Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Практикум по профессионально-ориентированному общению. Профессиональная коммуникация учителя английского языка. Учебное электронное пособие.pdf
connected with further work with the
system of grammar tasks.
4 Develop a draft model Help learners develop a draft model
connected with goals formulated in
Part 3
5 Test and improve the model Help learners transform their
preliminary grammar model to a
working model that is sufficient to
cope with the goals formulated in Part
3.
6 Put the model into practice Provide learners with contexts for
language production practice based
on their working models.
7 Evaluate and plan further learning
Help learners analyse the process and
products of their work with the
system of tasks offered in Parts 1– 6
and as a result develop plans for
further learning.
In each of the above parts, the learner works with one of the systems of tasks dealing
with a certain communicative function, for example speaking about the past,
expressing modality, describing objects, etc. One system includes about 35 tasks
(Sokol et al., 2002 – 09). The novelty of the online modules is reflected in the
following underlying principles:
no grammar explanations are offered to learners
tasks ask for new knowledge
learners build their own grammar models
learner models are tested and improved instead of being evaluated as right or
wrong
31
learner banks are major tools for learning
learners define learning goals and finalise content
each learner works at his/her own pace.
Blend: online and face-to-face time
Despite the trend to include less grammar in General English courses, in Latvia it
traditionally receives a lot of attention. Although we do not have any research
evidence to support this, practically any local educator knows that both teachers and
learners want to deal with grammar as part of their courses. The approach to grammar
within the Thinking Approach, where learners develop and test their own grammar
rules, normally requires more time than a more traditional approach. Given only three
academic hours of classroom time for English, allocation of even one third of this to
grammar was seen as unaffordable luxury. Thus, a decision was made to allocate one
academic hour per fortnight to face-to-face work on grammar. The rest students had
to do independently through work with the online modules. On average, students
spent about two months on one system of grammar tasks. Normally more time should
be allocated when students work with their first system, as in addition to new content,
they are getting used to new technology and often a new approach to learning in
which they are expected to ‘build’ their understanding instead of being given
information to remember. In the beginning, one lesson was spent on introducing the
online modules to learners and explaining the rationale for this work. Learners
generally accepted the idea that classroom time can be used more effectively if it is
allocated to those things that are impossible or very difficult to do without the
teacher. Most grammar work does not fall under this category and thus can be dealt
with online. The ease of doing was the main factor behind the rationale used for the
division between classroom and online activities. It should be noted though, that in
the beginning, more time was spent in the classroom to familiarise learners with some
task types and the way of thinking expected on their part, especially in parts where
own-grammar models had to be developed and tested. It should also be stressed that
work with grammar described in this study constituted only a part of the General
English course offered to learners (about 20 per cent if both classroom and individual
32
learning time are considered). Methodology and skills developed As seen from the
description above, the approach to learning grammar is very different from the
traditional present-practise-produce (PPP) models typical of most online resources. In
the proposed approach, learners start with a hypothesis about the use of the structures,
test it through collecting a bank of mistakes and then improve the initial hypothesis.
The model is presented in Figure 1.
Production happens all the time from the initial testing of the hypothesis/model. In
addition to specific grammar-related skills, this approach is intended to help learners
develop the following skills:
Self-assessment (when taking the initial decision on the need for dealing with
this or that system of tasks and in the process of work being involved in the
evaluation of own models and their application).
Noticing (when discovering the structures used to express this or that
communicative function).
Goal setting (when deciding which aspects of the problem to focus on).
33 34
Building models (when developing the model of solution through constructing
their own grammar rule).
Description via parameters and values (when presenting their own model/rule
in the form understandable to the computer).
Finding applicability limits of models (when testing their own model/rule and
finding where it does not work).
Generalisation (when formulating their own model/rule in such a way as to
apply it in various contexts).
Specification (when deciding on the application of a model/rule in a particular
context).
It should also be noted that despite seeming to work on grammar only, learners were
developing all the language skills:
Reading (when collecting banks of examples at the stage of discovering
structures, for example learners were asked to read a text of their choice and
find examples of the author expressing this or that communicative function,
such as referring to the future).
Writing (in tasks and during online discussions, for example Skype chat
sessions).
Speaking and listening (during overview lessons in the classroom).
Actual examples of materials used would be rather lengthy to include here, therefore
we encourage the reader to consult the online version (Sokol et al., 2002– 09).
However, we are presenting some of the models/rules developed by learners to give a
better idea about what they were doing. Please note that these are not students of
linguistics, they are secondary school students, many of whom are not interested in
language as an object of study.
Please note that the examples above are actual models of learners as they existed
during the time of working with a particular system of tasks. Some models or their
parts may appear incorrect from the conventional point of view. This, however, did
not necessarily affect the quality of the learning process of this or that student, as the
model was tested and often improved at a later stage. Moreover, it is surprising how
useful this or that ‘incorrect’ model may turn out to be in the student’s hands.
Students’ feedback and further planned adaptations
Students’ feedback concerned two aspects: the proposed approach to learning
grammar and the mode for implementing it. The feedback was collected through
various channels: anonymous online questionnaires, ongoing learner reflections
(Learner reflections 2004 –10), entries in the assessment portfolios and interviews.
The main points are summarised below:
It is difficult for learners to accept working with grammar online if they
previously dealt with it in the classroom. The situation is completely different
when a group is introduced to the blended course from the very beginning.
35 36
Difficult aspects are even more difficult when working online.
Work online requires much more concentration than the same work in the
classroom.
Learners’ complaints about the technology do not really depend on the quality
of the technological solutions offered to them.
Technical problems lead to a high level of frustration (in comparison to the
classroom).
Online modules are a good way to have everything about grammar organized
and kept in one place.
Developing and testing their own models leads to deeper understanding of how
grammar works.
Various aspects of learning grammar are remembered much better when
developed by learners.
The online modules are never perfect – they can be improved all the time. It is
reasonable to evaluate not how perfect they are but to what extent they help in
reaching the learning objectives.
The following further adaptations of the online modules are envisaged:
make it possible for learners to start working with the system from various
parts (some learners already know structures and have draft models)
reduce the time necessary for performing a task, thus decreasing the
required level of concentration
make it possible for learners to benefit from collaboration with other
learners through discussing things with them/doing tasks related to their
work
increase the system effect of the site by improving connections between
various systems, for example it should be possible for learners to use parts
of the models developed for one system when working on the other
introduce additional tasks that help learners understand that they are
improving (measuring by tests only is not enough).
Lessons learned and advice
The lessons learned as a result of work with the blend are presented through the
contradictions we faced. If a successful solution was found, it is presented here as
well.
Contradiction 1
The design of the online modules required high concentration from the learners.
At the same time, their concentration was low as most of them do 101 things when
working online (we found this to be a general trend among the learners
irrespective of how engaging the task was).
Solution 1
Not solved during the period described. Conceptual solution: each task offered to
learners requires low concentration as it can be done fairly quickly, however, all
tasks together require high concentration.
Recommendation 1
Each task in the course should be short enough to ensure that learners can cope
with it without being distracted in the process.
Contradiction 2
Tasks offered to learners should be easy enough so as not to discourage them and
they should be difficult enough to ensure that there is room for the development of
thinking.
37
Solution 2
Tasks are difficult when learners work alone and they are easy when they work as
a group during the classroom sessions.
Recommendation 2
Ensure that the online tasks are challenging enough to provide enough room for
thinking even to stronger learners. Use the classroom time to provide for an
appropriate level of scaffolding for each learner if the technology fails to do it.
Contradiction 3
Scaffolding sessions should be organised at different periods of time for each
learner to ensure that he/she has done all the assignments beforehand, and they
should be organised at the same time for all learners given the constraints of the
syllabus.
Solution 3
Timely submission of assignments online positively affects the total assessment. A
few days before the deadline, the teacher takes part in a synchronous meeting with
learners where they can ask questions. This worked as a motivating factor for
many learners to plan work with the online module before the meeting to have a
chance to ask questions. Skype chat sessions with the group were used for this
purpose.
Recommendation 3
Ensure that everything you want the learners to do is integrated in the system of
assessment. Get learners to want to do things by the deadline. The best way of
achieving this is to give them something they feel they need hen doing the task.
The teacher’s help may often be enough for motivating learners.
Contradiction 4
38
Tasks given to learners have to be different to ensure that they do not cheat when
doing them and they have to be the same to make the implementation easier, both
in terms of technological solutions and the teacher’s labour.
Solution 4
This problem was resolved at the design stage by:
Making the tasks open enough to ensure a variety of correct answers (thus,
the same answer by several learners always signalled cheating. As the time
of dealing with the task was recorded for each learner, only the answer of
the first person was accepted by the teacher).
Giving learners a choice of tasks in each part, thus reducing the possibility
of the same tasks being performed by various learners.
Recommendation 4
Make sure that the tasks are open (allow for a variety of correct answers) and
learners are able to choose tasks for themselves.
In addition to the above problems, one should be aware of the so-called ‘mindset
issues’. In our particular case these dealt with learners’ preconceptions about
learning (‘I want answers’, ‘I don’t like to get stuck’, etc.) and attitude to
technology (‘I don’t like to talk to the computer’). These are very important
challenges for the teacher, as they may negatively affect the atmosphere of the
learning process.
One should not expect these problems to be solved in a few days. They normally
take an extended period of time. Helping learners achieve something and getting
them to reflect on what has happened, and how, can be an important step in
changing learners’ responses. The technology will not always be successful in
dealing with ‘personal’ issues, however, the teacher can always dedicate more
time to addressing these issues in the classroom. The resource of face-to-face
39
communication provided by blended courses is an important asset and both
teachers and learners should definitely benefit from it.
Conclusions
Some researchers point out that there is a lack of sophisticated tools for online
learning (Bonk, 2004: 2–3). The online modules used for the blended course
described in this study definitely offer a rich learning experience addressing both
the challenge of complexity and effective support for the learner (Kirkley and
Kirkley, 2006). Our experience shows that offering the modules as part of the
blended course significantly increased the motivation of learners in comparison to
the distant use adopted earlier. We also succeeded in increasing the total time
spent on learning and in helping the learners to take a step towards more
autonomy when learning a language. In addition, the blended course created
learning contexts for both the teacher and the learners that did not exist either
during the online or classroom learning, thus creating useful systemic effects that
became possible only as a result of integration of the two components. At the
same time, the blended course brought about new challenges both to the teacher
and the learners. Being ready to face these challenges and develop effective
solutions appears to be one of the key requirements for a successful blended
learning experience. The learner who is enjoying the process of constructing
knowledge as a result of a rich problem-solving experience and the teacher who
shares this kind of learning philosophy will be the ones benefiting most from the
course described in this study.
References
Bonk, C (2004) The perfect e-storm: emerging technology, enormous learner
demand, enhanced pedagogy, and erased budgets. Part 2: Storms #3 and #4. The
Observatory on Higher Education, 2004. Available online at
www.publicationshare.com/part2.pdf
40