Here is my draft Action Plan, which details the actions I will take to plan, implement, and evaluate my small-scale TEL project on cross-year online tutoring.

Draft Action Plan_F Gallai 

Any kind of feedback is welcome! : )

Fabrizio

I highly suggest the following workshop, aimed at introducing participants to the opportunities and challenges of teaching languages through online synchronous tools:

Date: 1 March, 2012
Location: The Open University, Milton Keynes
Event type: Practitioner Workshop

PART ONE :
WORKSHOP : 1 March 2012 – The Open University (13.30 – 16.00)

PART TWO :
ONLINE WORKSHOP : 9 March 2012

Presenter/facilitator : Anna Comas-Quinn,  Lecturer in Spanish and SCORE Fellow, Department of Languages, The Open University

It will be delivered in two parts: a face to face afternoon meeting at The Open University in Milton Keynes (1 March 2012) for participants to familiarise themselves with and discuss the issues involved in planning and delivering effective language teaching in a virtual classroom, and an online session (9 March 2012) in which participants will experience online language teaching both as teachers and as students.

More info at : http://www.llas.ac.uk/events/6418

“ALT” is not just the name of that key on a computer keyboard used to alternate the function of other pressed keys. Nor is it just Italian for “Stop!” (cf. ‘halt’ in English). Most importantly, it is the name of the new PGCAP module I have embarked on this semester and stands for “APPLICATION OF LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES” : )

Mixing together all these meanings of ‘ALT’, this week I have decided to stop and reflect on the use of technology in language learning, especially in order to develop my ideas for the small-scale TEL project which constitutes one of the assessment components of this semester’s module.

At the beginning I came up with the idea of an English-Italian Teletandem pilot project supported by Skype, whereby my second-year written language students would be paired with students of English from an Italian university in order to work on a series of weekly language-learning tasks (provided by the tutors) in both languages. Each task would be made up of guided questions about a specific topic for the conversation they would be asked to carry out on Skype and an essay on the same topic, which would be peer-assessed. At the end of the project the partners would be given a questionnaire to express their opinion on the project and they would also be required to write an essay and record one conversation, both of which would count towards their formative assessment. The general aim would therefore be to develop language knowledge and skills and to improve knowledge of Italian/English culture.

However I might be aiming too high for such a short period of time, as Peter said on Tuesday. Also, during this semester I would be very much interested in exploring Fred Garnett’s process of brokering, i.e. “using your knowledge of the educational system to negotiate with learners about what they want to do, a form of andragogy” (Garnett: 2010, online). The key aspect in making brokering work – and highly motivate the student in the process – is said to be the assessment and what is assessed.

With this in mind – and always aware that “collaboration is the stuff of growth” (as Sir Ken Robinson said in one of the videos previously posted)  I set off to devise a different project; I will create it around the same aim and students’ group, but it will include a completely different typology of technology : )

I will keep you posted!

Fabrizio

Looking back on my Action plan, I believe I have met most of my objectives. This is mainly thanks to the extensive research into teaching strategies and methodologies I have conducted during the PGCAP core module. In particular, I looked at the teaching methodologies that could be applied to language teaching practice, such as peer-feedback and problem-based-learning, both of which I have (almost always) successfully employed. In this respect, I found the observations to be a very positive experience, which mainly helped me focus on constructively aligning the design and structure of the sessions that I teach. Finally, the use of technology has become a leitmotiv of my teaching (and everyday!) life, and I have already started to see the benefits in my students and myself alike.

However much work still needs to be done. I intend to examine further research as part of my continuing professional development as a lecturer (UKPSF PV5) and apply different (student-centred) teaching methodologies. I also intend to continue to observe and reflect upon my colleagues’ teaching sessions and apply relevant aspects to my own teaching practice, as well as to encourage my students to work in groups and reflect on peer feedback. Finally I aim to improve the design and structure of my sessions and give my input to the overall modules in light of Fred Garnett’s open-context model of learning and, in particular, the concept of “brokering”.

In conclusion, this course has significantly boosted my confidence as a lecturer and helped me see those aspects of my teaching that need improving upon. Further it has helped me see my teaching in a broader prospective, both in terms of University-wide teaching practices and students’ requirements. If the overall aim of teaching in Higher Education is to enable the full participation and empowerment of individual students by designing and planning tailor-made sessions around them (UK Professional Standards Framework), I believe we still have quite a long way to go. And the only way forward is to exchange our views, experiences and knowledge (both as students and lecturers) in a playful and inventive way. As Gauntlett (2011: 184) puts it:

“People create their own networks of and experiences around the process of making things, because they like to see and to share the whole fruits of their own creativity, and to feel connected to other inventive people, and to feel part of meaningful, productive social processes which have a past and a future. This urge appears to be timeless and enduring, but we need to encourage the conditions and tools that will help it to grow.”

Many thanks to Chrissi, Neil and all my peer students of the 2011 PGCAP core module! I look forward to learning more within the framework of next semester’s Applications of Learning Technologies module : )

I have found a really interesting video which features Sir Ken Robinson’s speech setting out the role and value of creative and cultural education. He makes an impassioned plea to put creativity at the heart of education, arguing that the Arts should not be squeezed out of the curriculum but should be at the centre of an effective and rounded education.

Reminiscent of Fred Garnett’s open-context model of learning (OCM), his speech suggests that although impending changes to the national curriculum create opportunities, excluding arts subjects from the new English Baccalaureate threatens to minimise the role of art in education, and will stifle creativity across the curriculum – to the detriment of young people.

Reflecting on the 1999 ‘All Our Futures’ report, which argued for creativity to be put at the heart of young people’s education, he said that education has three core purposes: 

• It meets economic needs by encouraging young people to be adaptable and innovative;

• It has a cultural purpose by helping young people understand the world and the values they live by;

• It has a personal value by engaging and stimulating young people and reducing drop out rates.

“The challenges are greater and the stakes higher than they have ever been. Youth unemployment is a catastrophe for people who are
the peak of their energy and aspiration.  It breeds despair and creates festering social problems.  Creative cultural education is at the centre of meeting those challenges.”

I believe his wise words should be applied to the Higher Education sector, too.

Fabrizio

Learning tends to be expected by students as distinct from assignment hand-ins and exams (Knight 2002: 108). So there is a powerful tendency to see assignments in terms of deadlines, to be put off, with exams seen as coming at the end of a course module, when superficial recall become the norm. They can therefore be perceived almost as an external “threat” rather than providing a sense of motivation and critical focus for deeper learning. Or, in Biggs’ (2003: 140) words, “what and how students learn depends to a major extent on how they think they will be assessed”.

However modern views on teaching and learning (e.g. Zukas and Malcolm 2007) would argue against such clear-cut separations between learning, feedback and assessment, and advocate a more integrated relationship.

A classic example if that of Biggs’ (2003) theory of constructive learning by aligning teaching. According to Biggs, good teaching means aligning “teaching method and assessment to the learning activities stated in the objectives, so that all aspects of this system act in accord to support appropriate learning” (Biggs 2003: 11). In order to put aligned teaching into practice, lecturers should start by establishing the desired level(s) of understanding of the content in question, i.e. by delineating the appropriate verbs of understanding. These verbs, in turn, represent the activities which should be performed by the students, promoted by the teaching methods and tackled by the assessment tasks. The ultimate aim is to establish whether the students have been able to meet the learning outcomes.

Furthermore, in Fred Garnett’s open-context model of learning (OCM) a process called brokering is analysed, which involves “using your knowledge of the educational system to negotiate with learners about what they want to do, a form of andragogy” (Garnett: 2010, online). The key aspect in making brokering work – and highly motivate the student in the process – is said to be the assessment and what is assessed.

Another holistic model of learning is Race’s (2010) ‘ripples’ model of learning, similar to that of Kolb (1984). Their similarity lies in that they both are models of experimental learning (‘learning by doing’, as Race describes it) and dynamic in nature; however, in Race’s model the (four) elements are regarded as constituting an integrated, interactive whole, similar to ripples on a pond. In particular feedback is seen as one of the central factors underpinning successful learning. According to Race’s model this element is the most external ‘ripple’ due to the fact that it is mainly provided by ‘outsiders’ (peers, lecturers, etc.). At the same time, however, feedback is seen as all-encompassing as it keeps on ‘bouncing back’ into the model from different external sources.

Lastly if students are confused by the terminology used in the assessment process, then their learning experience may be diminished and they might end up performing below their potential (Fry, Ketteridge & Marshall 2008: 166). In turn, if this happens, it may impede skill development and undermine confidence. Learners therefore are shown to benefit from a well-defined set of principles and practices for assessment.

A model which synthesises current thinking in this area is that of self-regulation and feedback (Juwah, Macfarlane-Dick, Matthew, Nicol, Ross & Smith 2004: 4 ff.; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick 2006), as also found in the re-engineering assessment practice project directed by Professor Nicol (REAP 2007) and shown in Figure 1:

Figure 1. A model of self-regulated learning and the feedback principles supporting and developing self-regulation in students (taken from Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick 2006: 5)

In the model, a task set by the teacher (A) is shown to be the starting point for self-regulatory processes in the student (shown at centre of diagram). Engaging with the task requires the students to “draw on prior knowledge and motivational beliefs (B) and construct a personal interpretation of the meaning of the task” (Juwah, Macfarlane-Dick, Matthew, Nicol, Ross & Smith 2004: 5). On this basis, students formulate their own goals (C), which help shape the strategies and tactics (D) that are used by students to generate outcomes, both internal (E) and externally observable (F).

Monitoring these interactions with the task and the outcomes that are being produced, creates internal feedback at a variety of levels (i.e. cognitive, motivational and behavioural). This feedback is “derived from a comparison of current progress against internal goals or standards” (Juwah, Macfarlane-Dick, Matthew, Nicol, Ross & Smith 2004: 5); gaps between progress and goals are identified and further actions are taken to close these gaps (Sadler, 1989).

It is these comparisons that help students determine whether current modes of engagement should continue as is or if some type of change is necessary. The external feedback to the student (G) might be provided by the teacher or by peers. This additional information might “augment, concur or conflict with the student’s interpretation of the task and the path of learning” (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick 2006: 6). However, the student must always actively engage with these external inputs. In effect, the teachers’ feedback responses would have to be ‘internalised’ by the student if it were to have an impact on learning.

This model has a bearing on feedback processes in higher education. If students are constantly monitoring and assessing their own work, lecturers should therefore find ways of building upon this capacity for self-regulation (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick 2006: 6), rather than just thinking of ways of enhancing the teacher’s ability to deliver high quality feedback.

In conclusion, assessment and feedback must be a key focus and student response to them is therefore a critical feature. From the model of self-regulation and feedback described above, it is possible to identify the seven principles of good feedback practice listed in the Introduction. The next section will provide the rationale for principle 6 in terms of the conceptual model and the subject-specific research literature.

Principle 6 of formative feedback

A key outcome of the self-regulation and feedback model (Juwah, Macfarlane-Dick, Matthew, Nicol, Ross & Smith 2004: 4 ff.; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick 2006) is the set of principles and focus questions indicating what good assessment and feedback should do. In particular, I will analyse the principle which states that feedback should “encourage positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem”.

As Race (2010: 20) says, “we need to allow learners to make mistakes and help them to gain feedback in a constructive environment, to help them towards becoming experts”. This highlights the important issues of diversity and inclusivity to create an appropriate environment and supporting student learning (UK PSF AoA 4) and the designing of sessions which meet student needs (UK PSF AoA 1).

Thus the issue of teachers as ‘motivators for learning’ is central. This is echoed by Ramsen (1992: 88) when he argues that “if we cannot help students to enjoy learning their subjects, however hard they may be, we have not understood anything about teaching at all” (my underlining).

Judging on my students’ results and feedback, my worst sessions were the ones I delivered when my charisma was ‘low’, i.e. I was tired or stressed (for personal or other reasons) and, in general, not willing to engage and empower my students. My best sessions, on the contrary, seem to have been the ones when everything ‘clicked into place’ and I was able to deliver an all-encompassing and inspiring session, encouraging students to broaden their knowledge. This was often the case in most PGCAP sessions, where our tutors opened the floor for discussion on a variety of issues, rather than imposing a pre-planned, rigid solution (e.g. the case of the use of first or third person in reflective writing). They thus managed to motivate us to confront our views and think about the central topic of discussion even further through a ‘learning through showing’ approach.

This leads to the following question: to what extent do assessment and feedback processes chosen by lecturers enhance the students’ motivation to learn and to be successful? How can we make assessment a positive learning experience for students?

In the field of modern foreign language (MFL) teaching, studies (e.g. Macaro 2003) have shown that providing detailed error correction for learners has limited effect in terms of producing correct language in future work and that learners do not produce a greater number of errors when no corrections are given. Although giving in-depth feedback takes time, it might be worth considering the time saved by not providing detailed error correction, and which of these options is most likely to lead to gains in student learning.

The Sounds Good project run by Bob Rotheram tested the hypothesis that using digital audio for feedback can benefit staff and students by “saving assessors’ time (…) and providing richer feedback to students (…)” (Rotheram 2009: 1). The project showed that students and staff prefer audio feedback. Whereas students liked its personal nature and the detail provided, some staff managed to save time. But whether or not staff did save time, “the great majority were pleased with the experience and noted that students received more, and higher-quality, feedback than they otherwise would have done” (Rotheram 2009: 2).

In the field of public service interpreting, countries such as Norway are leading the way in terms of online feedback and learning, and this is predicted to become an increasingly popular mode of feedback. In particular, an internet-based course on PSI was developed and tested by the University of Oslo in 2004 and presented in a article by Skaane and Wattne published in 2009 (Teaching Interpreting in Cyberspace: The Answer to All Our Prayers?) . Here the authors discuss both the pros and cons of giving feedback to interpreting students on cyber-classrooms (or cyber learning environments) created for the course, and show that interpreting competencies and subject-specific knowledge can be successfully acquired in cyberspace. The pedagogical approach was inspired by the theory on experiential learning or learning through reflection on doing (Kolb 1984).

This corresponds to the findings of the self-regulation and feedback model (see Figure 1). According to this model, “students construct their own motivation based on their appraisal of the teaching, learning and assessment context” (Juwah, Macfarlane-Dick, Matthew, Nicol, Ross & Smith 2004:12). This influences the goals that students set (personal and academic) as well as their commitment to these goals. My case study (see Active Learning Set report) shows that this is true.

Conclusions

There is a growing body of literature on the value of formative feedback, both within the general literature and my particular discipline, which provides a strong rationale for the development of formative processes in higher education. In particular the conscious use of formative feedback can be an invaluable tool to help develop the students’ foreign language skills. It is, however, an approach that needs to be integrated fully into the language learning process and will only be effective if there is an underlying understanding of the principles behind it and a commitment to putting these principles into practice in class and beyond.

Race (2010) highlights the importance of equality in assessment (and in turn helping to achieve elements of UK PSF PV 4) when he states that assessment should be fair: “equivalence of opportunities to succeed even if their experiences are not identical” (Race 2007: 29). This diversity must be acknowledge and recognised (UK PSF PV1), and (formative) feedback has a key role to play. Throughout the PGCAP course and my readings I have thus realised the importance of giving high-quality formative feedback to my students. Indeed, as Fry, Ketteridge and Marshall (2008: 70) state, “one way of avoiding amotivation is to make sure that students are given full and appropriate feedback”.

Bibliography

Biggs, J.B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press/Society for Research into. Higher Education.

—— and Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press

Fry, H. Ketteridge, S. and Marshal, S. (eds.) (2008) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. London, Kogan Page.

Gibbs, G. (2010) Dimensions of Quality. The Higher Education Academy.

—— & Simpson, C (2004) “Conditions under which assessment supports students learning”, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-31.

Higher Education Academy (2011) The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education. Online.

Knight, Peter (2002) Being a teacher in Higher Education. Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research in Higher Education and the Open University.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Juwah, Macfarlane-Dick, Matthew, Nicol, Ross & Smith (2004) “Enhancing Student Learning Through Effective Formative Feedback”. The Higher Education Academy. Online at www.heacademy.ac.uk.

Macaro, E. (2003) ‘Second language teachers as second language researchers’, Language Learning Journal, 27, 4-12.

Nicol, D, (2009), Assessment for Learner Self-regulation: Enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(3) 335-352

——- & Macfarlane-Dick (2006), “Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice”, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.

Race, P. (2010) Making learning happen. London: Sage publications.

Ramsden, P. (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education London: Routledge.

Re-engineering assessment practice project (REAP) Online at http://www.reap.ac.uk/.

Rotheram, B. (2009) Practice tips on using digital audio for assessment feedback. Online at:

http://www.kent.ac.uk/uelt/ced/conference/2009/Audio_feedback_tips_3_Rotheram.pdf.

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.

Skaane, H. & Wattne, M. (2009). “Teaching Interpreting in Cyberspace: The Answer to All Our Prayers?” Raquel de Pedro Ricoy, Isabelle A. Perez and Christine W. A. Wilson (eds) (2009). Interpreting and Translating in Public Service Settings: Policy, Practice, Pedagogy. Manchester and New York: St. Jerome, 74-88.

Zukas, M. and Malcolm, J. (2007). “Learning from Adult Education”. Academy Exchange, 6, 20-22.

(AUDIO COMMENTARY can be found on: http://soundcloud.com/fabriziopg/learning)

Once Albert Einstein famously said, “Information is not knowledge.” So if that is the case (and we certainly can trust the guy : ), where does knowledge come from? How do we learn it?

Well, yesterday in Allerton Drawing Studios I truly understood what Fred and the Emergent Learning Framework scholars meant when they say that it is the aggregation of activities of many individuals that generate useful knowledge.

With his ‘ambient learning’ concept, Fred is set to turn the whole of Greater Manchester into an interactive learning city.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYZDCUFjhs0

So, why not give my own small contribution to the cause starting with my classes? I’ve already started playing a treasure Hunt game on Spanish numbers:

spthnumbers0to20.htm

That could be a great idea to enhance my students’ vocabulary.. As for me, I’d better ask my Spanish friends to come over and join me in the game…  : )

References

Asoko, H., Driver, R.; Leach, J., Scott, P., Mortimer, E. (1994). “Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom”. Educational researcher 23 (7): 5.

Blake, R (2000). Computer mediated communication: A Window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4:120-136.

Blanch Gelabert, S., Duran Gisbert, D., Thurston, A. and Topping, K. (2010) International online Peer Tutoring to promote modern Language Development in Primary Schools. Online at http://www.iaie.org/download/turin_paper_blancheduran.pdf

Hanrahan, K. (2005) More homework please! Investigating the use of ICT as an effective, motivating and stimulating homework tool in Modern Foreign Languages. Reflecting Education. [Online] 1:1-2.

Leh, A. (1999) ‘A learning environment with computer-based technology for Foreign. Language learners.’ In: Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education 8: 149-164.

Rotheram, B. (2009) Practice tips on using digital audio for assessment feedback. Online at http://www.kent.ac.uk/uelt/ced/conference/2009/Audio_feedback_tips_3_Rotheram.pdf.

Sotillo, M. (2000) Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and Asynchronous Communication. In Language Learning and Technology. 4(1) 82-119.

This coming Thursday Chrissi and Jerome will come and observe my session on the characteristics of editorial writing in Italian. A good video on the subject is the following one made by Prof Martin:

The session will be held in Italian – I hope they’re not going to get bored : ) In particular, this is the pre-observation form which contains the learning outcomes and rationale for the session:

pre_observation_form_Thu 1st Dec

The text we will analyse together is entitled “Lega Fumo di Londra” (501WLWeek 9-10_Art fondo), where:

- “Lega” stands for Lega Nord (North League, LN, often translated as Northern League by English language media), a federalist and regionalist political party in Italy, which fights for the independence of the North seen as the place of ancient Viking values;

- “Fumo di Londra” is a film by Italian director and comedian Alberto Sordi, where he goes to London looking to find the old vestiges of the British empire, but instead he finds a swinging capital. (“Fumo di Londra” is the type of grey used for typically English suits, both also it literally means ‘Smoke over London’).

I hope I will be able to develop the subject understanding on editorial writing and the ability in the learners to take forward the learning in this subject. As Fred suggested today, in designing the assessment process I’ve tried to “trust the students” and be as creative as I can by having them interact, converse, share interests and collaborate.

I look forward to Chrissi’s and Jerome’s feedback!!

Fabrizio

I have found this really interesting article on the UK educational system by Deborah Orr. I thought you might find it stimulating, too:

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/04/deborah-orr-choice-nhs-schools]

Fabrizio

Thanks to all those who voted for my story! I’m now the proud owner of the following book:

There’s an explanatory video online  by the author, David Gauntlett,  – here it is:

It looks really interesting, and I can’t wait to start reading it! I’m sure I’ll learn loads of new stuff – however, for now I’ll have to make do with a new word I’ve learnt through looking up the author’s surname, i.e. Gauntlet:

I love new words! : )