Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Современные информационно-коммуникационные технологии в обучении иностранным языкам. Учебно-методическое пособие
.pdf
Приложение
In-class Activities
The philosophy behind the fl ipped method is a better use of class time
that allows more interaction among students, with extensive opportunities
for language practice and corrective feedback from an instructor. In our
experiment, the participants gathered in the university for six face-to-face
classes having a good theoretical background in English phonetics after
participating in the online course. To check the effectiveness of the online
course, the test data was collected from all the students who were present
in the fi rst class (see Figure 4). To investigate any relationships between
the students’ performance in the online course and their test results, the
participants were placed into three groups. The top group consisted of the
students who scored from 80% to 100% in the online course. The middle
group was comprised of the students who earned from 40% to 80% in
the online course. The Low group contained the students with weak
performance in the online course (achieving less than 40%). The entry
test checked the students’ knowledge of such topics in English phonetics
as the organs of speech and their functions, vowel and consonant speech
sounds, and English connected speech (assimilation). The students could
earn a maximum of 50 points on the test.
All (n=11) Top (n=7) Middle (n=3) Bottom (n=1)
Test Results (average score)
≈18.3 ≈22 ≈13.2 4
Figure 7. Entry Test Results
Judging by the test results, we can assume that the top and middle students
have acquired the core information needed for the intensive classes with the
instructor. The bottom student wrote in the middle course questionnaire, “I
have not taken the online course, but I will try to do it next time as it was
diffi cult to understand the material without any prior knowledge” (May
2016). The results highlighted the topics that the students had the most
diffi culty with, which led to the alterations in the lesson plans so that the
instructor paid more attention to those weak areas. In order to avoid “bad
pedagogy” in fl ipped learning by which Nielsen (Nielsen, 2012) means
any simple memorization and mere repetition, analysis and creative use of
language were encouraged during the classes with the instructor.
The face-to-face classes had the following logic:
131
Н. В. Горобинская, И. В. Трешина, С. В. Чернышов
СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ ИНФОРМАЦИОННО-КОММУНИКАЦИОННЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ В ОБУЧЕНИИ ИНОСТРАННЫМ ЯЗЫКАМ
• The instructor gave a quick test via Moodle or admit slips to check
the students’ level of knowledge in some specifi c unit and to
understand where the students had misconceptions. Admit slip is a
piece of paper with questions designed to check students’ level of
understanding of some topic (material). It usually helps to single out
areas for further clarifi cation during class.
• The instructor led demonstration of the most diffi cult concepts which
were identifi ed based on the admit slips, tests on Moodle, or concept
checks in the online course (mostly using Power Point presentations
and YouTube videos).
• The students were engaged in group activities or tasks to practice
concepts and skills previously learnt.
• The students checked their admit slips or tests on Moodle collectively
in order to understand how their knowledge had improved and if
there were any misconceptions left.
In the mid-course survey, the students were asked to leave their
comments on the effectiveness of face-to-face classes. They wrote that
“these classes helped to have the theory at their fi ngertips” (May 2016)
and “to understand the mistakes in pronunciation” (May 2016). The
learners also identifi ed the most interesting and effective activities: admit
slips, tongue-twisters, sound characterization, the description of cases of
assimilation, test checking, the phonetic analysis of the text for the fi nal
oral presentation, etc.
At the end of face-to-face instruction, all the students were asked to
do a fi nal test, but a more detailed and diffi cult one. The students could
earn a maximum of 50 points on the test. It contained the material both
from the online course and classes with the instructor. The students of the
control group had the same test after having only six classes with their
instructor.
From the test results (see Figure 5), it is clear that such an
organization of the English Phonetics course helped the students
of the experimental group to achieve better results in comparison
with those of the control group. One learner of the control group
mentioned, “I did not understand the course at all.” It is also worth
noticing that the intensive face-to-face classes with the instructor
were especially useful for the top group learners (the green part in
132
Приложение
the table), while the bottom group student (the pink part in the table)
had a great hop too, but could not reach the same level as those who
had worked systematically online. Only a few learners (St.6, St.9,
St.10) did not demonstrate signifi cant progress after the classes with
the instructor, but their fi nal results were, nevertheless, better than
the majority in the control group. Once again it proves Thompson’s
words that profi ciency in a foreign language is a complex experience
and “depends on a person’s language learning abilities, motivation,
learning environment, intensity of instruction, and prior experiences
in learning foreign languages” (Thompson, 2014).
St.1 St.2 St.3 St.4 St.5 St.6 St.7 St.8 St.9 St.10 St.11
Pre-Course
Test Ex. Gr.
Final Test
Ex. Group
27 21 23 25 20 19 19 14 13 13 4
42 40 36 42 34 21 28 28 13 13 20
Ex. Gr. – experimental group; Cont. Gr. – control group.
Figure 8. Final Test Results
133
Н. В. Горобинская, И. В. Трешина, С. В. Чернышов
СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ ИНФОРМАЦИОННО-КОММУНИКАЦИОННЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ В ОБУЧЕНИИ ИНОСТРАННЫМ ЯЗЫКАМ
In the mid-course survey, the students were asked to leave their
comments on the effectiveness of a fl ipped method as none of them had
ever experienced it before. Nobody (0%) could call it absolutely ineffective
and the majority (69.6%) found it extremely effective and useful. Among
their reasons were “the availability of all necessary resources before
the classes with the instructor”, “motivating and interesting format of
presenting information”, “systematic work” (from 1 to 10 hours per
week), “noticeable results even in the fi rst classes with the instructor”,
“better use of time”; and some say that “it intensifi es face-to-face classes
and helps to achieve better result”, etc. The rest of the students (30.4%)
found it somewhat effective and pointed out their lack of time resources
for online instruction and the fact that “it is diffi cult to learn being left
alone”. It proves once again that fl ipped classroom helps students to
“become more confi dent in their ability to learn independently” (Enfi eld,
2013). Helping students to develop into independent learners is important
in our modern world as fi erce competition in the professional area makes
us keep up with all the changes.
To conclude, a fl ipped method has great potential in any teaching
environment, especially in a course with extremely limited class time and
great diversity of language learners. If learning is carefully scaffolded
and students are provided with detailed instruction, it is a great approach
to compensate for the lack of time and to accomplish even more learning
goals. One of the reasons for preferring to the fl ipped model is the fact that
it is open to the integration of any computer tools to make the information
stick. As modern technologies offer an invaluable opportunity to engage
students in interactive learning where a variety of learning styles can
be met, education turns into a more interesting and motivating process
making students more confi dent in their ability to learn on their own.
As for face-to-face classes with an instructor, carefully guided and wellscaffolded independent practice helps to intensify the learning process.
Besides, such a course organization provides wide opportunities for
developing learner’s autonomy and making education more purposeful
and effective.
Due to the low number of participants in the described experiment,
future research should test these conclusions for language classes of a
larger size.
134
Приложение
Generally, the described pilot study might have real pedagogical
value to those who encounter a problems of organizing learners’
independent language practice when class time is really scarce.
REFERENCES
1. Bates S., & Galloway R. (2012). The inverted classroom in a large
enrolment introductory physics course: A case study. Retrieved
from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/stemconference/PhysicalSciences/Simon_Bates_Ross_Galloway.pdf
2. Bates T., & Poole G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology
higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
3. Bergmann J., & Sams A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every
student in every class every day. Eugene: International Society for
Technology in Education.
4. Brinckwirth. (2012). Implementation and Outcomes of an Online
English-Portuguese Tandem Language Exchange Program
delivered jointly across a U.S.-Brazilian University Partnership: A
Case Study. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.
5. Brame C. (2013). Flipping the classroom. Vanderbilt University
Center for teaching. Retrieved May 6, 2014 from http://cft.
vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/fl ipping-the-classroom.
6. Burston J. (2014). The Reality of MALL: Still on the Fringes.
CALICO Journal, 31(1). Retrieved 9 August, 2015, from http://
www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/CALICO/article/
view/22804
7. Cechova I., Rees M. (2013). Blended learning as a means to
enhance students’ motivation and to improve self-governed
learning. Proceedings of the international conference on
e-learning, p. 71.
8. Clementi D., Terril L. (2013). The Keys to Planning for Learning:
Effective Curriculum, Unit, and Lesson Design. The American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Alexandria, VA.
9. Cockrum T. (2013). Flipping your English class: Strategies and
lesson plans. Taylor and Francis, Hoboken.
135
Н. В. Горобинская, И. В. Трешина, С. В. Чернышов
СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ ИНФОРМАЦИОННО-КОММУНИКАЦИОННЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ В ОБУЧЕНИИ ИНОСТРАННЫМ ЯЗЫКАМ
10. Collis B., & Moonen J. (2002). Flexible learning in a digital world.
Open Learning, 17(3), 217–230.
11. Enfi eld J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the fl ipped classroom
model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at
CSUN. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve
Learning. November 2013; 57(6), 14–27.
12. Flipped Learning Network (FLN). (2014). The four pillars of FL-I-P. Retrieved May 6, 2014 from http://www.fl ippedlearning.
org/cms/lib07/VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/46/FLIP-handout_
FNL_Web.pdf
13. Garrison D.R., & Anderson T. (2011). E-Learning in the 21
century: A framework for research and practice. New York, NY:
Routledge.
14. Ginns P., & Ellis R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring
the relationships between on-line and face-to-face teaching and
learning. Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 53--64.
15. Graham C.R. et al. (2003). Benefi ts and challenges of blended
learning environments. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of Information Science and Technology I-V. Hershey, PA: idea
Group Inc.
16. Gunyou, J. (2015). I Flipped My Classroom: One Teacher’s Quest
to Remain Relevant. Journal of Public Affairs Education. Winter
2015; 21(1), 13–24.
17. Guillen G. (2015). Awareness and corrective feedback in social
CALL, Tandems, and E-Tandems. The IALLT Journal, 44(2).
Retrieved July 16, 2016 from http://old.iallt.org/iallt_journal/
awareness_and_corrective_feedback_in_social_call_tandems_
and_e_tandems.
18. Horn M. (2013). The transformational potential of fl ipped
classrooms: different strokes for different folks. Education Next,
13(3). Retrieved July 15, 2016 from http://educationnext.org/thetransformational-potential-of-fl ipped-classrooms/.
19. Jinxiu W., & Wenyu L. (2013). An empirical investigation of the
critical factors affecting students’ satisfaction in EFL blended
learning. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 4(1), 176–
185.
st
136
Приложение
20. Kalamarz R. (2011). ‘Gearing e-learning for the development
of communication in foreign languages as a key competence’,
in Smyrnova-Trybulska, E. (Ed.): Use of E-learning in the
Development of the Key Competences: Monograph, pp. 451–462,
Studio Noa, Cieszyn, Katowice.
21. Kalamarz R. (2014). Blending foreign language learning with
key competences. Does e-learning do the trick? Int. J. Continuing
Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 24(1), 77–95.
22. Kanavo V. (2002). Methodological recommendations on how to
develop an online course via the Internet. Retrieved July 10, 2016
from www.curator.ru/method.html.
23. Kern R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with
networked computers: effects on quality and characteristics of
language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 457–
476.
24. Krajka J. (2012). The language teacher in the digital age –
towards a systematic approach to digital teacher development,
p. 225, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University Press, Lublin.
25. Krathwohl D. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An
Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
26. Krashen S. (1991). The Input Hypothesis: An Update. In
Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics
(pp. 409–431). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
27. Lindaman D., Nolan D. (2015). Application development projects
within reach for language teachers. The IALLT Journal, 45(1).
Retrieved July 16, 2016 from http://old.iallt.org/iallt_journal/
mobile_assisted_language_learning.
28. Neumeier P. (2005). A Closer look at blended learning-parameters
for designing a blended learning environment for language
teaching and learning. ReCALL 17 (2), 163--178.
29. Nielsen L. (2012, May). Five reasons I’m not fl ipping over the
fl ipped classroom. Technology & Learning, 32(10), 46.
30. November A., & Mull B. (2012, March 26). Flipped learning: A
response to fi ve common criticisms | eSchool News. Retrieved
June 3, 2015 from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2012/03/26/
fl ipped-learning-a-response-to-fi ve-common-criticisms/.
137
Н. В. Горобинская, И. В. Трешина, С. В. Чернышов
СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ ИНФОРМАЦИОННО-КОММУНИКАЦИОННЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ В ОБУЧЕНИИ ИНОСТРАННЫМ ЯЗЫКАМ
31. Millard E. (2012). 5 Reasons fl ipped classroom work: Turning
lectures into homework to boost student engagement and increase
technology-fueled creativity. University Business.com, 26--29.
Retrieved from http://www.universitybusiness.com/article/5reasons-fl ipped-classrooms-work.
32. Moran C., & Young C. (2014). Active learning in the fl ipped
English language arts classroom. In J. Keengwe, G. Onchwari, &
J. Oigara (Eds.), Promoting active learning through the Flipped
Classroom model. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
33. Pacansky-Brock M. (2012). Best practices for teaching with
emerging technologies. New York: Taylor & Francis.
34. Prensky M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the
Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/
writing/Prensky – Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants – Part1.pdf
35. Rosen L.B., Maeda M., & Roberts N. (in press). Gain time
and differentiate to meet student needs in university learning
environments: A fl ipped learning approach. In J.P. Loucky
& J.L. Ware (Eds.) Flipped instruction methods and digital
technologies in language learning classrooms. Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0824-3.
36. So L., Lee C. (2012). Peer feedback using blended learning in L2
writing at the university level. English Teaching, 67(3), 301–337.
37. Spratt M., Pulverness A., Williams M. (2011) The TKT (Teaching
Knowledge Test) Course. Module 1, 2 and 3. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
38. Strobl C. (2014). Affordances of Web 2.0 technologies for
collaborative advanced writing in a foreign language. CALICO
Journal, 31(1), 1–18.
39. Thompson I. (2014, March 11). Language Learning Diffi culty.
Retrieved June 28, 2015, from http://aboutworldlanguages.com/
language-diffi culty.
40. VanPatten B. (2002). From Input to Output : A Teacher’s Guide
to Second Language Acquisition. McGraw-Hill : Language Art &
Disciplines.
41. Vygotsky L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Edited by Cole, M., John-Steiner, V.,
138
Приложение
Scribner, S., Souberman, E. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
England.
42. Waltje J. (2014). Language learning technology review. The IALLT
Journal, 44(1). Retrieved July 16, 2016 from http://old.iallt.org/
iallt_journal/language_learning_technology_review_2.
43. Walvoord B.E., & Anderson V.J. (1998). Effective grading: A tool
for learning and assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
44. Watson S.L., & Reigeluth C.M. (2008). The learner-centered
paradigm of education. Educational technology, 48(5), 42–48.
139
Учебное издание
Горобинская Надежда Владимировна
Трешина Инга Валерьевна
Чернышов Сергей Викторович
СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ
ИНФОРМАЦИОННО-КОММУНИКАЦИОННЫЕ
ТЕХНОЛОГИИ В ОБУЧЕНИИ ИНОСТРАННЫМ ЯЗЫКАМ
Учебно-методическое пособие
Редактор Дубовец В. В.
Оформление обложки Удовенко В. Г.
Компьютерная верстка Потрахов И. А.
Московский педагогический государственный университет (МПГУ).
119435, Москва, ул. Малая Пироговская, д. 1, стр. 1.
Управление издательской деятельности и инновационного
проектирования (УИД и ИП) МПГУ.
119571, Москва, пр-т Вернадского, д. 88, оф. 446,
тел. +7 (499) 730-38-61, e-mail: izdat@mpgu.su.
Отпечатано в отделе оперативной полиграфии
УИД и ИП МПГУ.
Подписано в печать 26.12.2022. Формат 60х90/16.
Бум. офсетная. Печать цифровая. Усл. печ. л. 8,75.
Тираж 500 экз. Заказ № 1351.
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]