Blended Language Learning Using Wireless Notebooks in Project-based Classes William Kay, Paul Gemmell, Andrew Johnson, Don Hinkelman, 33rd JALT International Conference November 24, 2007 Olympic Conference Center,
Download ReportTranscript Blended Language Learning Using Wireless Notebooks in Project-based Classes William Kay, Paul Gemmell, Andrew Johnson, Don Hinkelman, 33rd JALT International Conference November 24, 2007 Olympic Conference Center,
Blended Language Learning Using Wireless Notebooks in Project-based Classes William Kay, Paul Gemmell, Andrew Johnson, Don Hinkelman, 33rd JALT International Conference November 24, 2007 Olympic Conference Center, Tokyo, Japan Content 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Problem Research questions Our Study Our Activities What we learned The Future Problem: Computers needed for Powerpoint/Internet projects Why Go Wireless? 1. No computer rooms available 2. Students already had notebook computers 3. Low cost for school 1. Demand for Computer Rooms • One computer room available on Wednesday mornings: A-201 • Four teachers need computer rooms at the same time 2. Needs & Opportunities • The teachers • 4 teachers – 4 styles • All preferred to use powerpoint and internet for project-based language learning • The students • Social Information Majors - 192 (computer science) • All Ss owned same type notebook computers, required by department 3. History of Computer Room Costs Computers #Rooms Total Cost Cost / room 1996 wired Custom CALL (40) 1 1.0 mil USD $1,000,000 2002 wired Standard Computer lab (40) 1 0.2 mil USD $200,000 12 0.01 mil USD 2005 Studentwireless owned notebooks (192) $10,000 (+$60,000 students) Research Questions Year 1 Research Questions April 2006 -- March 2007 • Can wireless notebooks and internet activities be incorporated into classic desk-and-chair classrooms, incorporating CALL in a non-computer laboratory? • How do students respond to using wireless notebooks in a language learning class? Our Study The classes • Two morning periods • 2nd year Social Info majors (3 classes) • 1st year Social Info majors (3 classes) • 3 wireless classrooms • 14 - 90 minute classes/semester • 25-35 students/class Objectives/Approach • Oral communication • Project-based • Blended learning Curriculum/Course Features • Authenticity Utilizing authentic online resources in an effective and meaningful capacity. Course Syllabus • • • • • • 1st Year Students Self and Japan Sapporo Personal interests Japanese celebrities Japanese culture Summer holidays Ghost stories • • • • 2nd Year Students International Planning a trip abroad Int’l celebrities Int’l culture Foreign movies Course Preparation • Set up Moodle courses • One Course for each class • Pre-enrolled students • One Teacher’s area • Space for sharing documents/ ideas Class demo: Project X Introduce a project that has a variety of activities - f2f and computer Class Demo: cont Class Demo: cont. What we learned Benefits of teaching in a Wireless Classroom • Can easily work with or without computers • Easy visual contact • Computer is student’s own • Students can roam within the classroom, and beyond • Cost to university Drawbacks of teaching in a Wireless Classroom • Connections may be lost • Lack of network between student and teacher’s computer • Batteries may die • Computers may be forgotten • Printing connections Technical Problems with Wireless Example: Conflicts from two competing wireless LAN systems Differences between Wired and Wireless Wired Wireless Expensive Inexpensive Technology Reliability Stable Fragile Space Fixed Flexible Pedagogy Project-based Project-based plus more conversation & group work Authority/ Attention Higher control of student operation Lower control of student operation Parameter Technology Cost Student Responses • 17-question survey Did you find xxx helpful? 60 50 40 1st Year Ss 2nd Year Ss 30 20 10 0 Yes! Yes +- No No! The Future New Research Questions • Year Two: April 2007 • How provide language learning exercises that support the projects? • How provide printed materials for classroom activities & absentees’ reference? • Year Three: April 2008 • How redesign our teaching spaces to give wired stability and teaching flexibility? • Other new questions? Project Booklets (add images) Blended Learning Spaces Plan for April 2008 Questions ? ? Our questions… • How to reduce tech time, increase speaking time? ? • How to share our activities more quickly? (repository?) • How to gear projects to direct student needs? ? • How to add language support activities? (online quizzes?) • How redesign the classroom spaces? Your questions… ? ? ? ? ? Thank you! Remaining slides omit from JALT 2007 presentation, save as reference Wireless class goal success rate by week Students who had success logging on the first try Week # Success 1 75-100% 2 85-95% 3+ 90-95% Wireless class goal success rate by week Week # Success 1 100% 2 70-80% 3 95% 4+ 99% • Possible Reasons • Switched Rooms to reduce crossreception • New wireless system Survey Results Profile Internet Introduction http://www.teachingideas.co.uk/welcome/internet/page1.htm Web Search Student Courses Teacher Area Wired photos Wireless photos Permeation of Mobile Technology 2003 2005* 2010* Handheld camera 100% 100% 100% Handheld video 10% 50% 100% Voice recorder 10% 50% 100% Wireless 20% 50% 100% notebook Based on reports by 20 year-old English Department students at Sapporo Gakuin University during the 2003 term *projection Actual Internet Device Permeation Sapporo Gakuin University Student Population n=5000 Estimated Input Devices to Web e-Learning 2003 2005 2010* 2010** University Labs 550 550 550 600 Personal Notebooks 400 1000 5000 400 Mobile Phone Internet 1500 3000 5000 4000 *previous projection **current projection Course Syllabus 1st Year Students Self and Japan • • • • • • Sapporo Personal interests Japanese celebrities Japanese culture Summer holidays Ghost stories 2nd Year Students International • Planning a trip abroad • Int’l celebrities • Int’l culture • Foreign movies Mobile Technology Baseline of Student Population 2003 2005 2010* Handheld camera 100% 100% 100% Handheld video 10% 50% 100% Voice recorder 10% 50% 100% 30~100% 100% Wireless notebook 10~100% Based on personal estimates of 20 year-old English Department students in a mid-level Japanese University during the 2003 term *projection ? A simple wired/wireless dichotomy oversimplifies the conditions A Wired/Wireless Continuum Fixed IP Wireless (Kanda) ① “Old” CALL Laboratory (A-202) ② “New” CALL Laboratory (A-201) ③ Special applications Standard applications Standard applications Standard applications Grammar Vocabulary Communication Communication Communication Flexible chairs and tables Flexible chairs and tables Locked in chairs Rolling chairs Face forward Face sideways Little eye contact ④ Roaming IP Wireless (A-318) Computer Permeation Sapporo Gakuin University Input Devices to Web e-Learning 2003 2005 2010* University Labs 550 550 550 Personal Notebooks 1000 1000 5000 Mobile Phone Internet 1500 3000 4900 Student Population = 5000 *previous projection 2010** >200% level of permeation **current projection Curriculum/Course Features • Communicative responses: Focus on socially validated student responses to the authentic material and project task (Kenny:1989). CALL Room Benefits of teaching in a Wired Classroom • Large folder space to store student work • Convenient location of equipment for teacher (DVD, CD, Scanner, OHP, Video, Staff computer) • CAMPUS ESPer software (Monitoring from a distance, My Document Deliveries, Keyboard, Mouse Lock function) Drawbacks of teaching in a Wired Classroom • Non-Flexible Study Location • Fixed seating arrangement • Monitors inhibiting communication / eye-contact • Boot up time Drawbacks of teaching in a Wired Classroom • Artificial environment, stale air, warm in summer adding to lethargy • Bulky Equipment impeding movement • Authorization problems Benefits of teaching in a Wired Classroom • • • • • Stable internet connection Fast internet access Reliability of hardware Ability to print Students familiar with desk top operations Affordance Analysis: Wired and Wireless Wired Wireless Expensive Inexpensive Technology Reliability Stable Fragile Space Fixed Flexible Pedagogy Project-based Project-based plus more conversation & group work Authority Higher control of student operation Lower control of student operation Parameter Technology Cost SGU Cycle Two: Booklets • Booklets • LMS reconfiguration/New Modules SGU Cycle Three: • Purposes: events, publishing, public • Assessment: WEI, WAI • Spaces: kanda light movable furniture carpet • Sharing: teacher online repository Conclusions I • Intial euphoria over mobile technology exposed a technocentric preoccupation • Low level students need highly structured, just-in-time language support in a groupbased activities (not self-study) • Paper-based, custom-built forms in project booklets provided the core blended learning technology along with customized open source LMS modules • Teaching team collaboration key to shared materials, accelerated innovation Conclusions II • Move from SLA to SLS as a theoretical framework, ecological metaphors, and semiotic (not only linguistic) analysis • Select research methodologies based on qualitative, longitudinal investigations. Especially, collaborative action research teacher-groups in cyclical stages. Encourage use of reflexive tools in insider teams. • Focus on teacher actions and learner actions as unit of analysis-- a hybrid, blended perspective (van Lier, 2007) • Conceptualize “autonomy” as an emergent quality happening in the solidarity of learning communities References Kramsch, C. (ed.) (2002a). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum. Kramsch, C. (2002b). Introduction: How can we tell the dancer from the dance? In C. Kramsch (Ed.) Language acquisition and language socialisation: Ecological perspectives (pp. 1-30). London: Continuum Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. Fifth edition. New York: Free Press. van Lier, L. (2002). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C. Kramsch (Ed.) Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives, (pp. 140-164). London: Continuum. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Norwell, MA: Kluwer. van Lier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy, and identity. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. Vol. 1, No. 1. Pp. 46-65. Warschauer, M. and Kern, R. (eds.) (2000). Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Historical Rationale: Institution Profile • • • • • • Number of Students: 5000 Nationality: Japan Level: Low Majors: Commerce, Econ, Law, Psychology, English Classes: 100+ Requirements: two years of “A” English-reading/listening two years of “B” English-communication • Students per class: 28 (average) • Number of Teachers: 40 • Teacher Nationality: A classes -- Japanese B classes -- Native Institutional Problems Students • Passive background • Skill imbalance • Low motivation • Poor attendence • English not relevant Teachers • Dissatisfied teachers • No accountability - high independence Institutional Teaching History • Tradition of teacher independence • • • • Choose texts and materials Choose requirements and assessment Choose topics and emphasis 50% part-time staff • Extensive computer laboratory facilities • Ten labs • Special purpose CALL lab “first in Northern Japan” • Required two year curriculum • No student choice • Textbook-based, no school materials • General curriculum, not content-based by department Institutional Innovation • 2002: Add projects to textbook-based courses • Powerpoint Speeches: Bossaer, Hinkelman, Miyamachi (2002) • 2004: Remove textbooks, only projects • • PowerPoint Projects: Kay & Flenner (2004) Self-designed textbooks: Gemmell (2004) • 2006: Coordinated curriculum • Common projects by year • Shared materials • Student-owned technology wireless notebooks, mobile phones • Language support Action Research Questions 2002: Can teachers technically manage large classes of students using presentation software? 2004: How can projects be made more communicative? 2006: What should be coordinated, what should be independently-designed?