Second language interaction with interactive technologies: the IWB in state school foreign language classrooms

Second language interaction

with interactive technologies:

the IWB in state school foreign language classrooms

Shona Whyte (University of Nice, France)

Euline Cutrim Schmid* (University of Education Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany)

Gary Beauchamp (Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK)

AILA World Congress 2014 Brisbane, Australia 11 August 2014

Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):

touch-sensitive screen – video projector – computer

Background

Growing use of IWB in classrooms

… one in eight classrooms

(34 million teaching spaces)

across the world now have an

IWB and by 2015, one in five

will have one.

Hennessy & London, 2013

IWB penetration by country

Types of interactivity at the IWB

Level

1

no interactivity lecture supported

didactic

IWB

illustrates,

learners

copy from

IWB

technical teacher

displays,

learners

copy

authoritative teacher

controls IWB,

fixed questions

and answers

Level

2

dialectic learners use

IWB to justify

responses

interactive teacher

uses more

tools

physical teacher

presents,

learners

come to

IWB to

show

answers

dialogic input is

provided by

learners as

well as teacher

Level

3

synergistic all learners

use IWB to

contribute

ideas

enhanced

interactivity

fluent

technology

use,

flexible

lesson

structure

conceptual learners

contribute,

teacher at

back of

classroom

Whyte, 2013

Adapted from: Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2010; Glover et

al., 2007; Jewitt et al., 2007

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://www.itilt.eu

Whyte, Cutrim Schmid,

Thompson and Oberhofer,

2013

Method

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

France 33 Germany 21

Round 1 26 Round 2 28

Primary 15 Secondary 39

Analysis

Language Context Planning

(task-as-

plan)

Control

(task-as-

process)

Drill

Display

Simulation

Communication

Levels of IWB-mediated Interaction

Language Context Planning Control

Drill • pre-planned

language

• closed

questions

• repetition,

choral

repetition

• teacher

feedback on

form

• limited attempt

to

contextualize

language

• focus on

linguistic

form

• opportunities

for language

production are

entirely pre-

planned by

teacher

• entirely

controlled by

teacher

• language pre-

selected for

presentation

and practice

• teacher

controls

access to

board and

turn-taking

Level 1: Drill

Video Clip 1

Language Context Planning Control

Display • pre-planned

language

elements but

some learner

choice in

language to be

produced

• input/output

goes beyond

minimum

target items

• closed

questions but

also some

open questions

• teacher

feedback

mainly on

language

form

• limited

attempt to

contextualize

language

• effort to extend

input and

output

• no simulation

of real-world

activity

• opportunities

for language

production

are mainly

pre-planned

by teacher

• board

elements

support some

unplanned

production

from teacher

and/or

learners

• mainly

controlled by

teacher with

some space

for learner

choice

provided

• main objective

is to practice

pre-selected

language

elements

Level 2: Display

Video Clip 2

Language Context Planning Control

Simulation • some focus on

meaning

• teacher

feedback on

form but also

on content

• interaction

based on

communicatio

n rather than

language form

• meaningful

context

• role-play:

pretending to

be someone

in a real-life

activity

• activity

includes some

space for

learner

choice

• teacher

expands on

minimal

requirements

of activity to

allow more

communication

• learner-

oriented

activity

• voluntary

participation

• learner choice

in how to

participate

Level 3: Simulation

Video Clip 3

Language Context Planning Control

Communication

• focus on

meaning

• teacher

feedback on

content

• interaction

based on

genuine

communication

rather than

language form

• learner choice of

language forms

and shaping of

communicative

event

• authentic

context

• activity

worth doing

in L1

• interaction

represents

real-life

activity

• exchange of

participants'

own opinions

or reactions

• open activity

with space for

learner choice

• advance

planning/

preparation by

learners

• learner-centred

activity leading

to learner

controlled

activities

• space for

spontaneous

interaction

Level 4: Communication

Video Clip 4

Findings

33%

41%

17%

9%

Overview of interactivity types

27%

39% 42% 39%

15%

4%

15%

18%

First and second rounds of filming

French and German teachers

73%

20%

7%

15%

60%

5%

20%

21%

37%

16%

26%

Primary and secondary teachers

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

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.) (to appear in September

2014) 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.

● Cutrim Schmid, E. (to appear). Interactive whiteboards and

language learning. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds). Routledge

handbook of language learning and technology. Routledge.

References: http://wp.me/p28EmH-3Z