Against PPP: updating pedagogy with ITILT

Multiplier Event PH Schwäbisch-Gmünd, Germany 28 June 2017

Against PPP: updating pedagogy through interactive teaching with technologiesITILT multiplier event 28 June 2017 Shona Whyte

Why change? Let’s step back from practical questions of technology and pedagogy to address this simple question. I compare presentation-practice-production (PPP) and task-based language teaching (TBLT) approaches, using examples from French iTILT teachers at primary, secondary, and university levels to illustrate differences and show how innovative, reflective, and open practice can save time and add value in language education.

• speaker background

• project background

• theoretical background

• teaching implications

language

• monolingual English background

• French, German undergraduate studies

• anglophone in France

teaching

• English language, translation (LLCE)

• English for special purposes (ESP)

• young learners

research• PhD Linguistics (second

language acquisition)

• CALL (computer-assisted language learning)

• teacher education (HDR didactique de l’anglais)

teacher education• pre-service language teacher

preparation

• international projects & teacher education groups

• social media & open educational practices

• interactive TECHNOLOGY: first iTILT project (2011-13)

• interactive TEACHING: current ITILT project (2014-17)

EU lifelong learning project

• 2011-2013

• http://itilt.eu

website with video examples of IWB-

supported classroom practice with

additional materials

Development of the project

IWB Training

Data Collection Website

class filming

learner reflections

teacher interviews

DATA COLLECTION

6 languages

Dutch English French Spanish Turkish Welsh

7 countries

Belgium France

Germany Netherlands

Spain Turkey

44 teachers, 81 films, 267 clips

primary secondary university vocational

4 educational levels

http://itilt.eu

QUICK searchwho is at the IWB?

which tools are used?

for which teaching objectives?

IWB tools and features

IWB user: teacher or learner?

Language teaching objectives

Task orientation

balance between embedding and

activity clear preferencefor learner use of

balanced use of IWB for skills and subskills general preference

for pedagogical exerciseslimited range of

tools and features used

much more speaking + listening than reading

+ writing

focus on basic features:

images + sounds; pen + drag/drop

individual learner at IWB,

not pairs or groups

strong focus on vocabulary, also pronunciation

some task-like goals and outcomes but language focus on

accuracy rather than appropriatenessrare use for grammar

Limited range of basic featuresused to teach oral skills and vocabulary

with individual learners at the IWB working on pedagogical exercises

implications• practical/technical, pedagogical and reflective

dimensions of technology integration

• “slow burner” approach to teacher education

• collaborative reflection may stimulate innovation

• action research model to integrate classroom learning, teaching and teacher education

ERASMUS+ project

website with video examples of task-based language

teaching with various technologies

20 teachers, 25 tasks, 100 clips

5 languages

English French

German Turkish Welsh

3 educational levels

primary secondary university

Belgium France

Germany Netherlands

Turkey UK

6 countriestablets

smartphones video

3 technologies

Development of the project

TBLT Training

Data Collection Website

My learners must cover a certain part of a larger programme and take high-stakes examinations

Is this true of you?

My school has purchased textbooks so I have to use them.

My school wants me to use technology and participate in class exchanges

I have to respect rules regarding internet safety and privacy laws

Everyone wants• change• evidence of learning• reflective, collaborative, even open practices …

European projects like iTILT may add to these tensions instead of relieving them

mais non …

PPP: presentation, practice, production

• Byrne 1976

• Teaching Oral English, Byrne 1986

Presentation

Language features are selected and sequenced in advance for explicit instruction, involving contextualised presentation followed by clarification of meaning, form and use.

Practice

Controlled practice of the feature is provided (e.g. in gap-fill exercises, ‘closed’ speaking practice activities and oral drills)

Production

Opportunities for use of the feature is provided through free production activities that attempt to simulate real-world usage (spoken or written) such as in role-plays, discussions and email exchanges.

Arguments in favour of PPP

• PPP reflects well how many of us expect to be taught a new skill (even if we don’t learn language like other skills)

• It stands to reason that demonstrations or presentations should precede practice, and that slow, careful practice should precede more automated, fluent practice.

• PPP is often culturally much closer to learner and teacher expectations than alternative lesson frameworks based on for example task-based learning

• PPP has dominated the organisation of the majority of mainstream ELT coursebooks ever since Abbs and Freebairn used it for their Strategies series in the 1970s

Task-based language teaching (TBLT)

• Long

• Ellis

• Skehan

• Willis

What is a task?

• a task is a workplan

• the plan engages learners in authentic language use

• the task includes materials to help learners achieve an outcome

• the outcome is specified in communicative, not linguistic terms

linguistic difficulties

• he and she • his and her • the copula is• lexis: play the cello, wrestling, horse-riding • I don’t know/I don’t understand• simple present 3rd person singular “s” he lives• the preposition in• is versus it’s• live/love• /h/ his, he, her; (h)old; his/is

Second language acquisition research suggests

• language learning is best achieved not by treating language as an ‘object’ to be dissected into bits and learned [..], but as a ‘tool’ for accomplishing a communicative purpose.

• ‘learning’ does not need to precede ‘use’, but rather occurs through the efforts that learners make to understand and be understood in achieving a communicative goal.

• the interactions resulting from the performance of tasks in a classroom resemble - in many respects - those found in child language acquisition in the home

Potential problems

• teachers do not always have a clear understanding of what a ‘task’ is and as a result the tasks end up as ‘practice’ rather than affording opportunities for genuine communication

• there may be tension between the need to get the students talking and the need to maintain class discipline

• teachers’ lack of confidence in their own L2 oral ability and the fear that TBLT places too much emphasis on oral communication

• teachers are also wary of adopting TBLT in situations where they need to prepare students for high-stakes tests that emphasize grammatical accuracy rather than communicative effectiveness

• TBLT threatens the established role of teachers by re-positioning them as co-communicators rather than as sources of knowledge about the L2

An example of TBLT

• a French university-level course

• undergraduate English

• media and communication

• learners used digital media as both a topic and a means of communication

Story slam• undergraduate English majors

(L1 French, level B1-B2)

• 1h30 per week over a 12-week semester.

• one task: a story slam (storytelling competition)

• storytellers all prepare short personal stories on the same theme and tell them live one after the other

• winners go through to grand slam

General TBLT criteria Story slam activities

1• meaning takes precedence

over form • there is a gap in knowledge

• story has to fit guidelines (5 minutes, conflict/resolution format, true story, no notes) • audience has not heard story

2 learners use their own resources

• complete freedom to tell story in own words • no imposed or pre-taught vocabulary or grammatical structures

3 there is an outcome • advance planning focuses on story• story is told live to audience

4 there is a link to the real world• The Moth organisation runs story slams in English in many countries• storytelling is an activity also commonly conducted in L1

The class listened as each storyteller told their story. The students used their smartphones to record their

performances. A panel of judges used a grading rubric on paper to

record their individual assessments of each story. After all the stories had been told, the judges summed their individual grades for each storyteller to identify the two best stories, whose tellers went on to a grand slam

in the final class session (for extra credit).

This story slam task allowed students to participate in a regular language

activity which people also engage in in their native language for entertainment

and other social reasons.

Our classroom task was judged in terms of its real-world outcome.

However, in addition to feedback on the task outcome, the students also needed

feedback on their language use to make the most of this opportunity for language

learning.

For this, we needed post-task activities to provide feedback and encourage

reflection.

Resources Activities Other possibilities

Soundcloudaudio sharing platform

learners created their own accounts, uploaded their story audio and shared with the teacher

Free account creation, use pseudonym or private setting if desired, hide/delete when course is over. Also possible to share with others.

Google formssurvey & quiz application

learners entered name, e-mail and direct link to recording on SoundCloud

Easy to create form and save responses to spreadsheet. Avoids problem of searching for student work, overloaded inbox. Timestamp to check submission time.

Gmail canned responsesmail.google.com=> Settings > Labs > Canned responses

Teacher composed canned response with link to pronunciation feedback page, space for individual feedback, and grade

Helps to avoid forgetting repeated details, and maintain level of feedback during grading process

Task-based language teaching involves embedding teaching and learning

activities in a wider, meaningful context

expect learners to understand and produce more, but don’t insist on accuracy at first

instead spend time on exposing learners to rich language input and providing opportunities

for interaction

consider how language is learned and how the teacher can support learning, rather than

what you should teach explicitly

http://www.itilt2.eu

Shona Whytewhyte@unice.fr

http://efl.unice.fr

Against PPP: updating pedagogy with ITILT

Education

Engaged Pedagogy

Internet Pedagogy

Phenomenological Pedagogy and the Question of Meaning · Phenomenological Pedagogy and the Question of Meaning Phenomenological Pedagogy 'Phenomenological pedagogy' is the name for

iTILT project results presentation @ NL congress of German L2 teachers 2013

EdreformFriere Pedagogy

EUprojects iTILT & SmartVET presented at ISNIET 2013 conference in Ankara

Digital Pedagogy

Adolescent pedagogy

PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCH in Choral Pedagogy in Choral Pedagogy

Constructivist pedagogy

Learning to Use Interactive Technologies for Language Teaching: Video Diaries for Teacher Support in the iTILT Project

What's pedagogy anyway? - Child Australia · 2017. 6. 13. · 2 : What’s Pedagogy Anyway?3 : What’s Pedagogy Anyway? What’s Pedagogy Anyway? : 3 CONTENTS Meet the authors 4

Pedagogy vinita

A Catholic Pedagogy? - Catholic Education Office, … Catholic Pedagogy 2.pdf · · 2014-04-03A Catholic pedagogy… Our Catholic pedagogy tells us that… …when a child walks

ITILT 2: LPM webinar

Radical Pedagogy

Updating Triangulations

Ensemble pedagogy

Continuous Updating

Updating 400p