language labs in england

13
Language Labs in England Summarised findings Caroline Stockman 2015

Upload: caroline-stockman

Post on 12-Dec-2015

12 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Language Labs in EnglandStockman, C. (2015) Language Labs in England: Summarised Findings.This document summarises the findings of a Ph.D. study. It aims to represent the data and conclusions in a very practical (and brief) way without the preceding theoretical and methodological reflections, which are central to the academic effort. The purpose of this open document is to share some of the data and implications with educators and industry makers.The specific setting for the empirical research was secondary schools and colleges in England.When this study took place (Oct. 2011 - June 2015), a series of high-impact changes were implemented by then Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove. These included fast-paced academy conversions, budget cuts, much debated exam reforms, and the introduction of performance-related pay.The case study of this Ph.D. was language labs. In view of the technology, the participant group naturally wasMFL teachers (Modern Foreign Language teachers). The theoretical background of this study is interdisciplinary. It revisits technology acceptance studies froma new perspective offered by Cultural Studies theory. This explains the original title of this work, ‘A Cultural Studies Contribution to Technology Acceptance in Education’.Language labs boomed in the early 1970’s with the advances of the tape recorder, which supposedly matched prevailing beliefs in the pedagogical merits of behaviourist learning. Because they have been around for decades now, many people have an intuitive understanding of ‘a language lab’, or a mental image of the one they were exposed to at some point in time.However, technology has evolved since then, blurring the lines of a clear definition in both technical aswell as pedagogical terms. Today, labs are still integrated in many schools around the UK, and this is no mean feat as these rooms can take a rather significant portion of the school budgets initially and then require plenty of ongoing resource investment after installation: maintenance staff, insurance, hardware replacements, teacher training, software updates,... Despite all the technological potential, language lab use is still described as ‘marginal at best’ (Vanderplank, 2010). As budget cuts and performance pressures mount simultaneously, it is important to understand the context of their use to ensure a good investment, and good education. Teacher perspectives onusing the lab (or not) is one aspect of that understanding.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Language Labs in England

Language Labs in England

Summarised findings

Caroline Stockman

2015

Page 2: Language Labs in England

Language Labs in England

Summarised Findings

2015

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Please visit the Creative Commons website for more information. Icons in this document by

Freepik from flaticon.com, CC Attribution.

Page 3: Language Labs in England

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. A brief history 2

3. Labs today 4

3.1 What is a Lab 4

3.2 What’s in a Lab 4

3.3 What you do in a Lab 6

4. Views on Labs 7

5. Other Technologies in MFL 8

5.1 Types and Tools 8

5.2 What’s useful 9

6. Implications 9

6.1 For education 9

6.2 For industry 10

Page 4: Language Labs in England

1 Introduction

This document summarises the findings of a Ph.D. study. It aims to represent the data and conclusions in a very practical (and brief) way without the preceding theoretical and methodological reflections, which are central to the academic effort. The purpose of this open document is to share some of the data and impli-cations with educators and industry makers.

The case study of this Ph.D. was language labs. Academic literature on language labs peaked between 1974 and 1979, after which research interests steadily dwindled. Though that hype seems to have passed, schools still spend significant amounts of their budget on a lab. In a time of budget cuts and performance pressures, it is vitally important to get the most out of such an investment.

The specific setting for the empirical research was secondary schools and colleges in England. When this study took place (Oct. 2011 - June 2015), a series of high-impact changes were implemented by then Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove. These included fast-paced academy conversions, budget cuts, much debated exam reforms, and the introduction of performance-related pay. This provided an interesting, and to the author also personal, context.

In view of the technology, the participant group naturally was MFL teachers (Modern Foreign Language teachers). The perspective of students or other stakeholders was not investigated in this study. Though their views would undoubtedly be interesting as well, the decision to focus on teachers was both academically motivated as well as personal. My personal interests originate in my own background as professionally trained language teacher, and also as teacher trainer, in the use of language labs.

The methodological background of this study is the increasingly popular paradigm of mixed-methods research. Research has typically divided in two approaches: quantitative (doing surveys, statistical analysis, measuring,...) or qualitative (in-depth observations, interviews, narratives or discourse analysis, ...). ‘Mixing methods’ is now treated as a third paradigm. For the Ph.D., the research proceeded as follows. Firstly, in-depth interviews were held with teachers from three different schools. These schools were selected in view of ‘maximum variation sampling’, which means selecting a participant group which are so different from each other that they will adequately represent a spectrum of contexts or people. Thematic analysis through coding proceeded, and the insights from this analysis were processed into a questionnaire. This was sent out directly to teachers in schools across England. In total, 435 completed questionnaires were used for the statistical analysis. The results were discussed with a focus group of six people relevant to the choice of setting and technology, yet with very different individual backgrounds.

The theoretical background of this study is interdisciplinary. It revisits technology acceptance studies from a new perspective offered by Cultural Studies theory. This explains the original title of this work, ‘A Cultural Studies Contribution to Technology Acceptance in Education’ - supervised by Prof. Dr. Fred Truyen and Prof. Dr. Piet Desmet. I owe them my thanks for guiding this endeavour to a successful finish, and also the other members of the Ph.D. viva; Prof. Dr. Jan Baetens, Prof. Dr. Lieven Demarez, and Dr. Christine Sinclair.

For more information, training or consultancy services, please contact the author via LinkedIn or email: [email protected]

1

Page 5: Language Labs in England

2 A brief history

Language labs boomed in the early 1970’s with the advances of the tape recorder, which supposedly matched prevailing beliefs in the pedagogical merits of behaviourist learning (Davies, 2005:4). Because they have been around for decades now, many people have an intuitive understanding of ‘a language lab’, or a mental image of the one they were exposed to at some point in time.

However, technology has evolved since then, blurring the lines of a clear definition in both technical as well as pedagogical terms.

Today, labs are mostly digital in the UK (though the occasional set-up with tape recorders can still be found). In hardware terms, desktop computers have taken their place in the lab, with mobile devices also an option. Students may be working on devices fixed in a room, handed to them from laptop trolleys, or in a personal ‘Bring Your Own Device’ set-up. The lab’s purpose is still very similar to the original idea, with speaking, listening and recording speech at its core functionality. However, there is now also the possibility of video streaming and recording, text editing, online access, greater storage options, group chat, subtitling, ...

After their peak popularity, labs seem to fall out of favour because of reliability issues and associations with a newly outdated model of behaviourism (Davies, 2005:4). Yet not everyone would agree that they could not fit constructivist learning (McDonough, 2001). Digital technology has indeed opened doors to more modern pedagogy, creativity, new levels of interaction, more user-friendly controls and self-access.

Next to these technical developments and related educational options, other distinctions can be made in the installation of a lab. For example, some can be software-only, where computers connect via a standard network cable. Alternatively, they can be set up with, for example, additional graphics cards to enhance audio and video quality.

A language lab in 1975 (Source: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0)

2

Page 6: Language Labs in England

In other words, the technological fluidity allows for a variety of practical arrangements both in the practicalities of the installation as in its educational use, which certainly makes a clear-cut definition of a language lab less straightforward.

The author was extremely aware of potential biases occuring with regards to a specific lab set-up, a provider, or a software. Various mechanisms were built in the research to oppose this. Most importantly, the participants were at all times encouraged to convey their own sense of “a lab”. They come from different regions in England, types of schools, personal backgrounds,... Also, the labs they use are not limited to one software or one provider. Therefore, the results are representative for a broader landscape.

Today, labs are still integrated in many schools around the UK, and this is no mean feat as these rooms can take a rather significant portion of the school budgets initially and then require plenty of ongoing resource investment after installation: maintenance staff, insurance, hardware replacements, teacher training, software updates,... Despite all the technological potential, language lab use is still described as ‘marginal at best’ (Vander-plank, 2010). As budget cuts and performance pressures mount simultaneously, it is important to under-stand the context of their use to ensure a good investment, and good education. Teacher perspectives on using the lab (or not) is one aspect of that understanding.

Further reading

Davies, G., P. Bangs, R. Frisby & E. Walton (2005) Setting up effective digital language laboratories and multimedia ICT suites for MFL, via www.languages-ict.org.uk.

McDonough, S. (2001) “Way behond drill and practice: Foreign language lab activities in support of constructivist learning” International Journal of Instructional Media 28:1, pp. 75-82.

Vanderplank, R. (2010) “Déjà vu? A decade of research on language laboratories, television and video in language learning.” Language Teaching 43:1, pp.1-37.

A language lab in 2012 (Source: By Author, CC BY-NC 4.0)

3

Page 7: Language Labs in England

3 Labs today

“We had a language lab, but it was really unreliable and eventually had it replaced by a computer room. Although we have lost some of the features of a real language lab - such as the possibility of interaction, sending files to the screens etc, it does now work!” (John, teacher of Spanish in a South West state school).

John’s situation is not one-of-a-kind. Many teachers today face the decision to stick with the lab or not (which was the case for 68% of participants). Many schools indeed have lost their lab already. Unreliability issues are at the top of reasons for discontinued use. Teachers would rather have something ‘less fancy’ which works, then unreliable state-of-the-art ICT.

Regardless of lab removal decisions, a definition of ‘a real lab’ comes forward here. A regular computer classroom, (even) with technology specific for language learning, is not considered a real language lab. Only 22% of teachers who have worked in a lab, or still do, would say that this was a regular computer room used as a language lab. Yet 44% would say that the lab they used was also used as a regular computer room, or even a regular classroom.

In other words, about half the time when a lab is installed in a school, it will continue to be used as a dedicated room. Rarely will teachers believe that they are teaching in a language lab, when it is ‘only’ a computer room with specific software or hardware of language learning.

Yet teachers say you can be in the lab, but not using the lab. This implies a disconnect between the room designated as ‘the lab’, which has certain material components in it, and certain functionalities in relation to these components. These two things are discussed further below.

Desktop computers and headsets, with microphones, are always involved.In 90% of cases, both students and teachers use the devices which are fixed in the room. In only a small number of cases, laptops and tablet devices can be used alongside.

The room also tends to be equipped with an interactive whiteboard (60%) and/or a regular whiteboard (49%), and a computer screen projector (56%). Audio players and recording devices are (much) more com-mon than their equivalents for video playing or recording.

What is a lab?

What’s in a lab?

Regular computer rooms

are not labs, but labs can be used as regular

computer rooms.

4

Page 8: Language Labs in England

Schools with language labs tend to have only one, though a little over 20% have two or more. Around 60% of the time, teachers say the lab is used by the whole department. Most of the teachers claim to use the lab frequently, which in their view means not daily, but a few times a week. Only one teacher said she does use the lab every lesson, and it appears she is also timetabled in the lab every lesson.

About half the teachers are timetabled in the room, and the other half books the lab in advance. The num-ber of times they are timetabled mostly varies from a few times a month to a few times a week.

Being in the lab doesn’t necessarily mean using the functionalities of the software of the lab; students may be browsing independently, or even performing activities unrelated to the ICT in the room. On the next page, a list of common uses for the lab are detailed further.

In about half the cases, students are allowed to used the lab outside of normal lesson time. In this case, a minority of labs (18%) will have an open-door policy all day long, or otherwise specified access on different times during school hours - varying equally from once a day to multiple times a day.

As labs still used fixed devices more often than not, lay-out is important. With regards to classroom lay-out, the student’s positions are most often organised in rows throughout the room, or rows lined along the walls. Much fewer cases indicated they use an island lay-out, or alternatives such as rows along the walls with another island or table in the middle which could stimulate blended learning or carrousel activities. This paints a picture of a fairly traditional language lab, such as pictured on the previous pages.

Yet despite the fairly traditional lay-out, about a third of language labs present in schools have been installed in the last five years. Another third in the last ten years. The remainder pre-date this decade.

About half the labs are open to students for

independent use.

Most labs are organised in rows throughout the room, or rows along the walls.

5

Page 9: Language Labs in England

What teachers do What students do

asking students to go to a specific website

accessing language learning websites

walking around to talk to students

listening to (educational) audio files

asking students to listen to specific audio/watch video browsing the web

What teachers also do:

sending a listening file to the students sending a Word document to the students

monitoring the students’ screens

pairing students to talk or work togetherreading a text recording themselves

recording a conversation (audio only) giving a presentationlistening to students via the headsets assessing each other’s workspeaking to the students via the headset writing an essay

listening to a peer’s recordingsharing files with other students

recording a conversation (with video) subtitling

As the table above shows, the most common activity is ‘to ask students to go to a particular website’ (an option which 73% of participants chose). Unsurprisingly, the most common activity for the students is ‘to access language learning websites’. Teachers monitor the students via the headsets less than expected (38%), but they tend to favour walking around the classroom to interact with students (70%). However, teachers do monitor the students’ screens often (55%). This suggests students spend more time on listening and reading in the lab, or browsing, rather than speaking or writing. In this case, it would make sense for teachers to monitor screens rather than listen to the students via the headsets.

Overall, it seems the lab is used more often for receptive skills than productive skills.

In the lab...

#1

#2

#3

6

7 3 %

7 0 %

6 0 %

5 0 %

4 0 %

2 0 %

1 0 %

Page 10: Language Labs in England

4 Views on Labs

Opinions on labs today have been developed from a range of views which originate in the seventies.

There is, on the one hand, the view that “the language laboratory is nothing more than a technological tool” (Mendoza-Harrell, 1976:92). Its meaningfulness or usefulness therefore depends on its actual use. On the other hand, there is the view that “case after case, the language laboratory has not lived up to its promise. It is hard to find empirical evidence that students learn languages any better with this system.” (JR Allen, 1974). This suggests there is something inherently good or bad about the lab, regardless of its use. This kind of empirical evidence is still hard to find, and certainly for the more recently developed sys-tems which have far greater ‘modern classroom’ potential. However, most teachers hold the view that the lab is an asset to the department. The growing threat for their survival is not their perceived intrinsic value, but the great range of other tools which perform the same functionalities to play authentic speech, record students, discuss in pairs, etc. Often, these tools are low-cost, easily accessible and easy to use - contrary to the lab which is a more com-prehensive system requiring more investment.

Teachers who use the lab feel quite competent in what they do. However, only a quarter have shown colleagues how to do certain things in the lab. Next to this, only 30% would call themselves innovators in the lab (which can be said to be in line with the data on the previous page, showing common uses of the lab).Next to this, 80% would disagree with conducting all communication via the head-sets, and prefers to walk around in the class to talk to students.

In view of the cultural context, two motivators have been found to most influence the use of language labs: time and performance pressures.

‘Spending’ time on technology is a big investment for a teacher, who has a mil-lion things on their to-do list anyway. There is a clear consensus that technolo-gy can be a big waste of time if it doesn’t work, if it takes too long to learn how to use it, or to set it up, and so on. Time really is of the essence in education. Most MFL teachers would say that the lab is not a waste of time if it works well. However, a lack of time, certainly during school hours, is often quoted as the reason for not using it to its full potential.

As for the second motivator, ‘performance’: “Using technology gets a higher observation grade, but using the lab doesn’t as the students are not interacting and are static and it is boring for the observer” (Saskia, French teacher in an East Anglian Sixth form). Saskia is not the only one to think this way. Teachers are very 50-50 on whether observers would like lab lessons, but it is significant that nobody would choose to teach in the lab during an Ofsted inspection visit.

For all MFL teachers, it is important to maintain a personal, human touch to teaching. Technology is great when it supports routine tasks effectively, but it becomes a problem if it gets in the way of a moral or emotional connection between teacher and learner. The emphasis on pastoral care has been noted before for UK education in academic research.

The following factors did not in any way influence views on language labs: gender, age, type of school, employment status, having children at home, language taught, or nationality.

(The government’s school workforce statistics show that 73% of secondaryMFL teachers are female, and of those, 82% are em-ployed fulltime. Of all hours spent on MFL teaching in KS3, 4 and 5, nearly half will be French lessons.)

7

Page 11: Language Labs in England

5 Other Technologies in MFL

MFL teachers generally feel positive towards using technology in their lessons, and 80% even said they couldn’t do without it. Nearly all teachers said they love to try new things, but also express a reluctance to continue trying if it starts ‘wasting time’ in any way (because it doesn’t work, takes too long to set up during a lesson, to learn how to use it,...)

The landscape of technology for MFL teaching and learning is hugely varied, with some emphasis on particular kinds of software and hardware. When asked which kinds of ICT teachers use in their general practice, language learning websites such as linguascope.com always occur at the top of the list. Also, MS Powerpoint is a well-integrated software for nearly all teachers.

Many other options are mentioned; creating ‘a long tail’ of possibility : great variety in smaller groups. For example, of the participating MFL teachers; a VLE such as Frog, Blackboard or Moodle is ‘never’ used by 42%; tools for multimedia creation never by 43.6%; publisher’s platforms such as Kerboodle never by 33.5%,... Yet all the options are ‘almost always’ or ‘always’ used by 11% of teachers (on average). This in-cluded videocameras, mobile MP3 recorders, vocabulary learning tools, exercise generators, websites with multimedia content,... Whatever the tool, a minority will be using it frequently.

In terms of hardware, the projector is ‘always’ used by about 60% of teachers. Yet an approximately equal amount of people never use iPads or tablets, smartphones, or webcams in their classroom.

Tweeting and blogging professionally is never done by over half of the MFL teachers surveyed (respectively 311 and 315 out of 435 participants said they never do). Yet emailing and making power-points is common practice for most. It should, however, be mentioned that there is an active community of MFL teachers on Twitter, called ‘the MFL twitterati’ - their endeavours can go a long way in boosting the use of Twitter.

8

MFL teachers use a great variety of technology in the classroom, but nearly everyone uses Powerpoint, the projector, and the interactive whiteboard.

Language learning websites such as Linguascope.com are also very popular.

Page 12: Language Labs in England

9

Technology in education can be useful for many different reasons. Some things teachers said, in no particular order:

6 Implications

6.1 For education

Throughout the research, the influence of various elements of current UK education policies were very present. This includes empirical evidence for the effects of a culture of observation and accountability through current exam structures, inspection visits and other measures. They create the need for schools, students, and teachers to be constantly achieving high-performing ‘scores’. Of course, this stems from a concern for educational quality, but it has very clear implications on classroom level - which are not always didactically beneficial. For example, if technology is felt to be boring and static to the observer, it might be avoided even though it has clear pedagogical value. The opposite is also true.

Similarly, the culture necessitates great time efficiency. However, the linearity of education and constant pressures create a perceived lack of time. To support adequate use of technology in the classroom, it is vital to allow enough time for teachers to learn how to use it first, so precious time during a lesson might be used more effectively. Secondly, quick ICT support during lessons is vital. Even with successful implementation of these two things, technology remains an added factor of manage-ment for the teacher. Like students, there is an element of unpredictability to computers. In addition, the machines are part of a vast and complex school network. Considering this, the precise organisation of a school day may not actually be helpful to make the best use of technology.

In terms of language labs, they are still regarded and organised as a somewhat traditional technology. However, technological advances in labs have created far greater potential. If the investment in a lab is made, it is worth reflecting on the innovative possibilities of the software, and adjust the installation, lay-out and further organisation for its use accordingly. It would be incorrect to associate language labs with a purely behaviourist model of teaching.

Usefulness is...

“Makes lessons more creative”

“Makes it more relevant to the students”

“Improves their results”

“Saves time”

“Makes it more fun”

“Just generally motivates them more”

“Increases their concentration”

“Makes it more visual”

“Triggers the memory”

“Looks good for observations”

“Good for differentiation”

“Creates more variety in activities”

“Just delivers more than a textbook can”

“Students can use it on their own”

“Gives me more control over the students”

Page 13: Language Labs in England

6.2 For industry

What matters to teachers, is essentially not the technology itself. It’s what the technology can do, for example in terms of time efficiency and performance results. This means technology, as advanced or useful as it may be, must be instantly easy to use, and extremely reliable. The stakes are too high in education to be wasting time on ICT that doesn’t work.

In terms of labs, the investment has not gone completely, but there is evidence of a declining pattern which is mostly related to its lingering old-fashioned connotations. These influence installation choices, class-room lay-out and teaching practices very clearly. That means that they still have a target market in more traditional forms of schooling.

Education is known as a very rooted environment, but its developments are of course not unrelated to the rest of society, which has readily adopted mobile devices, and anytime/anywhere connectivity. Dedicated rooms need to be flexible, embracing a great variety of small and relatively low-cost software and hard-ware options. There is a case for technical infrastructure which is versatile, not as time and space depen-dent as language labs are (perceived to be). However, whatever form it takes, it must be reliable at all times.

Marketing technology should focus on what the technology does. The teacher has enough to do already. Next to this, the focus in ICT for education should be on the people. A high technical performance which minimises audio/video delay between the teacher’s computer and students’ devices is perhaps not so relevant as a marketing tool as one may think. Teachers actually prefer to walk around the classroom to talk to students, rather than communicate via the headsets. This is further evidenced by the clever marketing campaign by Skype in 2010. Taglines of this campaign included: “Skype can help us all share our hearts, voices, gestures and expressions” (In this, you see the two principles: 1- Focus on the people, not the technology. 2- Focus on what the technology can do for you.)

Promoting deeper use of technology may not be the best way to ensure continued sales, though that may seem contradictory. Teachers clearly perceive a limit to integrating technology. That limit occurs when it starts overshadowing that human touch of teaching. To requote the 2010 Skype campaign: “When did LOL replace the sound of laughter?”

There’s so much more to share with [email protected]