MA DTLT14-15 Reflective Blog

Saturday, November 1, 2014

Entry 23 IDT1415 Angelos' PLE Definition

While VLE is actually an environment (for example, Moodle is a VLE), how would you define PLE? To make it easier for you, do you think it is a tool, and if yes, then which one is your PLE? Or, is PLE, perhaps, an approach to learning? That is, when we want to learn something, we “employ” our PLE? Or, finally, is PLE a collection of tools we use to learn?

My Reflections...

Although the implication of 'Environment' is that of a place, I would define my Personal Learning Environment as a collection of tools I use to learn in different places and through different people (PLN) thus also including Karina's social perspective however to a lesser extent. I like CISCO's idea of the Internet of Everything (IOE) and how it has become my 'study room' where my bookshelf contains windows into anything I want to learn. My PLE are those open web resources which allow me to explore, select and adopt tools which help me organise my learning and gives me the possibility to be a networked student, but not only! I also consider part of my mobile PLE my iPad, my iPod, and my smart phone as they help me keep connected or simply give me the possibility to listen to a podcast or watch a lecture while I wait for the bus. As I said before, people are also an important part of my PLE as I believe they bring perspective to my findings via my PLN through my Facebook groups, own blog, my not very active Twitter account, collaborating wikis, my social bookmarking tools, my groups and connections in LinkedIn, and a few others. In short, my PLE is composed of 3 main elements, the internet, people and devices which give me access to information which I then choose how to organise to suit my needs.

Entry 22 IDT1415 Walker & White 2013 - From CALL to TELL

"We see a move from computer assisted language learning (CALL) to technology enhanced language learning (TELL) [,,,]. One of the main differences between CALL and TELL is that we see technology not as assisting language learning, but as part of the environment in which language exists and is used" (Walker A, & G. White (2013:9)) Technology Enhanced Language Learning. Oxford Handbook for Language Teachers. OUP: Oxford.

Considering the tools and applications dealt with in this week's readings, how do the changes in the technologies reflect (or not) the move described in the statement above? You may want to suggest a development line.

I personally find the acronym TELL more realistic and reflective of today's technological advancement. Walker and White's (2013:9) statement is immediately supported by current examples of everyday life: smart phones, tablets, portable computers and mobile technology being more and more the norm and 'part of the environment in which language exists and is used'. In my introduction to my reflections on Beatty's (2010) 8 Applications I was surprised by how the applications described in that 4 year old article were already 'old' with mobile technology, DVDs and open web resources having replaced PDAs and CDROMs. Thinking of my own practice and experience desktop computers were the norm up until 2005 when I bought my first lap top. Mobile technology was confined to phones with very limited capacity and which mainly afforded telephony. Then and in a progressive succession mobile phones became smarter and tablets were introduced (iPad 1 in 2010) along with technology becoming faster, more powerful and lighter in weight but not in price! In parallel, technology in my ELT classroom setting experience has seen the following line: my first proper desktop computer 1992, IWBs, electronic visualisers and audio visual devices at summer school and university lecturing level in 2002 (10 years later), laptops for classroom use in 2005, more sophisticated IWBs in 2007 along with more clearly integrated use of web based resources and applications along with formal training (please note before was all personal experience as described in Kessler and Klapan (2008)), tablets both IOS and Android in 2010 and mobile phones in 2013.

In terms of a move from CALL to TELL I would argue that CALL bears a more static implication confining it to a place as when it was defined computers were not yet mobile so they could be seen as a tutor (Blake 2008) assisting language learning typically in a language lab. I find TELL as a more appropriate and space liberating term as the technology available to us now is no longer anchored to a place to provide stability. It is already stable enough to sail the seas of communication technological advancement has created and thus provides the possibility of ongoing connectivity outside the classroom walls. Technology enhanced language learning is about increased independence both from a place and a tutor as information is now at our finger tips and as such learning does not have to stop at the end of the language lesson. In my own context, the learning experience continues (is fostered and encouraged) outside the classroom when our teachers update the class blog after the lesson and add a task for students to complete before the following lesson. Learning is enhanced by the way the tablets are used in a QR code treasure hunt which leads the students in the discovery of the passive voice and their punctuation and spelling though the use of Wassup outside school with their English class group monitored by the teacher.

In short, TELL for me is synonymous with freedom of choice, environment, technology, content. From my own perspective it is TELL that has allowed me to become a better learner myself while providing me access to information I could only dream of before and without having to go to the library or buy the books myself. I love the simple fact that my curiosity can be satisfied at the reach of my hand and that I can instill this vision in my students to make them better and more independent learners. Technology is definitely TELLing me how to be a better prepared, more knowledgable and more TELLing professional.

References

Blake, Robert J.. Brave New Digital Classroom: Technology and Foreign Language Learning. Washington, DC, USA: Georgetown University Press, 2008. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 27 October 2014.

Beatty, K. 2010. Teaching and Researching Computer-Assisted Language Learning (2nd edition). Pearson Education Limited. Online at: http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=1017650 [accessed: October 29, 2014]

Kessler, G. and Klapan, L. 2008. Does Teacher's Confidence with CALL equal Innovative and Integrated Use?, [online] Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21:3, 269-282, DOL:10.1080/09588220802090303 Online at: http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=1017652 [accessed: October 29, 2014]

Entry 21 IDT1415 Bax's 2003 approaches and my CALL practice

Which of the approaches identified by Bax would you say most closely approximates your own CALL practice? Provide examples to support your claim.

My Reflections...

As argued in my response to Kessler and Plakan's article about confidence in CALL, I could not agree more with Jennifer's quoting of Dunning and Kruger (1999) as a plausible explanation for the self assessment ratings given by the highly confident teachers. In terms of Bax's approaches I would say that my own practice is at level 7 in the stages of Normalisation and Integrated phase 3, and that of my institution between 5 and 6, Fear/awe and Normalising. Victoria makes a valid and realistic point when she says that workload places normalisation at a distance making it difficult for it to become invisible. Nonetheless, I would not be as radical and add 'may' after workload, as this at least, is what occurs in my own context. I would also add that as mentioned in Kessler and Klapan's (2008:270) teacher attitude, whether positive or negative, plays a central role in their confidence and directly affects the integration process so opportunities to identify and foster a positive attitude need to be included for normalisation to be reached.

As Jennifer I believe to be in a privileged position as the private language school I work for has embraced my vision of and love for technology integration thus opening avenues for staff training, investment in technology (we have 2 IWBs, 4 laptops, 9 tablets, 3 smart TVs) and generally a positive attitude towards normalisation. I placed myself at level 7 because I started a normalising process in my workplace through the introduction of blogs, wikis, IWBs, tablets and more and more a BYOD approach in my current context 4 years ago when I joined the school, and now we are between a healthy 5 and 6. Staff turnover typical of private language schools with seasonal work accounts for the 5 usually represented by new staff before and while they receive training through myself as Head of Teacher Training or their peers and peer observation.

I also share Barbara's perplexity as to how it can be that almost 11 years after Bax's article she would place her institution at the same place Bax suggests institutions to be at back then: 5 and 6 and believe the answer being a composite of Kessler and Klapan's (op.cit.) teacher attitudes, the recurrent idea that technology integration must be pedagogy driven but is not often the case, Clegg's (2003 in Bayne and Ross 2011) idea that we can either choose to embrace technology integration or watch how it unfolds and how this is more the norm than then exception, and Beatty's 'cognitive overheads' (2010:82) which if too high become taxing both for teachers and learners in terms of time and effort investment.

References

Bax, S. 2003. CALL - past, present and future [online], Article from Science Direct, Online at http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=1017647 [accessed: October 21, 2014].

Bayne, S. and Ross, J. 2011. 12. 'Digital Native' and 'Digital Immigrant' Discourses. A Critique. [Online], In: R. Land and S. Bayne (Eds.), Digital Difference: Perspectives on Online Learning. Sense Publishers. 159-169, Online at http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=1017632 [accessed: October 13, 2014].

Entry 20 IDT1415 Kessler and Plakan's 2008 Teachers' Confidence with CALL

How do you (or don't you) identify yourself with the level of confidence and behaviour discussed in Kessler & Plakans' article?

Kessler and Plakan's (2008) discussed three levels of confidence (highly confident, contextually confident and less confident) are, as they say, limited to 7 teachers at university level and as such I am surprised they went to such lengths for such a small sample knowing the implications. Having said this and reflecting on my 20 years of experience in ELT across sectors I must confess that I find it very difficult to place myself at any of their levels. First of all, my lecturing experience at university level as an Freelance Lecturer and Associate Lecturer at the Polytechnic of Turin, Faculty of Architecture in Turin, Sheffield Hallam University respectively does not match Kessler and Plakan's results at all. First of all, as a lecturer over 10 years ago, I was comfortably and actively using audio and video and IWBs at the institutions mentioned above. In Turin I had access to electronic consoles which provided video projection, an electronic visualiser and audio facilities in rooms which accommodated up to 200 students. I personally found these tools essential in reaching out for such big numbers in equally rigid classroom setups with unmovable furniture which made activities other than immediate pair and group work impossible. At Sheffield Hallam University, I had access to IWBs and this allowed for a wide variety of input which my Pre Sessional EAP students seemed to enjoy. In Kessler and Plakan's terms I would be a contextually confident user according to their description: most reflective, cautious in use, general high use, varied use, most integrated (p.178). However, I would consider myself to be highly confident rather than contextually confident as the context given here is confined to university settings while my experience across public and private sectors in 8 different countries has been pretty much the same, each time contextually confident thanks to a sense of curiosity and adaptability which could also be termed 'geekiness'! Also, just as it was found in the study, I used audio and video for input but also for feedback, especially via mp3 recordings made with Audacity while also providing ss with a little training on how to make their own and share them in the classroom via their computers. I remember that back then (2003-2005) internet and what you could do with it was still very limited and my Asian students would most have laptops which I could only dream of having at the time.

Now, I do not completely disagree with Kessler and Plakan's article though. I fully identify with their findings related to the factors found important by teachers: practice and time for practice, written instructions and CoPs. I feel especially strong about the first and third factors as these have influenced my own practice over the years. I first came into contact with IWBs while working at a summer school in the UK in 2002 I immediately exploited every opportunity to to practice with the IWB as we had only been given a 10min introduction to it. After this summer job, I went to SHU and there I had the opportunity to continue to use them. As far as CoP, back then it was all my colleagues and anyone who expressed an evident interest in this new tech. As time passed and the internet opened new avenues for these, I then joined different groups e.g. Promethean Planet and World, Facebook groups, SIGs and anything that would translate into being able to ask and also answer questions about technology.

I would like to conclude by saying that Peters' (2006 in Kessler and Plakan 2008) advice that teachers need to be trained as technology experts for the classroom not just technology experts is a valid and recurrent concept throughout the literature explored so far. Permanent, planned and principled exposure is essential regardless of the context.

References