Girls 5 4
Boys 7 4
Years of English 3 3
Positive Attitude toLearning English
2.42STD: 0.51
3.11STD: 0.33
Average scoreat Secondary
6.37STD: 0.9
7.6STD: 1.7
Speaking Skills:(Self reported)
6.58STD: 0.9
7.55STD 0.68
Pre-Questionnaire: Pre-Questionnaire: Learner Profiles Learner Profiles (2)(2)
Aspect Group A Group B
Like speaking in class
2.67STD: 0.78
3.780.44
Actual speaking 1.5STD: 0.52
3.56STD: 0.53
Telecollaboration at school
n/a 2.00.0
Tel. Experiencein projects n/a
1.38 STD: 1.0
Tel. ExperienceIRL
1.83STD: 1.19
1.44 STD: 0.73
Pre-Questionnaire: Pre-Questionnaire: Learner perceptions: Oral L2 in Learner perceptions: Oral L2 in classclass
Aspect Group A Group B
L2 in lessons 2.1STD: 0.50
5.00.0
Answers /Discussion 2.2 / 1.6 3.9 / 3.2
Pairwork 1.6 1.9
English IRL 1. Chat in games
2. Holidays3. Skype
1. Holidays,2. Chat in
games3. Txt chat
Assessment of Oral skillsAssessment of Oral skills
Aspect Group A Group B
Assessed Tasks in 2010
All: 1 All: 3.5
Formal reports: Oral skills included?
35% ? 70% ?
Is tele-testing valid? Yes: 35%? : 55%
Yes: 60%?: 40 %
Post: Valid Yes: 60% 40%
Post-Questionnaire Post-Questionnaire (1)(1)
Aspect Group A Group B
Likert scale Disagree 1 Agree 4
Technically OK? 2.43STD: 1.13
1.80.84
Read Instructions
2.8STD: 0.7
3.00.7
Different from expectation
2.7STD: 0.76
2.81.3
Questions: complex, speed,
loudness,
Not loud enoughHard to
remember
idemSpeed OK
Post-Questionnaire Post-Questionnaire (2)(2)
Aspect Group A Group B
Likert scale Disagree 1 Agree 4
Answer time left 3.4STD: 0.5
3.21.1
Expected Mark Just sufficientSTD: 1.4
O.K1.1
Problem Topics Networks; 1M Euros Good School; Climate
Fun to do 2.8STD: 0.4
2.40.9
More pleasant without teacher
2.07STD: 0.6
2.01.0
www.learnosity.comTwitter @learnosity
Speak. Listen. Learn.