INTERACTION WITH TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM

1
INTERACTION WITH TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM

• IATEFL 2009
• DIXIE SANTANA
• UNIVERSIDAD PANAMERICANA
• 1 APRIL, 2009
• jsantana_at_up.edu.mx

2
Overview

• Background
• Objectives and research questions
• Theoretical framework
• Design
• Method
• Preliminary findings

3
Background

• Mismatch between learning and teaching?
• New generations learn in a different way?
• Is technology the answer?

4
Objective

• Design a study where students are working
  collaboratively with ICTs to create their own
  learning materials.
• Study the interactions among the students who
  work collaboratively with ICTs.
• Study the impact of collaborative work mediated
  by ICTs on learning.

5
Research questions

• How can a community form among students who work
  collaboratively using ICTs?
• What factors influence the creation of a
  community?
• What impact does the creation of a community have
  on their learning?

6
Sociocultural theory

• Sociocultural theory emphasizes social
  interaction as a means for knowledge building
  (Ellis, 1999)
• learning takes place best in joint productive
  activity (Tharp, et. al, 2000, p. 21)

7
Communities of learners

• According to Milton Cox (2003), a learning
  community is typically comprised of a small
• group of individuals who come together around
  a common interest and topic.
• The main objective of a community is active and
  consequential learning.

8
Knowledge building

• " Knowledge building may be defined as the
  production and continual improvement of ideas of
  value to a community, through means that increase
  the likelihood that what the community
  accomplishes will be greater than the sum of
  individual contributions " (Scardamalia
  Bereiter, 2003).

9
Information and communication technologies

• With the appropriate use of technology, learning
  can be made more active, social, and learner
  centeredbut the uses of IT are driven by
  pedagogy, not technology
• (Oblinger Oblinger, 2005).
• Members of the net generation are early adopters
  and avid users of new technology, but research
  has highlighted that they want more than
  technology as a method to help them to learn
  (Sandars, 2006).

10
Design

• University students
• TOEIC preparation course
• 76 hours of instruction
• Low motivation
• Easy access to computers/ strong computer skills
• Student-created language learning materials

11
Phase 1 (Jan-May, 2008)

• Two teachers
• Two groups
• Each group divided into three teams
• Free project
• Any form of technology
• Any kind of learning materials
• Result
• Confusion
• Frustration
• Drop outs

12
Phase 2 (June-July, 2008)

• Two teachers
• Two groups, Group 1 (AM) divided into 2 teams,
  Group 2 (PM) divided into 3 teams.
• Students asked to work on vocabulary
• Students given a choice of technologies
• Mobile technology PDAs, cell phones
• Social pages Facebook, Myspace
• Chats or forums
• Wikis or blogs
• Youtube or other media

13
Phase 2 (cont.)

• Both AM teams opted for wikis
• One of the PM teams produced a blog the other
  two didnt produce anything tangible.

14
Phase 3 (Aug-Nov, 2008)

• One teacher
• One group divided into two teams
• Students asked to work on vocabulary
• Students given a choice of technologies
• Mobile technology PDAs, cell phones
• Social pages Facebook, Myspace
• Chats or forums
• Wikis or blogs
• Youtube or other media

15
Phase 3 (Cont.)

• Group 1 produced a blog
• Group 2 produced a PowerPoint presentation

16
Method

• Interaction analysis
• Community building is a process that must be
  observed in the interactions among the members.
• Community building is a dialogic process- a
  community is created in the negotiations among
  the members.
• Qualitative Quantitative

17
Phase 2
18
Phase 2 (cont.)
19
Preliminary Findings

• Students more focused on producing materials than
  on building community.
• More guidance is needed.
• Community is possible, but its not automatic.
• Technology should support the community.
• Students need to buy into the project.

20
Some references

• Cox, M. (2004) Building faculty learning
  communities. San Francisco Jossey-Bass.
• Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language
  through interaction. Philadephia John Benjamins
  Publishing Company.
• McNeely, B. (2005). Using technology as a
  learning tool, not just the cool new thing. In D.
  . Oblinger, Educating the NET Generation.
  Washington, DC EDUCAUSE.
• Oblinger, D., Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or
  IT? In D. . Oblinger, Educating the NET
  Generation. Washington, DC EDUCAUSE.
• Sandars, J. (2006). The "net generation" a
  challenge for work-based leanring. Work Based
  Learning in Primary Care , 215-222.
• Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge
  Building. In Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd
  Edition (pp. 1370-1373). New York Macmillan
  Reference.
• Tharp, et al (2000) Teaching transformed.
  Boulder, CO. Westview Press.

21
Wiki
22
Wiki (2)
23
Blogs
24
The Net Generation

• They all use computers in their class work and in
  their hobbies.
• They use the latest in technology, whether cell
  phones, computers, PDAs, MP3 players, or digital
  cameras.
• They expect things to work properly and work
  fast.

25
The Net Generation

• They get bored if not challenged properly, but
  when challenged, they excel in creative and
  innovative ways.
• They learn by doing, not by reading the
  instruction manual or listening to lectures
• McNeely, 2005