iTILT & SmartVET: two EU projects to promote effective interactive whiteboard use in language...

iTILT and SMARTVET: two EU projects to promote effective interactive whiteboard use in language and vocational educationTon Koenraad, Euline Cutrim Schmid & Shona Whyte

introduction

iTILTSmart VET

www.itilt.eu

iTILT

The projectResearch results

www.itilt.eu

www.itilt.eu

Website

The final website contains:

Video clips of IWB classroom episodes

Comprehensive training manual

Training materials in 6 different languages

List of publications on IWB in language

education

Links to helpful websites

List of criteria for materials design

www.itilt.eu

www.itilt.eu

www.itilt.eu

DurationDuration

www.itilt.eu

www.itilt.eu

IWB Training

www.itilt.eu

The iTILT Training Manual

introduction to IWBs

general tips on how to make the best use of interactive whiteboards

criteria for the design and evaluation of IWB-based language teaching materials

tips for the implementation and copyright issues of IWB based material

examples of activities for teaching speaking, listening, writing and reading with an IWB, plus grammar and vocabulary

www.itilt.eu

Electronic Flipcharts

www.itilt.eu

Data Collection

www.itilt.eu

Website – Practice Reports

www.itilt.eu

WebsiteWebsite

www.itilt.eu

www.itilt.eu

www.itilt.eu

Practice Reports

www.itilt.eu

iTILT

Research findings

interactive technologies, interactive whiteboard

•transformative potential of technologies

•integration into existing teaching practice

Avvisati et al., 2013; Lee, 2013

Pre-project studies

• IWB in state school settings (France, Germany)

• IWB use dependent on level of teacher development

•Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012

• IWB for VC in primary EFL

• little unplanned, independent interaction

•Whyte, 2011

critics of the IWB have pointed out that one of its drawbacks is the fact that it can be easily assimilated into teachers’ traditional pedagogical practice, thus leading to patterns of technology use that simply replicate previous practice

changes in pedagogical practice cannot be imposed hegemonically from above, via isolated training sessions and in the absence of ongoing support in the classroom

[In a collaborative action research] framework, teachers are supported by researchers in a process of structured reflection involving data collection and analysis with the goals of better understanding teaching and learning in their classrooms and applying this knowledge to improve teaching efficacy and student learningCutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012

Whyte, Cutrim Schmid, van Hazebrouck, & Oberhofer, in 2013

Whyte, Cutrim Schmid, van Hazebrouck Thompson & Oberhofer (2013)

project data

7 countries

6 languages

website with video examples of IWB-supported classroom practice with additional materials

DutchEnglishFrenchSpanishTurkishWelsh

BelgiumFranceGermanyNetherlandsSpainTurkeyUK

primarysecondaryuniversityvocational

4 sectors

44 teachers, 81 films, 267 clips

Teacher development as IWB user Teacher development as IWB user (Beauchamp, 2004)(Beauchamp, 2004)

beginner

IWB as black/whiteboard substitute, only teacher uses IWB

only native software

apprentice

planned learner manipulation of objects (drag and drop)

some other software

initiateplanned learner use of more IWB tools

use of more programmes (internet)

advanced

spontaneous learner use of IWB features and peripherals (slates)

use of audio and video files

ICT/IWB self-efficacy: questionnaire data

how much can you do to exploit ICT for teaching?

how much can you do to exploit the IWB for language teaching?

how confident do you feel with various IWB tools and features?

how much do you believe the IWB can help in language teaching?

teachers showed high self-efficacy perceptions for ICT, lower confidence with IWB tools, but encouraged learners to use the IWBHillier, Beauchamp, Whyte (2013)

primary teachers used narrow range of basic tools for circumscribed goals, irrespective of IWB experience Whyte, Beauchamp, Hillier (2012)

wide variety of IWB use Whyte et al (2013)

French EFL teachers showed differential development readiness based on IWB self-efficacy and engagement Whyte & Alexander (2013)

further research: learner interaction

overview of European language teachers’ use of IWB

interactivity and L2 interaction at IWB video communication for English as a Lingua

Franca (young learners France & Germany)

IWB use for language interaction IWB use for language interaction (Whyte & Cutrim Schmid, in preparation)(Whyte & Cutrim Schmid, in preparation)

planning/control context task

drillpre-planned language elements

limited attempt to contextualise language

production & repetition with teacher feedback on form

display

some learner choice in language to be produced

limited attempt to contextualise language

activity largely controlled by teacher

simulationgreater space for learner choice

role-play: pretend context

space for learner choice in shaping activity

communication

spontaneous language production

genuine exchange of participants’ own reactions

learner-centred, meaning-focused activity

Smart VET

The projectResults

www.itilt.eu

Supporting Continuous Professional Development of VET teachers in the use of Interactive Whiteboards

EU-Project Leonardo programme 2011-2013

Rationale

(Kennewell, 2006; Higgins et al., 2007; Koenraad, 2008; Thomas & Cutrim Schmid, 2010)

Limited uptake in specific subject areas

and educational sectors

Teacher skills key in realising added value

IWB underused in Irish VET sector

Aims

Needs Analysis

IWB train-the-trainers programme + materials

CPD model for Irish VET sector

CoP

Project Phases

Needs Analysis

Training Champions

Workshops / Teacher content

development

CoP

Needs Analysis: Recommendations• Modules basic IWB functionalities + for ordering,

structuring, comparing etc.

• Design materials as modular as possible

• Demo IWB potential for a variety of disciplines

• Include IWB page navigation, assessing, adapting and designing materials

• (revision of) general pedagogical topics like ‘active learning’ and general materials design principles.

• Foster added value discussion

Training

Training ActivitiesTraining Materials

Training ActivitiesTraining Materials

Results at www.smartvet.eu

Training ActivitiesTraining Materials

Training ActivitiesTraining Materials

Conclusion

IWB in language teaching and learning

www.itilt.eu

www.itilt.eu

Alexander, J. (2013). The IWB in EFL, the IWB for EFL: using the IWB to teach EFL in French educational settings. (Unpublished master's thesis). Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France.Avvisati, F., Hennessey, S., Kozma, R., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013), “Review of the Italian Strategy for Digital Schools”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 90, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k487ntdbr44-enBeauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 327-348.Cutrim Schmid, E. (2010). Developing competencies for using the interactive whiteboard to implement communicative language teaching in the English as a Foreign Language classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 159–172.Cutrim Schmid, E. & Whyte, S. (2012). Interactive Whiteboards in School Settings: Teacher Responses to Socio-constructivist Hegemonies.  Language Learning and Technology 16 (2), 65-86.Hillier, E., Beauchamp, G., & Whyte, S. (2013). A study of self-efficacy in the use of interactive whiteboards across educational settings: a European perspective from the iTILT project. Educational Futures, 5 (2) http://www.educationstudies.org.uk/materials/emily_hillier_besav3.pdfLee, M. (2013), "Where to After the Digital Education Revolution?", Education Technology Solutions. Educational Technology Solutions, http://educationtechnologysolutions.com.au/2013/05/13/where-to-after-the-digital-education-revolution/

www.itilt.eu

Whyte, S. (2013). Interaction and interactivity in technology-rich second language classrooms: the iTILT project in France. WorldCALL, 11-13 July, 2013. Whyte, S. (2011). Learning to teach with videoconferencing in primary foreign language classrooms. ReCALL 23(3): 271–293. Whyte, S., & Alexander, J. (2013). Learning to Use Interactive Technologies for Language Teaching: Video Diaries for Teacher Support in the iTILT Project. Atelier didactique SAES, Dijon, France,18 May.Whyte, S., Beauchamp, G., & Hillier, E. (2012). Perceptions of the IWB for second language teaching and learning: the iTILT project. In L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL: Using, Learning, Knowing, EUROCALL Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 22-25 August 2012, Proceedings (pp. 320-6). © Research-publishing.net Dublin 2012. Whyte, S., Cutrim Schmid, E., & van Hazebrouck, S. (2011). Designing IWB Resources for Language Teaching: the iTILT Project. International Conference on ICT for Language Learning, 4th Edition. Simonelli Editore.Whyte, S., Cutrim Schmid, E., van Hazebrouck Thompson, S., & Oberhofer, M. (2013). Open educational resources for CALL teacher education: the iTILT interactive whiteboard project.  Computer Assisted Language Learning.