Details of EU funded projects on open resources and practices in language teacher education with technolog

1. Adopting open practices in schools:
a CALL teacher education study
Shona Whyte
Université Côte d’Azur, Nice, France
Open Education Week 2019 https://wp.me/p28EmH-1c4 6/3/19

2. why openness for teacher education
& professional development?
• limited uptake of new pedagogical practices in
technology-mediated practice (CALL) and open
education resources (OER)
• “sustainability may depend on whether teachers
perceive and practice agency in all the processes
involved” (Reinhardt 2016)
• investigate impact of teacher education among
teachers “in the wild” (Little & Thorne 2017)
Open Education Week 2019 https://wp.me/p28EmH-1c4 6/3/19

3. What kinds of practices and resources do
language teachers typically use?
What factors seem to influence teacher adoption
of specific practices?
What challenges and opportunities do these
language teachers identify?
Open Education Week 2019 https://wp.me/p28EmH-1c4 6/3/19

4. projects and programmes
in-service
(continuing professional development)
pre-service
(initial teacher education)
ITILT
IWB project
ITILT 2
mobile technologies
Masters in Teaching Languages
(English)
University of Nice
workshops
webinars
Open Education Week 2019 https://wp.me/p28EmH-1c4 6/3/19

5. select video
examples and create
searchable repository
visit classes and
provide techno-
pedagogical support
iTILT
http://itilt.eu
2011-13
IWB
collect data:
• video recordings,
• learner interviews,
• video-stimulated
recall with teachers
design and
implement teacher
education modules
• 267 video clips
• 44 teachers
• 81 lessons
• 7 languages
• 4 educational levels
Open Education Week 2019 https://wp.me/p28EmH-1c4 6/3/19

6. analysing video clips of call
practice
• Purpose: repository search, teacher education research
• Question: Does the use of interactive classroom technology
support
1. greater technological interactivity (exploitation of new
digital affordances)?
2. more active interactional engagement (more
communicative activities)?
3. more task-oriented teaching (meaning focus, free
language use, outcome)?
Open Education Week 2019 https://wp.me/p28EmH-1c4 6/3/19

7. DIMENSIONS CATEGORIES
1 Technological interactivity and
language teaching objectives
Whyte, Beauchamp & Alexander 2014;
Whyte, Cutrim Schmid, van Hazebrouck-
Thompson & Oberhofer 2014
• Teacher and learner roles
• Digital affordances
• Language teaching
objectives
2 Interactional engagement: teacher
versus learner-centred activities
Whyte, Cutrim Schmid & Beauchamp
2014
• Drill
• Display
• Simulation
• Communication
3 Task orientation (TBLT)
Whyte & Alexander 2014; Whyte 2015
• Focus on meaning
• Vocabulary and grammar
not pre-taught
• non-linguistic task outcome
(not language exercise)
Open Education Week 2019 https://wp.me/p28EmH-1c4 6/3/19

8. itilt.eu > Quick search
Open Education Week 2019 https://wp.me/p28EmH-1c4 6/3/19

9. 1 technological interactivity &
teaching objectives
• Teacher and learner
roles
• Digital affordances
• Language teaching
objectives
44 teachers, 267 video clips
• mostly individual learners at IWB, and
teacher-fronted activities
• low-level interaction with IWB drag/
drop or hide/reveal
• balance between 4 skills (listening,
speaking, reading, writing) and
subskills or cultural objectives
Open Education Week 2019 https://wp.me/p28EmH-1c4 6/3/19

10. drill
display
simulation
communication
Open Education Week 2019 https://wp.me/p28EmH-1c4 6/3/19

11. 2 interactional engagement
• Drill
• Display
• Simulation
• Communication
11 French and German EFL
teachers at primary and secondary
level, 54 video clips
• 3 times more drill and display
than simulation and
communication
• primary 73% drill, lower
secondary 60% display, upper
secondary 37% display and
26% communication
Open Education Week 2019 https://wp.me/p28EmH-1c4 6/3/19

12. 3 task orientation (TBLT)
• focus on meaning
• vocabulary and grammar
not pre-taught
• non-linguistic task
outcome (not language
exercise)
9 French EFL teachers at primary,
secondary, and university level, 56
video clips
• only 7/56 activities from 3/9
teachers met all TBLT criteria
• most task-oriented: primary
teachers/educator
• least task-oriented: lower
secondary teachers
Open Education Week 2019 https://wp.me/p28EmH-1c4 6/3/19

13. Whyte, Beauchamp, & Hillier 2012
a somewhat conservative or cautious approach to IWB use for
language teaching, with teachers focusing on a limited
repertoire of basic functions such as dragging and dropping
images to fulfill relatively circumscribed language learning
objectives (vocabulary, pronunciation, receptive skills), often
with a teaching method involving an individual learner
working at the IWB before the class
Open Education Week 2019 https://wp.me/p28EmH-1c4 6/3/19

14. ITILT I conclusions
IWB-mediated teaching
technological interactivity
(exploitation of new digital
affordances)
active interactional
engagement (more
communicative activities)
task-oriented teaching
(meaning focus, free language
use, outcome)
x
x
x
New study to
•update technologies
•improve impact of
techno-pedagogical
support
compare with previous
dataset on same three
dimensions
Open Education Week 2019 https://wp.me/p28EmH-1c4 6/3/19

15. iTILT
http://itilt.eu
2011-13
IWB
iTILT 2
http://www.itilt2.eu
2014-17
mobile, videoconferencing
select video
examples and create
searchable repository
collect data:
• video recordings,
• learner interviews,
• video-stimulated
recall with teachers
• 267 video clips
• 81 lessons
• 44 teachers
• 7 languages
• 4 educational levels
pedagogical support
in design and
implementation of
class activities
• 76 video clips
• 31 tasks
• 22 teachers
• 4 languages
• 3 educational levels
task-based teacher
education module

16. 1 technological interactivity &
objectives
ITILT 1
44 teachers, 267 clips
ITILT 2
22 teachers, 76 clips
• Teacher and
learner roles
• Digital
affordances
• Language
teaching
objectives
• teacher-fronted
activities
• low-level interaction
• 4 skills and subskills
• 86% groups of learners,
only 16% teacher alone
• more active affordances
(76%) versus input (43%)
• listening & speaking
(71-83%), less grammar
(21%)

17. 2 interactional engagement
ITILT 1
11 teachers, 54 clips
ITILT 2
22 teachers, 76 clips
• Drill
• Display
• Simulation
• Communi-
cation
• predominance of
drill and display
• more
communication at
secondary level
• more active
engagement at all levels
• less drilling than ITILT 1
(though more primary
classes)
• active engagement
increases with
educational level

18. 2 interactional engagement

19. 3 task orientation (TBLT)
ITILT 1
9 teachers, 56 clips
ITILT 2
22 teachers, 76 clips
• focus on meaning
• vocabulary and
grammar NOT
pre-taught
• non-linguistic task
outcome (not
language
exercise)
• few activities/teachers met
all TBLT criteria
• most task-oriented:
primary teachers/educator
• least task-oriented: lower
secondary teachers
• median score 2
(max = 3, min = 0)
• variability
• L2
• country
• educational level
• technology

20. What kinds of practices and resources do
language teachers typically use?
What factors seem to influence teacher adoption
of specific practices?
What challenges and opportunities do these
language teachers identify?

21. projects and programmes
in-service
(continuing professional development)
pre-service
(initial teacher education)
ITILT
IWB project
ITILT 2
mobile technologies
Masters in Teaching Languages
(English)
University of Nice
workshops
webinars

22. Pre-service and in-service
teacher education
WORKSHOPS &
WEBINARS
• language teaching with
technologies
• open educational
practices: research Whyte
(2014, 2016)
• participant questionnaire

23. Where are they now? language
teacher education survey
• 20 minute online questionnaire
(Google forms)
• project and programme
participants
• developed from pre-course
surveys
• technology and pedagogy
• teaching activities & lesson
plans
1.teaching background (12)
2.teaching philosophy (5)
3.opportunities in language
teaching (7)
4.difficulties in language
teaching (3)
5.participant details (5)

24. main patterns in responses
to date (N=23)
• French lower secondary EFL teachers, Masters degree, 26-30, 3-5 years
experience
• independent digital users (Europass)
• CLT and TBLT approaches yet fairly conservative views of language
learning, some disagreement regarding language teaching (Lightbown &
Spada items)
• equipped with single computer, internet, projector; use VLC and Google
apps, online resources (YouTube, audio, Quizlet, dictionaries/grammar
reference)
• find materials online, but don’t share and only interact with known
colleagues
• keen to motivate learners and provide individualised feedback

25. • 74% claim to use CLT or
TBLT methods
•48% believe errors should be
corrected immediately to avoid
the formation of bad habits
•78% aim to teach simple before
complex grammar rules
•materials indicate grammar
syllabus (vocabulary and reading
comprehension exercises)

26. The iPad is still my best
friend in class and I'm
now teaching with it,
looking forward to have
kids using some of
them at the same time.
upper secondary EFL
I’m trying to integrate all
things technological in Italian
teaching if only to try and
motivate the middle
schoolers of X. Last year we
started using class sets of
iPads with the pupils and we
see that they like activities
on screen much better (even
if it’s the same as on paper!)
lower secondary Italian

27. I just completed your
survey, &, to be honest, I
was quite reluctant sharing
some of my teaching
materials. I guess I don’t
feel completely confident
about it, especially if I have
to send it to you. Yet you
have always been kind &…
non-judgmental about any
of my work, so here it is!
I was inspired by an existing
chapter made by a colleague
found on the Internet, but I
adapted almost everything
(maybe because I didn’t feel
comfortable teaching
something I didn’t come up
with)! This is not my favorite
chapter, nor my students’,
but it worked as a charm, &
it’s the most organized &
digital sequence
lower secondary EFL, 1st year

28. conclusions & next steps
• CALL teacher education can support pedagogical transformation (TBLT) through
open practices, particularly in structured funded projects
• challenges include
• understanding and implementing effective pedagogical and technological
choices (gratuitous interactivity, artificial pretexts for tasks, preference for
traditional pedagogical exercises)
• reluctance to share resources beyond local communities of practice
• analysis of questionnaire data to compare project, workshop and semester
course participants
• new focus on university teaching: EU project SHOUT4HE
SHaring Open practices Using Technology for Higher Education:
https://www.shout4he.eu/

29. Adopting open practices in schools: a
CALL teacher education study
• Shona Whyte
• @whyshona
• shonawhyte.wordpress.com
• wp.me/p28EmH-1c4