The world is not flat, so why are our textbooks?

Digital transformations for the real-world language classroom

Amy Rossomondo (arossomo@ku.edu)

Gillian Lord (glord@ufl.edu)

Please connect to the internet and open a web browser.

What do you think?

We’re going to ask you some questions using an online polling program.

1. Open any web browser.

2. Go to

http://pollev.com/gillianlord055

The traditional language text

• Instructors rely on textbooks to determine curricula (Byrnes, 1998; Lord, 2014; Richards, n.d.; Wiggins & McTighe (1998, 2008)

• Language textbooks generally follow a “coverage model” (Chaffee, 1992)

• Publishing houses and instructors tacitly endorse the grammar-coverage approach, which ends up excluding meaningful contexts (Allen & Paesani, 2010)

Current approaches to language teaching[as determined by leading textbooks]

• Focused on skills development (often) with emphasis on oral/aural modalities

• Reading/writing seen as separate skills independent of audience

• Content is mostly self-referential; often driven by transactional concerns or "practical" language use

• Culture is often conceptualized as a static 5th skill, treated separately and often incidentally

BUT increasing criticisms of this approach – Meyer’s (2009) assertion:

“ideas and concepts should anchor students’ intellectual and linguistic trajectories in the college-level foreign language curriculum at all levels of instruction,” despite the inherent challenge in developing “students’ thinking abilities at their intellectual levels while developing their linguistic skills in the target language, which are at a much lower level” (p. 86)

– And others, including: Allen & Paesani, 2010; Blythe & Davis, 2007; Brager & Rice, 2000; Lord & Isabelli, 2014; Rossomondo, 2012

All this points to the need fora new approach to language

teaching and learning materials

1) Transformed Approach

• Ability to “operate between languages and cultures”

• Textual (written and oral) resources serve as the basis for language and cultural exploration

• Focus of the text-driven content gradually shifts from inward- to outward-looking themes

• Integrated and intentional approach to cultural exploration emphasizes identifying multiple perspectives

• Culture as fluid, context-bound, and mediated through language use

• Situate the textual within a communicative framework

• Emphasis on developing skills and strategies

Variety of texts serve as models

• fdsafdsa

Evolution towards authentic texts by the end

2) Emphasis on outcomes

• Clearly articulated unit-level goals

• Interface emphasizes mastery-based learning and assessment

• Focus on student outcomes

• Tenets of BACKWARD DESIGN

3) Visible learning

• Carefully sequenced modules to facilitate the acquisition of a broad range of language, communicative and content learning outcomes

• Flexible enough to be used in a variety instructional settings / sequences

• Summative portfolio activity for each unit: application of

unit’s linguistic, communicative, cultural and content-related

learning to the realization of a meaningful task

• Portfolios offer formative and summative assessment

opportunities that are critical for closing the assessment loop

ENCHÚFATE:

Student films selfie-video as she walks

around campus talking about her

favorite places and what she does there

Sample structure: Module 4

ENCHUFADOS:

Post a video or photo of your favorite

spot(s) on campus (or other location) and

briefly describe

Vocabulary:

Campus and housing; adjectives;

me/te gusta + infinitive

Grammar:

Present tense AR verbs; the verb

haber in contrast with ser/estar

Strategies:

Using nonverbal cues to aid comprehension; Pronouncing vowels a,

e, o; incorporating nonverbal cues

Culture:

University life in the Spanish-

speaking world

4 macro-portafolios

4) Components

• No artificial division between presenting, practicing, using and assessing language.

• Adaptive learning paths.

• Student exploration is as important as instructor-led learning paths.

• Practice is meaningful, not busy-work!

Interactive out-of-class instruction

Paired and communicative tasks for in-class meetings

5) Digital interface

• Online, native-digital

• Mobile adaptive

• Suitable for all class delivery modes– Face-to-face | Hybrid |Online

• Accommodate instructor preferences

Discussion

• Do you agree that the time has come for a new approach to the ‘textbook’?

• Do you believe that digital programs should be the future of language learning?

• Do you think you could implement a text, like the one described here, in your language classes?

– Why or why not?

– What would you want to see that we didn’t address?

• Other thoughts or reactions to share?

Thank you. Allen, Heather Willis, and Kate Paesani. (2010). “Exploring the Feasibility of a Pedagogy of Multiliteracies in Introductory Foreign Language Courses.” L2 Journal 2.1. Print.Blyth, Carl S., and James N. Davis. (2013). “Using Formative Evaluation in the Development of Learner-Centered Materials.” CALICO Journal 25.1: 48-68. Print.Bragger, J. D., & Rice, D. B. (2000). “FL Materials: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.” Agents of change in a changing age. Ed. Frank. W. Medley & Robert M. Terry. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Print.Byrnes, Heidi. (1998). “Constructing Curricula In collegiate Foreign Language Departments.” Learning foreign and second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship. Ed. Heidi Byrnes. New York: The Modern Language Association of America. 262-295. Print. Chaffee, John. (1992). “Teaching Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum.” New Directions for Community Colleges 77: 25-35.Print.Lord, Gillian. (2014). Language Program Direction: Theory and Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Print.Lord, Gillian, and Christina Isabelli-García. (2014) “Program Articulation and Management.” The RoutledgeHandbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics. Ed. Manel Lacorte. Print.Meyer, Carol. (2009). “The Role of Thinking in the College Language Classroom.” ADFL Bulletin, 41.1: 86-93. Print.Modern Language Association. (2007). “Foreign Languages and Higher Education: New Structures for a Changed World: MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages.” Profession. 234-245.Print.Richards, Jack C. (2001). “The Role of Textbooks in a Language Program.” Guidelines 23.2: 12-16. Web.Rossomondo, Amy. (2012). “Integrating Foundational Language and Content Study Through New Approaches to Hybrid Learning And Teaching.” Hybrid Language Teaching and Learning: Exploring Theoretical, Pedagogical and Curricular Issues, Heinle Cengage, Boston 219-238. Print.Wiggins, Grant and Jay McTighe. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Print.

• http://www.slideshare.net/glord/the-world-is-not-flat-rossomondo-lord-actfl2015