iPads and tables are taking over the classrooms in many school systems around the country (see links below). A lot of the media-hype stresses the idea of "paperless classrooms." This will obviously affect language learning due to classes demanding the use of technology over what would be called 'traditional' (paper-full) classrooms. View the links below to inform and guide your thoughts.
- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/education/05tablets.html?_r=1
- http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/01/could_school_boards_move_to_ip.html#cmpid=v2mode_be_smoref_digg
This post will discuss both criticism and raves on CALL thru studies conducted by Ferit Kilickaya, and illicit possible ways to prevent these problem from cropping up in classrooms as they move to computer (tablet) environments.
In a paper by "The Effect of Computer-Assisted Language Learning on Learners' Achievement on The TOEFL Exam," Ferit Kilickaya, Ph.D studied two groups who were being taught the same material (English); one thru 'traditional' and the other thru CALL. This study extend from the start of the EFL course all the way up until they took the TOEFL exam -- again one group with paper, and the other using computers. She found the following after the exam: (this is not the order presented in her paper).
For the structure section of the TOEFL:
- No significant score differences for multiple choice sections tests.
For the reading section:
- Traditional (Control) outperformed CALL
- Possible Reasons:
- In class: students were distracted when reading due to it being on the screen. So they avoided reading, so this lowered the score. (this was mentioned in section 5.3.2, Implications for Teaching)
- Not possible to take notes, underline the important points.
- Not seeing a reading passages as a whole
- Bored with scrolling up and down
- Not being used to reading passages or text on the screen.
For the listening:
- CALL outperformed Control (traditional)
- Generally, students reported that in a traditional course, listening was ignored.
Overall the CALL group reported a generally good experience, stating that they "spen[t] more time on the sections they are having difficulty in" and enjoyed "getting immediate feedback." (Kilickaya 2005) (editing mine).
Since everyone knows what a 'traditional' class is, she did not include responses from her traditional students which would indicate how they felt about their experience in-order to contrast it with CALL. (They could not have contrasted with CALL as they potentially never took a CALL class.)
Question:
All of these criticism and critiques lead to the following questions: In light of the complaints regarding the reading portion, is it yet appropriate to be going to a completely "paperless" classroom? And what can be done to challenge the points made regarding the CALL group’s significant difference in score in the reading section?
Kilickaya, F. (2005). The Effect of Computer-Assisted Language Learning on Learners' Achievement on The TOEFL Exam.
It's always interesting to hear criticisms of something that seems to be working quite well in schools. It makes me wonder how effectively the instructor was implementing CALL into the classroom to prepare for the TOEFL exam. We all know that teachers use technology in ineffective ways. Is it possible that that was the case? Definitely. I'm curious about this article and I'm looking forward to spending some time to read it. You said the study was from the beginning of the course to the end. How long was that exactly? There are just so many other factors involved in how well students perform on exams, that I think it's important to look at more research to really formulate an opinion.
ReplyDeleteDo I think it is appropriate to go to a completely "paperless" classroom? Well, that depends. What works for some schools, might not work for all schools. When I was reading through the NY Times article, there was a criticism that mentioned there will always be hardcore issues with teaching and learning. I agree, but I don't necessarily think it's a waste of money to implement the iPads. It it possible to even go completely paperless? Not in today's PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Some serious changes need to be made before schools can embrace this model. Also, we know they are definitely more engaging, but is that engagement really helping them learn more, especially at the higher levels of thinking? They can definitely teach 21st century skills, which are VERY important. If the iPads are implemented in a school like this, http://www.apple.com/education/profiles/science-leadership-academy/#video-sla, then I could definitely see them improving overall learning and achievement.
You bring up some good questions @Mary, and I agree that overall the answer to this is "that depends".
ReplyDeleteLike it or not, it ultimately depends on cost.
These wonderful additions come with a price tag of $750 per device ...how they can be justified in light of budget cuts? After teaching in underfunded districts (where even student textbooks were at a shortage), I'm taken back by the luxury of this item and how difficult it's going to be for other teachers to have basic supplies, let alone access to this item.
In the big scheme of things, any administrator will tell you that that cost is what drives every decision. Additionally, if there are studies which indicate that overall scores may not be much of an improvement, how can you justify that spending? Studies will ultimately need to demonstrate that a paper-free classroom has a clear cost savings (even if students damage equipment and other service needs are taken into account).
Adding to this delimma, we realize that technology has many drawbacks, especially when learning can take a backseat to the games and other distracting features of apps. Obviously we want our children to have the skills in technology, but do these things create more motivated learners? And more importantly, can the technology be supported in low economic communities and set up to improve opportunities for these learners?
Underpinning all of this is that concern for teacher education to make this technology useful if indeed we see the cost justification.
...So, yes it all depends.
It sounds like the article's author, Dr. Kilickaya feels that computers could be used for TOEFL classes for the structure and listening sections but maybe not for the reading section. That makes sense to me. I find it difficult to read very much on line. My eyes get tired, I get distracted, or I just get tired of scrolling. Whenever possible I print out things I need to read and absorb. With the high cost of these devices taken into consideration and that they may not be optimal for reading, maybe we do need to slow down before going paperless and especially in ESL classrooms. Also using both a traditional medium for some parts of the class but incorporating computer technology as well might be welcome from the standpoint of variety. Students then might not tire of one or the other as quickly.
ReplyDeleteBalancing costs have always been an issue in public schools. I think technology is one factor that is weighed against many. In my experience however and in most of the research I have read during the course of my study, technology is a tool, like many others, i.e. copy machines, pencils, dry erase boards, that facilitate learning, but absent good pedagogy or positive classroom environments, are useless. One thing that comes to mind, given the current budget contraversy in education, is class size. If I was a wise administrator, I would rather have an extra teacher than spend 30K in grant money for iPads for a single classroom. Reduced class sizes and greater student-teacher and peer-to-peer interaction outweigh the benefits of any technological application. I will admit, however, that technology can mitigate certain challenges in the right environment, but like Mary said and professor Sauro pointed out, it "depends" on the environment and situation. One of the unique facts about technological fads in the classroom is that, like diet fads, they sometimes due more harm than good. One thing I have seen is that when a teacher requests for funding for a new technology, it then becomes an imperative of the administration to "use the hell out of it", particulary up front. When districts spend money on a project, it sometimes becomes the "flavor of the year" because they want to "pilot" it and test it out to see if it is effective. Sometimes it's a catch 22 though because school push a tech too much in order to "squeeze" every possible benefit out of it to prove that it works rather than integrate a technology slowly overtime and with good pedagogy in mind. Replacing good pedagogy with a fad-solution is not good practice.
ReplyDeleteSo are iPads good for the classroom? Certainly the kids will say so, it's a new toy they can play with to break the monotony of the traditional classroom (which is inherently boring) and will continue to like it until they tire of interacting with a screen all day.
On the positive side, it certainly prepares them for the workforce. I worked as a regional distribution manager for Target at one time and all of us had these little i-motion tablet PCs (the precursor to the iPad) and we interacted with that tiny little screen all day long. But one of the benefits of it was that it portable and we took it everwhere we went, so in some ways, the portability of technology in iPads is useful if teachers are using it to get students out of their desks and moving around with it. (wich, of course, makes it more suseptible to break).
I found the TOEFL test results quite interesting. I think incorporating technology when it can be most effective is essential (such as the in the listening sections), but technology for technology's sake (such as the reading section) can be completely ineffective. As we've said all year, it's important to incorporate CALL in effective ways based on the classroom, but throwing new technology at students and expecting them to perform better is ridiculous. Watching the iPad video made me wonder if the children will truly do better than if they had to carry out a science experiment or figure out a math problem. Critical thinking is critical thinking whether it takes place with a computer or pen and paper.
ReplyDeleteit is really a great idea to incorporate technology in your classrooms,but we need to think about other school which can not afford the I Pat expenses. some school do not have even the normal projects. Regarding my prefererance in using technology,I would love to use it in my classroom because I highly expect that my students will perform very well, and help us to go paperless
ReplyDeleteI thought the results were interesting and highlighted an important point...technology as we know it now, can be benefit our students in certain areas and ways...for example, we saw in increase in the listening score. However, as the reading results pointed out, not all area of language learning will improve through specific technologies. I think therefore that it's important to know the limitations and potential uses of your tools...and use them discerningly..not just for the sake of technology as I believe melanie pointed out above. It also points to the need for additonal research!! Technology moves so fast--research is hard put to keep up. Research can help teachers and districts make more informed decisions in their tech choices.
ReplyDeleteI would say that going completely paperless is not a good idea because a lot of work places around the world are not paperless. School is supposed to be a preparation for the work environment and if the work environment is not paperless then school should not be. As far as CALL is concerned it seems to me that from what I have read most of the people who use CALL use it to supplement syllabi and not to switch them completely to call. I think that this approach is really better. In fact personally I am a social learner, I remember peoples facial expressions during certain lectures and connect it to what they said, so can you do that in a completely CALL environment?? probably not. So I think that CALL is great but maybe half and half at most.
ReplyDeleteI want to get my classroom decked out with ipads for every student and a few of those interactive tables. Going paperless would not be of any worth without all of the newest technology. Smart boards, wireless everything, limitless possibilities. Until then keep paper around and remember there are different types of learners so great teachers use multiple approaches!
ReplyDeleteCompletely paperless will probably never happen! Clearly a paperless option may be beneficial in certain realms (like listening or speaking analysis). Still I don't think reading comprehension should be done on the computer. The screen is hard on the eyes and and like the article noted, there is no option for taking notes or underlining key ideas. Serge makes a good point about most of the technology we're discussing is supplemental to traditional instruction.
ReplyDeleteI GRE the computer and I did not think I did as well as I could have on a paper-based test. Reading on the screen was not natural for me because I had practiced on paper.
As far as the workplace goes, many things are digital, but it seems that a lot of final products need to be on good old paper! I feel fortunate to part of a generation that was taught how to do things "the old fashioned way" and is proficient in NEW technology.
My hesitation with adopting any new technology is primarily, does it actually add anything to the classroom or learning experience. Not until I have evidence that learning is accomplished, I want to avoid introducing yet another distraction to already distracted students.
ReplyDeleteAnother concern I have is time. Finding useful, productive ways of using tech, such as iPads, you really need to invest time in planning and implementing. My current teaching situation just doesn't allow for that.
I know this is easier said than done, but better learner training and exposure to the test on the computer and a better user interface that allows note-taking would have made the reading section a bit more reliable. For example, I'm curious if students were even introduced or exposed to taking the test on a computer. We do the same when we do "normal" test prep why not for tests on computers? Also, I'm not familiar with it but I have heard of reading software on the iPad that allows one to add notes and highlight text which be beneficial for students.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete