Integrating Standards: Considerations for Language and Writing
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY ... · Integrating Technologies in English...
Transcript of Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY ... · Integrating Technologies in English...
34TH ANNUAL APPLIED LINGUISTICS WINTER CONFERENCETARGETING TOMORROW:
TESOL, APPLIED LINGUISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGYNEW YORK STATE TESOL: APPLIED LINGUISTICS SIG
Lee B. Abraham, Columbia [email protected]
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY Saturday, March 2, 2013
Integrating Technologies in English Language Learning and Teaching through a Multiliteracies Framework
Workshop Agenda1. Introduction, guiding questions, and objectives
2. Survey the communication landscape (Web 2.0)
3. Define ‘Multiliteracies’
4. Examine a pedagogical framework for integrating technologies in language learning and teaching based on the term ‘Multiliteracies’New London Group (1996) / Learning by Design (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012)
5. Review TESOL Technology Standards (Healey et al. 2011) for Learners & Teachers
6. Present (briefly) activity templates (handout) based on the pedagogical framework (#4)
7. Analyze examples from online advertising
8. Questions and comments
2
Questions
1. In what ways are the new and emerging online technologies of the 21st century different from 20th
century online technologies? 2. What, if any, are the implications of these
differences for English language learning and teaching?
3. How can we systematically integrate new, emerging, and future technologies effectively in our curriculum?
3
Workshop Objectives4
1. Demonstrate that the analysis of computer-mediated discourse (CMD) in English available in online communication environments expands opportunities for English language learning and ultimately, participation in authentic online communities (Goal 3, Standard 5 of the TESOL Technology Standards, Healey et al. 2011) and for expressing their own voices in innovative and creative ways
2. Demonstrate how the pedagogical framework proposed by the New London Group (1996) and in the work of Kalantzis & Cope (2012):
a) Allows English language learners to consider how texts (i.e., discourses) are designedb) Provides language learners opportunities to consider the notion of variability in
language because communicating the same meaning or notion can often be expressed in different ways (i.e., from the many available designs in a given language or varieties of a language).
c) Encourages learners to redesign texts (i.e., discourses) as they communicate in a variety of settings and for a wide range of purposes.
d) Enables instructors to effectively integrate existing, emerging, and future technologies in their curricula
Interactive Communication Landscape5
New participation framework for written discourse for Web 2.0 technologies (O’Keeffe, 2012, p. 451)
For example, comments to authors on blogs, Facebook posts, Twitter, YouTube, etc. [retweets (RT), posts on someone else’s timeline, etc.)]Comments to each other (“audience”). Responses to these comments.
Multiliteracies6
“The term ‘Multiliteracies’ refers to two major aspects of meaning-making today. The first is social diversity … Texts vary enormously depending on social context – life experience, subject matter, disciplinary domain, area of employment, specialist knowledge, cultural setting or gender identity, to name just a few. The second aspect of meaning-making highlighted by the idea of Multiliteracies is multimodality” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012, pp. 1-2).
TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration(2011). Healey, Hanson-Smith, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware
Technology Standards for Language Learners
Goal 2: Language learners use technology in socially and culturally appropriate, legal, and ethical ways.
Standard 1: Language learners understand that communication conventions differ across cultures, communities, and contexts.
8
TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration(2011). Healey, Hanson-Smith, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware
Performance indicators:Language learners identify similarities and differences in local and global
communication.Language learners demonstrate understanding of multiple ways that computer-
mediated communication (CMC) can be (mis)interpreted (e.g., using appropriate register, turn-taking, respecting expected length and content of messages, considering literal versus rhetorical meaning.)Language learners show sensitivity to their use of communication conventions,
according to the context (e.g., not using all caps [capital letters], waiting for lag time in synchronous communication, using turn-taking cues, checking spelling).Language learners conform to current social conventions when using technology
in communication (e.g., social conventions in the classroom may restrict cell phone use).Language learners can identify cultural variables at play in interpreting and
responding to a message.
9
TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration(2011). Healey, Hanson-Smith, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware
Technology Standards for Language Learners
Goal 3: Language learners effectively use and critically evaluate technology-based tools as aids in the development of their language learning competence as part of formal instruction and for further learning.Standard 5: Language learners recognize the value of technology to support autonomy, lifelong learning, creativity, metacognition, collaboration, personal pursuits, and productivity.
10
TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration(2011). Healey, Hanson-Smith, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware
Performance indicators:Language learners select the most appropriate available technology for
independent language learning and can provide reasons for their choices.Language learners demonstrate the ability to set language learning goals and
objectives that employ technology, with a teacher’s support or independently.Language learners can use technology to monitor their progress (e.g., record
keeping within programs, electronic portfolios), with a teacher’s support or independently.Language learners can express themselves using technology (e.g., creating
digital media as works of art).Language learners provide reasons for the value of technology in maintaining
communication for personal and professional purposes and having access to authentic material that supports their language learning.Language learners use technology to work in English more effectively (e.g.,
using an electronic dictionary when it is more efficient than using a paper dictionary).
11
TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration(2011). Healey, Hanson-Smith, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware
Technology Standards for Language Teachers
Goal 2: Language teachers integrate pedagogical knowledge and skills with technology to enhance language teaching and learning.
Standard 3: Language teachers design and manage language learning activities and tasks using technology appropriately to meet curricular goals and objectives.
12
TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration(2011). Healey, Hanson-Smith, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware
Performance indicators:Language teachers demonstrate familiarity with a variety of technology-based
options.Language teachers choose a technology environment that is aligned with the
goals of the class.Language teachers choose technology that is aligned with needs and abilities
of the students (e.g., language learning–focused software, productivity tools, content tools).Language teachers demonstrate awareness of students’ level of digital
competence.Language teachers ensure that students understand how to use the technology
to meet instructional goals (e.g., teach students how to evaluate online resources).Language teachers enable students to think critically about their use of
technology in an age-appropriate manner.
13
Multiliteracies Framework (‘Learning by Design’)
Multiliteracies Framework for Teachers to Integrate
Technology New London Group (1996)
‘Learning by Design’(revised ‘Multiliteracies’ framework)
Cope & Kalantzis (2009) Kalantzis & Cope (2010; 2012)
1. Situated practice 1. Experiencing the known and the new
2. Overt instruction 2. Conceptualizing by naming and with theory
3. Critical framing 3. Analyzing functionally and critically
4. Transformed practice 4. Applying appropriately and creatively
14
Although the four components for designing tasks/activities are not intended to be implemented in a fixed order (linearly) or in specific proportions (New London Group, 1996, p. 85), the cycle from Situated Practice to Transformed Practice (including Overt Instruction and Critical Framing) offers a practical way for teachers to design task/activities based on these learning opportunities (see the description on the handout) initially as separate components even if they often overlap and are interrelated.
Sonic 1, Sonic 2, Sonic 3,“America’s Drive-in”16
McDonald’s18
McDonald’s Websites
@McDonaldsCorp Twitter Team
McDonald’s Social Media Around the World
Banana Republic20
Comments on Facebook and comments on the post on Oh Joy!The author replies to these comments on Oh Joy!Oh Joy (link)
Old Navy 2 (Style Council), Old Navy 3 (Official Twitter Account)
22
The first tweet by Old Navy on February 21 (“We’re recruiting”) shows how companies rely on more than one social media site (Crowdtap), which teachers could also use. The other tweets consist of comments from followers on Old Navy’s Official Twitter Account
Honda 1, Honda 2, Honda 3, Honda 428
Honda Australia Links: 1, 2, 329
Candy: Hershey’s, Mars (Twix), WonkaCereal: Post, Kellogg’sDairy: California Milk Board, Got milk?, Yoplait, Dannon, Chobani
30
Additional Online Advertisements
Conclusion
Thank you!Questions and comments!
Lee B. Abraham, Columbia UniversityEmail: [email protected]
31
34th Annual Applied Linguistics Winter Conference
Targeting Tomorrow: TESOL, Applied Linguistics, and Technology
New York State TESOL: Applied Linguistics Special Interest Group
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Integrating Technologies in English Language Learning and Teaching through a Multiliteracies Framework
Lee B. Abraham | Columbia University | [email protected]
PowerPoint Presentation Available: https://sites.google.com/site/leebabraham/presentations
Workshop purpose: The “Multiliteracies” and the “Learning by Design” frameworks allow teachers to
systematically integrate authentic electronic English discourse on social media and other websites for language
learning as part of the TESOL Technology Standards’ goal “… to support autonomy, lifelong learning,
creativity, metacognition, collaboration, personal pursuits, and productivity.” (Healey et al., 2011, p. 65).
Multiliteracies Framework for Teachers to
Integrate Technology New London Group (1996)
“Learning by Design”
(revised ‘Multiliteracies’ framework)
Cope & Kalantzis (2009); Kalantzis & Cope (2010; 2012)
1. Situated practice 1. Experiencing the known and the new
2. Overt instruction 2. Conceptualizing by naming and with theory
3. Critical framing 3. Analyzing functionally and critically
4. Transformed practice 4. Applying appropriately and creatively
Although the four components for designing tasks/activities are not intended to be implemented in a fixed order
(linearly) or in specific proportions (New London Group, 1996, p. 85), the cycle from Situated Practice to
Transformed Practice (including Overt Instruction and Critical Framing) offers a practical way for teachers to
design task/activities based on these learning opportunities (see the following descriptions) initially as separate
components even if they often overlap and are interrelated.
1. Experiencing the known: learners bring to the learning situation perspectives, objects, ideas, ways of
communicating and information that are familiar to them, and reflect on their own
experiences and interests
the new: learners are immersed in new situations or information, observing or taking part
in something that is new or unfamiliar
2. Conceptualising by naming: learners group things into categories, applying classifying
terms, and define these terms
with theory: learners make generalizations by connecting concepts and developing
theories
3. Analysing functionally: learners analyse logical connections, cause and effect, structure and function
critically: learners evaluate their own and other people’s perspectives, interests and
motives
4. Applying appropriately: learners try their knowledge out in real-world or simulated
situations to see whether it works in a predictable and conventional context
creatively: learners make an intervention in the world which is innovative and creative,
distinctively expressing their own voices or transferring their knowledge to a different
context.
[Kalantzis & Cope, 2012, p. 357]
2
Selected Templates for Designing Activities for the Four Components of the Multiliteracies Framework1
SITUATED PRACTICE | EXPERIENCING THE KNOWN
Language learners (or teachers) bring in a multimodal website (this could also be a video or social media site
that has been previously approved by a teacher). They show it, talk about it, explain it, and discuss it with their
peers.
SITUATED PRACTICE | EXPERIENCING THE NEW
Describe a Social Media Site
Teachers provides a multimodal website (video, social media site, etc.) that is unfamiliar and appropriate to the
goals and objectives of the lesson.
1. Describe: What are the key features of the site? What stands out as its main points? What is the purpose of
the site (video, etc.)? For whom it is intended? Describe the individuals on the site, audio/sound,
images/photos, videos, and language.
2. Examine: Which visual elements (images, photos, videos, animations) and written elements are not so
obvious or confusing?
3. Infer: What do you think the designers of the website meant? How successful are the designers in
communicating these meanings? Explain.
Assign different roles to pairs or groups of three: describing, examining, inferring. Teachers/learners use the
equivalent of note taking for multimodal texts – circling parts of images, labeling and captioning, using an
overhead projector, a combination of a document camera and board, interactive board, displaying the website or
file (e.g. a PDF file), etc.
Text Annotation of a Social Media Site
Annotate the website (you might have to do this on separate sheet of paper) as you read/view and after you have
finished reading/viewing the site. You may have to read/view several times. You do not have to annotate every
element!
? Record a question mark (?) for any questions you have about what is happening or about the
grammar or vocabulary.
Underline
Underline aspects of the writing style. This could be a line or phrase that you think is
beautifully worded or makes you think. It could be something about the style or tone that
strikes you or that you like or dislike.
C Write C for your connections when a written text, photograph, animation, video, image
reminds you of something you have read or seen or done in your own life.
! Write an exclamation point (!) when something is interesting, important, unusual, and/or
surprises you.
Discuss your annotations with a classmate. What are the important or interesting observations or questions?
Share any other opinions, ideas, and predictions.
1 Many other commonly used activities can also be used for analyzing the discourse (verbal and visual, i.e. images, video,
photos) of social media as well as new and emerging technologies as part of the four elements of the
Multiliteracies/Learning by Design framework.
3
OVERT INSTRUCTION | CONCEPTUALIZING BY NAMING AND WITH THEORY
Information Retrieval Grid
This enables students to organize and record information. A grid is constructed with focus questions along one
column and items along the other two columns. Students read/view the site and complete the grid by recording
ticks or words in the boxes. When the grid is complete students discuss their findings using comparatives or
connectives.
Site 1 Site 2
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Graphic Organizers for Vocabulary
People or Things Related to
Word or Concept
Related Words My Drawing/Picture
Synonyms
Word
or
Concept
Antonyms
Sentences from the website
My Sentences
CRITICAL FRAMING | ANALYZING FUNCTIONALLY
Analyze the written elements of the site, including comments and responses/replies. When appropriate to the
level of the class, English language learners could analyze visual elements such as images, photographs,
animations, and videos, see for example) by identifying linguistic, visual, audio, spatial and gestural modes of
meaning. Once learners have identified these features they can practice using some of the features. For example,
if students identify the use of different tenses, they could practice writing sentences in different tenses.
Learners could also take sentences and rewrite them, replacing particular parts of speech and maintaining the
structure of the sentence. This can be used to teach noun groups (adjective, noun, adjectival phrases and
clauses) and adverbials (verb, adverb, adverbial phrases) and simple, compound and complex sentences,
nominalization, active and passive voice and tense as well as many other grammatical features (see Biber,
Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999; among others).
CRITICAL FRAMING | ANALYZING CRITICALLY
How does the (social media) site position a user? How does the site emphasize the author/creator’s choices
(purpose)? How are issues of power, morality, ideology, propaganda, and rhetoric present/absent?
4
TRANSFORMED PRACTICE | APPLYING APPROPRIATELY
Using the conventions of each genre, learners create a website, presentation (e.g. PowerPoint, Prezi), make a
video, mobile phone app, photo/video journal, multimedia advertising campaign, among other projects.
TRANSFORMED PRACTICE | APPLYING CREATIVELY
Learners create a multimodal text which mixes modes of meaning (linguistic, visual, gestural, audio and
spatial), media, and genres in an original (hybrid) way (Lotherington & Jenson, 2011; Miller & McVee, 2012).
References
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written
English. New York: Longman.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies, 4, 164-195.
Healey, D., Hanson-Smith, E., Hubbard, P., Ioannou-Georgiou, S., Kessler, G., & Ware, P. (2011).
TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Jacobs, G. E. (2012). The proverbial rock and hard place: The realities and risks of teaching in a
world of multiliteracies, participatory culture, and mandates. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
56, 2, 98-102.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-learning and
Digital Media, 7, 200-222.
Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. (2nd
ed.).
New York: Routledge.
Lotherington, H., & Jenson, J. (2011). Teaching multimodal and digital literacy in L2 settings: New literacies,
new basics, new pedagogies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 226-246.
Miller, S. M., & McVee, M. B. (2012). Multimodal composing in classrooms: Learning and teaching for the
digital world. New York: Routledge.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92.
O’Keeffe, A. (2012). Media and discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 441-454). London: Routledge.