The significance of phrases

Phrases are especially important in language learning because they increase fluency for both native speakers and language learners alike.  This is because there is a limit to the length of sentences we can create without using pre-constructed phrases as shortcuts; phrases reduce the cognitive load and so speed up our talking.  Personally, I find some peace of mind when using phrases in a foreign language, because I know that they will be grammatically correct without my needing to think about it.

Learners tend to gain new phrases through repeated use (presumably in real-life situations, but also in simulations/role-plays and any related class-work), just as native speakers do.   But how can learners find the right phrases when they need them?  Two classic solutions are the travel phrasebook and the business writing guide (book).  Both are kept to hand: in the traveler’s pocket or on the office desk; and both are organized according to themes or situations.  These reference books are very useful and with web and mobile phrasebooks appearing, they will become easier to use exactly when needed.

The need for a “personal” phrasebook

However, published phrasebooks are very general and will often not respond to the specific need of a particular learner.  When I went to the post office in China last month I found my travel phrasebook useful for considering initial requests, but preparation in lesson was what enabled me to have a more complete list of phrases for my exact situation.  I found that I needed my own Personal Phrasebook (PPB), tailored precisely to me and my needs.

A student’s “email phrasebook”

One of my students, Michal, wanted help in using English at work – especially when writing emails.  I’ve noticed from my own use of English at work that there are a lot of phrases that I use again and again, so I suggested she keep a notebook with useful phrases that she can use when emailing.  Essentially it is her own, personal phrasebook that she creates uses and expands according to her needs as they arise (see screenshot below).

The phrases are organized into sections in a similar way to a phrasebook with situations and tasks as headings. The new phrases are added in three main ways…

1. Michal shows me emails she has written and we check them (for accuracy, lexis and appropriateness) and identify good phrases for the phrasebook
2. Michal explains what she wants to say and we jointly create some text and extract good phrases from it
3. Michal shows me emails she receives and we consider any questions or doubts she has.  We then copy good phrases into the phrasebook.

Perhaps it is worth considering what a “good phrase” actually is.  Obviously this is highly subjective, but I would include the following attributes…

• simple – the construction is within easy reach of the student so it is easy to remember
• appropriate – the phrase is appropriate to the (business) situation at hand
• flexible – some phrases can be used in a wider range of situations.  Such phrases are more useful and they are probably easier to learn (because they are naturally repeated more often)

Personal phrasebooks as a process

So in part, Michal needs a PPB so that she can more easily organize the content and make it easier to find when she needs it.  Perhaps an electronic/online phrasebook with a good index or search function would suffice.  However, a PPB is more than just a reference source; it is also the content, medium and activity through which the learner learns the phrases and language.  It is also an ongoing reference source for future occurrences of similar situations.  Put another way, the student writes his/her own phrasebook, and that very task is part of the learning process.  As the PPB grows it becomes a more useful reference source and Michal will find herself looking up phrases more often than she creates content for the PPB.

PLEs and PPBs

PPBs share ground with PLEs; consider Cann’s definition of a PLE…

a system that helps learners take control of and manage their own learning. This includes providing support for learners to set their own learning goals, manage their learning, manage both content and process, and communicate with others in the process of learning.

PPBs seem to me to be a component of a learner’s broader PLE.  As such, a PPB is a concept that encompasses resources, tools, activities, goals and outputs: it is not just a tool or a place, but an approach to learning.

Format

As with PLEs, PPBs can make use of many different formats or tools.  For example word documents, Google Docs, paper-based notebooks and text programs on cell phones.  The important issues are that it is both easy to add to and edit and then easy to access for reference when it is needed.

These details will depend on each person’s situation – Michal’s phrasebook is to help her when writing emails and so it doesn’t really need to be accessible on her phone, nor offline; and so hers is in Google Docs.  Other learners may need to have access when offline or when on the move, so they may choose other tools.

Teacher’s role

My role with Michal has been mainly to suggest creating a PPB, encourage its use and help identify suitable phrases to put in it.  As a native speaker, students will find me especially useful for checking the correctness and suitability of the phrases.  But learners can also check phrases themselves to see how often they are used in the way the learner wants to: Google searches can give a good indication as to whether a phrase/word is commonly used and what context they are usually used in.  If Michal’s native language were German she could use Linguee.de to look up a phrase in German for an equivalent phrase in English and then select from the results.  There are also other tools that can be used to suggest phrases and explore their suitability and contexts; my recent blog post on phrase-based dictionaries describes a few.  These tools can also be explored in lesson to help the learner develop more autonomy in creating their PPB.

Conclusion

Personal Phrasebooks draw on the PLE concept to focus the student’s learning on phrases (rather than at the level of words or grammar).  It is a very practical tool to solve everyday linguistic problems.  However, it is also an approach (like PLEs) that requires a certain level of learner autonomy.  Teachers can suggest and encourage, but the PPB needs to be student driven if it is to become part of their out-of-class learning and included in everyday life.

Learners need to become good at both ‘noticing’ phrases that they would be able to use themselves and also at ‘noticing’ gaps in their language knowledge, so that they seek out a phrase or structure to fill the gap.  There are online tools that can help learners decide on a phrase’s applicability to their situation.  However, it seems that the teacher will also have a role to play in helping the learner gain these skills to learn more autonomously out-of-class.

This blog post is a set of notes of my thoughts about out-of-class learning and how it can be supported by in-class activities.  The video shows me explaining a mind-map of these ideas, which itself is available as a photo so that it is easier to read.

A Note about the Mind-Map and Video

I created the map to get a clearer sense of how the contents were related to one another and so to give me a good overview.  I have been working with these ideas for some time, but felt that I was getting lost in the detail.  I then started to explain (aloud) to an imaginary audience to both fill in gaps (ie add lines and issues) and to get a clearer sense of the nature of the relationships.   I decided to film this to be able to share it and the above video is the result.  The video itself is anything other than a slick production, but by then transcribing what I said I did end up with a structure for the below text.  This is the first time I have used video in this way and I am pleased with the results – although I frequently speak out loud to structure what I write, this is the first time I have recorded it.

Informal Learning and Emergence

The mind-map starts with the learner and how it is likely that most learning takes place outside of the language class.  From this starting point, I think it is best to first look at the theory that guides the mind-map – namely socially constructed learning.  As I started to explore this theory in language learning, I quickly found myself being drawn to Dogme language teaching.  Dogme sees conversation as the vehicle for language learning and this in turn draws on the concept of emergent pedagogies.  Emergence sees learning as occurring through ‘affordances’ (language learning opportunities within the conversation) and so learning takes place according to the needs of the students, when the students need it.  Essentially it is a just-in-time approach, which contrasts with the ‘just in case’ style of more conventional language teaching.  So, new language (eg lexis or forms) are not pre-taught by the teacher and the teacher does not set out what will be learned in class.  Instead, the new language emerges from the interaction in the dialogue.

Conversations for Emergence

Dogme tends to focus on conversations that take place within the language classroom and there is in fact little discussion of conversations outside this context.  The teacher is therefore presumed to play an active role in the pedagogical conversation – and the teacher does this through asking guiding questions and scaffolding the language learning as it emerges.  I want to look at a broader range of conversations that language learners can potentially benefit from; considering informal, out-of-class dialogues recognizes the greater potential for Dogme-based learning than just what happens within a classroom.  I can see a few groups: everyday conversations with unwitting partners (ie they are not aware that the conversation may be helping the learner learn); discussions with informal peer-groups (who may have a greater or lesser understanding of the conversation’s significance for the learner); and informal class-like groupings such as ‘tandem’ language exchange partners (who probably are quite aware of the learner’s intentions and even strategies).

Conversations that move beyond simple negotiations of meaning (eg when shopping or asking for directions) will likely be more motivating and offer more (and deeper) affordances.  Such conversations I noted down as “who am I” situations because I think they relate to more personal issues and offer us the opportunity to be heard and understood on our own terms.  I think these are likely to be far more engaging and motivating for learners, because they are more relevant to our lives.

I also want to include conversations we have with ourselves – perhaps hypothetical ones that we have in our head or ones that are basically reflections upon something we are reading/watching.  So for example, this text and video is a monologue from me, but as you reflect upon it, are you not having a conversation (of sorts) in your head?  Likewise the production of this video came out of a similar process of me talking to myself.  Thinking about this reflection as conversations perhaps gives us a (Dogme) framework for considering the reflecting and noticing that takes place.

Dogme Learning

Expanding the notion of (language learning) conversations to include those taking place out-of-class, opens up the question of whether learners can learn in a Dogme fashion (rather than just teachers teaching the Dogme way).  Perhaps learners (in their informal learning) can apply similar strategies to the Dogme teacher in class.

Scaffolding is one such tool that Dogme teaching uses in class.  It is done to take advantage of the affordances in the conversation, leading to ‘noticing’ so that students become familiar with new patterns (eg form) to learn the new language.  Dogme learning requires the student to learn these same (teacher) skills to be able to take advantage of affordances in out-of-class situations.

Teaching students to self-scaffold is effectively teaching the student how to learn the language – how to reflect upon experiences and interactions (with conversation and/or text) – it is teaching the student metacognitive skills.  As such it requires considerable autonomy on the part of the learner; clearly most students would need some time before they had the skills to take full advantage of this kind of out-of-class learning in an independent way.

Context and Mobile Devices

I want to next turn to context.  Context is very much opened up by out-of-class learning.  Although classrooms are a context in their own right (both through the social interactions, and to a lesser extent, through the classrooms being a physical environment), out-of-class contexts are more diverse and probably hold greater relevance to the learner’s life.  Contexts are relevant in as much as they relate to the question “what does this context (physical or social) mean to me as a leaner?”

SmartPhones play a key role in opening up context for language learning, because they allow 24/7 access to both online resources and online contact with others.  So (language learning) context is both informationally rich and socially connected.  These mobile devices blur online and offline, which is quite new because previously we considered access to knowledge to be location specific (eg via an expert who is physically somewhere, if only mobile in his/her own right or via a library, which is even less mobile).  With a SmartPhone there is no need to go out of our way to get information or assistance.  I should mention that I don’t see SmartPhones as essential for this kind of learning, but I do think that these compact, connecting devices do represent a step change in how we can exploit new (everyday) environments for language learning.  Put another way, much of this approach could be achieved without electronic technologies, but it would likely be cumbersome (carrying dictionaries around) and there would be many obstacles along the way (quickly gaining access to people and information).

As a bit of a side note, I want to mention that this approach is different from some mLearning projects that focus on pushing content (from an instructor via an iPhone app to the learner); instead, information and interactions are pulled (or sought) by the learner according to need and interest.

Contact with others via SmartPhones can either be with people we know or with strangers.  People we know are available via our social networks; strangers are available according to specific areas of common interest or shared location.  Geo-tagged twitter and BrightKite.com are good examples of conversations being mediated by these mobile devices; they enable (locally based) conversations according to what we are interested in rather than according to who we know.  Both network-based and location-based conversations open up the range of relevant and motivating interactions that (potentially) support language learning affordances.

A personal example of this is my using the online dictionary, www.wordreference.com, to find out what “saca las cuentas” means.  I saw the phrase on a billboard in La Paz and so I took a picture and uploaded it to the forum.  I received a reply in less than 5 minutes!  In this moment the online forum acted as an ‘in situ’ peer-group for my language learning.

Implications for Language Teaching

The informal, out-of-class learning that students are already doing represents a great opportunity to leverage it from within the language class.  Not only does these out-of-class activities provide relevant and engaging material for in-class conversations, but both the efficacy of the activities and the meta-cognitive skills needed to learn from them can also be explored and fine-tuned in class.  Essentially the teaching will move in the direction of teaching how to learn and away from simply teaching the language itself.  As such, this interpretation of Dogme teaching is that it facilitates Dogme learning.

Scaffolding (as done by the teacher in a Dogme lesson) is now modeled by the teacher for the students to do on their own.  Noticing is therefore dealt with explicitly so that students are aware of the benefits and the practices of noticing.  The technique for the teacher to hold this space for the student to notice and self-scaffold is the same as when teaching the language itself: scaffolding.

Class activities can also change to both draw on the experiences of out-of-class learning and model activities that can be carried out independently between lessons.  listening to what students already do out-of-class enables the teacher to understand what can be done, what appeals to the students and how informal learning fits in with their interest in learning the language.  Discussions of how and why certain strategies may be effective, allow students to gain metacognitive skills that help them select new activities.

The language lesson changes to include counseling type activities, where the teacher giving the student space to reflect upon their own language learning.

Emergent Syllabus

Although the lessons may take on a more responsive or reactive tone, there is still probably opportunity to do so in a proactive way through considering a syllabus that allows the language learning to emerge.  I am currently putting together an “emergent syllabus” for some students who want a greater sense of what they will be doing each week.  I am creating a menu of topics and situations for them to choose from so that the structure is based on their communicative needs rather than on specific (grammatical) forms or skills.  I am creating the ‘menu’ to offer students guidance and structure, yet I want to offer them choice and freedom to interpret as they wish.

Syllabuses seem to be closely related to tests and although I struggle to feel at ease with testing, I am now thinking that it would be possible to test in an emergent way if the students themselves are setting the goals and deciding upon meaningful indicators.  Students certainly need to be autonomous learners to be able to carry out such a task and to take on the sharing of responsibility for measuring their progress.  In my example, I suggest that students could aim for goals that relate to their personal interest (approaches to teaching, in my case) and adjust it for the student’s level of competency.

Conclusion

Although I am interested in the practicalities of how to use mobile devices in language learning (for capturing and organizing information; for gaining access to information; and for being in contact with others), it is the question of autonomy that I think plays a more significant role (than the technology).  Informal, out-of-class learning may be highly motivating and bring context to the fore in language learning, but it also requires considerable autonomy on the part of the student – both in terms of specific ‘teach-yourself-skills’ and in terms of the self-awareness needed to take responsibility for your own learning.

Bibliography

The bibliography itself will follow, but in the meantime here are some names of authors I have been reading…

• Phil Benson
• Jeremy Cross
• Fiona Hyland
• Agnes Kukulska-Hulme
• Leo van Lier
• Hayo Reinders
• Klaus Schwienhorst
• Scott Thornbury
• Leily Ziglari

Methodological Guidelines

In “Dogme: Dancing in the dark?” Scott Thornbury sets out the original guidelines (“vows”) for Dogme.  The below guidelines for Dogme 2.0 draw on these Dogme principles to suggest an approach appropriate to a web 2.0 world.  As such they focus on the areas where 2.0 technologies are changing our relationship to knowledge and therefore our approaches to learning.

• Enabling conversation: technology can enable dialogue, broadening the range of participants, or deepening the conversation by involving others.
• Content co-creation: materials stimulate conversation, but the content for the lesson is driven, indeed created, by the students themselves.  Collaborative tools (such as wikis) can encourage students to work together to create the lesson’s content.
• Locality: mobile devices can help students relate to their current location, through photographing, filming, audio recording or writing descriptions relating to where they are.  A Dogme use of mobile devices helps students to better relate to their immediate surroundings, or to places that are important to them.
• Connections: strengthening communication with others (near or far) to facilitate connectivist learning that involves not just individuals but also broader networks or communities.
• Relevance: the internet is used to ensure greater relevance of the subject matter for the learner.  Students are able to find more specific information and connect with networks that are more suited to their interests.
• Voice: online publishing (be it text, audio, images or video) allows learners to be heard and included in specific and yet global discussions.
• Identity: students have space to express themselves and in so doing to focus on different aspects of their identity (perhaps in Second Life or by participating in different online networks or communities).  Students develop language skills that are relevant to them as individuals, through exploring their identity and relationship with the world.

To give some background to these suggestions, I discuss below some related concepts with respect to Dogme.

Connectivist learning beyond the classroom

George Siemens points to how learning is becoming increasingly informal, experiential, and continual.  This has implications for the teacher as the majority of the students’ learning will take place outside of the class and therefore beyond the immediate reach of the teacher.  Dogme 2.0 recognizes that a considerable amount of a student’s learning (perhaps most) takes place outside of lesson time and therefore beyond the classroom.  It addresses the question of how to enable continued conversations outside of the lesson, as it draws on technology to reconnect class members when they are physically distant from one another.    As such the students’ learning stretches beyond the class’s subject matter, its student body and the experiences they share together.

Connectivist learning places great importance on networks (of colleagues, friends and others interested in a particular subject) in enabling an individual’s learning.  Learners create and strengthen links between themselves and others who are also learning in the same or related fields.  Not only do they make connections between sources of knowledge, but also between other ideas or concepts.  Siemens sees this process as driven by the increasing need to manage changing contexts, where decisions are necessarily taken with limited knowledge.  Indeed he sees the capacity to learn (in the future) as being more important that the knowledge an individual currently has.  It is the capacity to make future connections that will solve future problems.  Dogme’s focus on the conversation allows the learning process to also strengthen network relationships, since the themselves are based upon communication.

Location and reality

By drawing upon what is already in the classroom (in preference to bringing in external materials) Dogme implicitly places great emphasis on being present in one’s physical (rather than virtual) location.  2.0 technologies can in fact be used to focus on our relationship with the real world: with places, people and experiences.  Mobile and 2.0 technologies can bridge experiences and conversations in the outside world with those within class.

• Mobile devices allow students to record their experiences between classes (as text, photos, sounds or video).  Text or voice recording permit students to capture their thoughts, impressions, reactions to that experience or environment.
• Twitter likewise allows learners to share their ideas with others (perhaps via a mobile phone) according to the moment.
• Augmented Reality on mobile devices can display data according to the physical location of the handset.  This information can be determined by the provider (as in web 1.0) or created by the device user (as web 2.0 applications).  These 2.0 programs (such as BrightKite and Tonchidot AirTags) allow greater connection with others depending on both the student’s location and interests.  Conversations can be both topic-specific and yet inclusive; they can be location-specific, yet global.
• Virtual worlds present Dogme 2.0 teachers with a greater challenge as they more obviously remove the student from their present location (and in this respect they are quite different from augmented reality).  However, virtual worlds can be used to focus on the students’ location: perhaps by virtually visiting where they live or work; perhaps by inviting students to build in a 3D virtual environment as a way to relate to their real world location.

Pedagogy 2.0

In the same way that Dogme is based on pedagogically sound foundations, so too is Dogme 2.0, where the focus is on the use of technology to achieve specific pedagogical goals.  However, Dogme 2.0 also recognizes that changes in technologies are leading to changing relationships to knowledge and therefore learning.  Learning increasingly takes place on the group level (in addition to the individual’s level), so web 2.0 tools play an enabling role in facilitating the building and development of networks within the process of learning.  Dogme has a natural role to play by focusing on conversation as the medium for both learning and developing network relationships.

Is Dogme 2.0 still Dogme?

Dogme 2.0 is very much an application of Dogme ideas to the world of web 2.0 and the above ideas are certainly in harmony with the three precepts that Meddings and Thornbury present in “Teaching Unplugged”.

1. Conversation driven: dialogue is at the heart of any Dogme lesson; it also enables connectivist learning through network building and development.  Dogme 2.0 allows the conversations to extend globally.
2. Materials light: the lesson’s content is created by the students themselves; the wealth of materials available online, merely serve to stimulate creation of content by the students.
3. Emergent language: Language emerges through the content that the students have created.  Grammar and new vocabulary are uncovered through the students striving to express themselves more accurately and more completely.

Dogme and learning 2.0

Both Dogme and learning 2.0 have much to offer each other.  However, it does not seem an evenly beneficial relationship.  Although Dogme 2.0 brings Dogme up to date (especially in its recognition of networked learning and connectivism), it is eLearning that gains most from Dogme: Dogme offers a clear framework for working with tools that so clearly place students at the center of their learning and in control of their own relationship to knowledge.

Some related links…

• Dogme for Virtual World Language Learning
• Dogme 2.0: What “Teaching 2.0” Can Learn from Dogme ELT

I have been using virtual worlds such as Second Life for approximately two years and during this time I have done some interesting and engaging activities with students. However, I have also being looking for methodologies to draw upon to ensure that these activities are pedagogically sound and beneficial to the students’ learning. More recently I have taken a closer look at Dogme ELT as a pedagogy to guide these virtual world activities and Dogme has stood out as an approach that has much to offer virtual world language learning because of its focus on real life communication as the basis for developing language competencies.

This text starts with an overview of the Dogme approach and then continues by mapping out the different ways in which virtual worlds can be used for language learning. These two topics are then brought together to reflect on how Dogme can guide language teachers in using virtual worlds.

What is Dogme?
Dogme language teaching is a movement; it is a collective of teachers who have been inspired by the ideas of the Dogme film movement founded by Lars von Trier in 1995. Similar to the filmmakers, Dogme teachers are looking to return to the essence of a classroom by choosing to reduce or even avoid the use of technological tools and materials. Although virtual worlds are themselves high tech, a Dogme focus tends to take the activities in the direction of a lower tech approach that concentrates on the experiences that can lead to language emergence (or language acquisition). Followers of Dogme have generally moved away from using textbooks in class, partly as a desire to include real life materials and partly to reduce the role of third party content (text, audio, video) in the language lesson. In a Dogme lesson the students are encouraged to produce the content through their communication. This in turn leads to language learning opportunities in their striving to express themselves more clearly, fully and accurately. As such, this focus on communication reflects Dogme’s focus on social learning and so places the pedagogy within a constructivist context.

No Syllabus
Whereas a textbook strives to organize the learning into a program of themed units, Dogme teaching does not follow a syllabus, but instead prefers to allow the students’ needs and interests to set the pace and direction. In Dogme the syllabus emerges, or indeed is uncovered through the process of reflecting upon the language that emerges in class. Dogme language teaching is therefore a process, where the teacher responds to students’ needs rather than preemptively planning for them.

Principles
The Dogme approach is based upon some key principles that were set out by the movement’s founder, Scott Thornbury (ref). Learning is considered to take place through the interaction amongst the students and between the students and the teachers. This interaction enables knowledge to be co-constructed by the students rather than transmitted by the teacher to the students. In fact, by concentrating on conversation as the vehicle for learning, the knowledge is jointly assembled by the participants in what is termed ‘scaffolding’. As such, the teacher’s role is more akin to a “guide on the side” than that of a “stage on the stage”.

As already mentioned, communication is seen as the key vehicle for language learning, because it allows for affordances or language learning opportunities to arise in class. In this way language learning is considered to be not so much of a process of acquisition (as in second language acquisition) as more one of emergence: the language emerges from the students’ conversations in class. These conversations in effect become the primary content in the language lesson, and especially contribute to the class because they enable the introduction of the students’ beliefs, knowledge and experiences into the learning process. The question of content is particularly interesting in the context of virtual worlds because a virtual world, such as Second Life, offers experiences far more than it can offer third party content in the way that published materials do. In a conventional (classroom-based), Dogme lesson the content is preferably introduced (at least in part) by the students themselves. This more proactive role of the students helps to ensure that the content is engaging and relevant, which are key attributes to promote the communication that leads to language emergence and therefore language learning.

Virtual World Language Learning
In order to consider how Dogme can guide virtual world language education, the above overview will now be placed within the context of the various ways in which virtual worlds offer opportunities for language learning. I see four main types of experiences that the learner may have in a virtual world: social, immersive, creative and gaming.

1. Social: Almost all 3D virtual environments (a notable exception being Google Street View) are social spaces which allow the opportunity for social interactions for language learning. These social experiences could be formal group lessons or casual conversations with unknown residents of a 3D virtual world. This type of experience can be approached from a Dogme perspective to enable language emergence.
2. Immersive: All 3D virtual environments can offer users immersive experiences that can stimulate conversation for use in a Dogme lesson. In Second Life this could take the form of a virtual field trip to the moon or to a replica of a real life place such as Barcelona. The important aspect here is that immersive spaces are stimulating and engaging places and that this can promote the use and therefore development of a foreign language.
3. Creative: Some virtual worlds, allow the residents to customize their avatars, decorate their homes or even build entire cities, as is the case in Second Life. This can be drawn upon in lessons to allow students to describe their constructions and how they relate to them. If done as a collaborative task the process of building can itself be a communicative activity. Again, a Dogme approach is able to recognize the pedagogical value of these more creative activities.
4. Gaming: Many 3D virtual environments are in fact Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) that can also be used to further language learning. MMOGs often involve considerable negotiation and collaboration amongst players and therefore may also offer scope for Dogme inspired teaching. MMOGs for language learning is a relatively new field and there are few recorded examples of attempts to incorporate MMOGs in to language education; [name] is one of them. Second Life can also be used for game-like activities by virtue of its flexibility. Second Life offers educators to create immersive tasks that reward the student for the correct answer. In some respects this approach is a 3D version of an exercise book and there therefore seems to be limited scope to draw on Dogme ideas for guidance with this approach.

Although virtual environments are often thought of as being virtual worlds such as Second Life, there are many other 3D virtual spaces that offer many of these experiences. Google Street View is a case in point; it allows users to virtually visit real cities and see the buildings from the perspective of someone standing in the street. Google Street View is not a social space, but it allows for 3D virtual immersive experiences not so dissimilar to 3D virtual worlds. Another form of virtual environment is the browser-based 3d virtual space “Hangout” which allows users to customize their apartment and invite other avatars to share the space with them. Exit Reality is similar, but also allows users to surf the web in 3D with their avatar.

Blended Learning
The range of 3D virtual environments allows considerable choice in using a specific tool for the desired type of experience. In fact distinguishing between the types of experience (social, immersive etc) helps the educator (or indeed the learner) focus on selecting the right tool for the job. And it is therefore likely that a blend of tools (online of offline; 3D or 2D) will be employed. So blended learning is the most likely format given that virtual environments are excellent for experiential learning yet cannot compete with the flexibility and scope of the 2D web for content and especially text work.

Implications for Dogme teaching with virtual worlds
The immersive, social and creative experiences available with 3D virtual environments can be guided by the Dogme methodology to focus on the students’ own needs and interests and in doing so, to develop their language skills. The above presentations of the Dogme approach and the opportunities offered by virtual worlds have implications for the likely approach to Dogme teaching with virtual worlds.

Firstly the focus on experience leaves considerable scope for using virtual worlds both in class or drawing on them for homework activities. Since Dogme teaching is most interested in the enabling of communication (for learning), the location of that communication (in-world, in physical classrooms or through wiki-based collaboration) is less important. Secondly, given that the students’ engagement is key to enabling the conversations that lead to language emergence, they need to have the freedom to choose where they want to go (in a 3D virtual environment) and what they will do there.

The above implications suggest that a Dogme educator is unlikely to use pre-prepared materials and exercises in a virtual world. And as such, Dogme in virtual worlds has a light touch to technology, much as it does in the conventional classroom. A clear advantage of this approach is that both teachers and students need not be as expert in navigating the complexities of a virtual world such as Second Life. However, the main strength of Dogme is the natural tendency to focus on the strengths of 3D virtual environments – namely the social, immersive and creative experiences.

Dogme Activities in Virtual Worlds
Naturally there is a wide range of activities that could fit into a 3D virtual class inspired by Dogme. A few examples are suggested here…

• Social experiences such as meeting other students or even complete strangers in a 3D virtual space can be achieved through interviews, casual conversations, group discussions or even presentations at conferences held in virtual worlds. Some experiences indicate that social interaction is most productive when it has a clear purpose rather than just conversation practice.
• Students can be immersed in a specific environment, perhaps a place that exists in real life or somewhere imaginary, to stimulate conversation. This can be done through encouraging the student to respond to basic questions about the place or to perhaps elicit more complex responses such as emotional reactions to the 3D environment.
• A more creative approach can be taken by including the building of objects. Perhaps the construction of a house followed by guided tours or through group activities that likewise involve the creation of objects.
• Using MMOGs such as World of Warcraft remains a relatively unexplored field, but it seems likely that there are opportunities to engage students in either communicative and collaborative tasks or perhaps as a quest-like activity.

Role plays may also be done in immersive environments, such as a city tour using Google Street View. There are various examples of using Second Life for simulated training, such as by the Canadian Border Control and the Iowa emergency preparation. However, given the structured and planned nature of such training, it seems there may be less scope to apply Dogme ideas.

Dogme Inspired Lesson: an example
Video clips of a Dogme inspired lesson are embedded below to illustrate how 3D virtual worlds (in this case Second Life) can be integrated into (offline or 2D online) lessons. These clips show how the student is able to identify for himself which vocabulary and structures were key to matching the images and texts; the student was then able to draw on new or unfamiliar vocabulary to use in his own terms, when exploring restaurants in Second Life. Learning opportunities (such as reinforcing the pronunciation of the word ‘bank’) naturally arose with only gentle prompting by the teacher. As such, the lesson reflects the Dogme principles of language emergence, materials-light content and conversation-driven learning.

However, this lesson could have demonstrated greater Dogme influences had the student played a more active role in the selection of materials (from the Lonely Planet site in this case) and of the locations (the restaurants in Second Life) for the virtual field trip. The lesson could also have involved greater social experiences such as the student interviewing other Second Life residents (eg restaurant diners) or leading a group discussion on the topic. However the clips do serve to show the flexibility of virtual worlds and the scope to integrate specific experiences (be it social, immersive, creative or gaming) into Dogme inspired language lessons.

Some related links…

• Second Life as a Social Learning Environment
• Dogme 2.0: What “Teaching 2.0” Can Learn from Dogme ELT

Using second life for conversation practice focuses on the social experiences available with 3D virtual worlds. See “Dogme as a pedagogy for virtual worlds” for a presentation of other experiences (immersive, creative and gaming – alongside social) that can be gained in a 3D virtual world such as Second Life.

Virtual Worlds as Social Environments

Virtual worlds are social in two main ways. Firstly, it is possible to meet strangers (ie other residents who are unknown to us) at any time, day or night, in Second Life. Although Skype and other 2D online chat rooms have allowed this for a few years now, the sense of physical presence that 3D virtual worlds offer is quite new. It enables a much more natural way to meet new people, especially as it allows users to simply walk up to other users, or indeed, simply to walk away. The other way in which Second Life can be used to meet with others, is as a venue for planned meetings. In an educational setting, this could be a group lesson or a prearranged meeting amongst some students. Pierre’s presentation focuses on the first way, because he used Second Life to meet others in a ‘pub’ in Second Life to join in the conversations between the pub’s ‘customers’.

Pierre’s experiences are interesting because they offer the opportunity to hear directly from a language learner and to consider how to best support students such as Pierre. His experiences demonstrate the importance of motivation and of feeling confident in conversation practice – even in 3D virtual worlds, which offer users more anonymity than in real life interactions. However, it is worth looking at each point he made in detail.

1. Virtual worlds are engaging. In fact, they are so engaging for some as to be almost addictive. Clearly this is not the experience that everyone has, and many language learners do not wish to use Second Life. And perhaps tools such as Google Street View is immersive enough for these people. However for some it is very enjoyable and appealing.
2. Virtual Worlds are real. Indeed, they are sufficiently real for emotions such as self consciousness to be an issue.
3. Languages in virtual words are real. The use of English, in Pierre’s case was challenging, because it was fast and not always easy to understand. This made it difficult at times for Pierre to participate, much as casual conversation in real life can be.
4. Text chat is important. While the conversation is real, it is slightly different from real life, because there is the combination of both voice and text chat. Text is usually the first form of communication, with voices being used for more in depth conversations. The greater role of text chat allows language learners to review the chat history and even look up the meaning of words while text chatting.
5. Casual conversation is less motivating. Although the immersiveness of Second Life is certainly attractive and an enjoyable experience, general conversation practice is not in itself highly motivating and engaging.

There are some observations that can be made from these points. As language teachers we can draw on this to ensure social and communicative experiences in virtual worlds are as effective as possible.

1. There are psychological barriers that hinder students from using a virtual world for speaking in public.
2. Learners with lower levels (A1-B1) may find general conversations too difficult. This will be especially relevant for teachers of languages other than English, because the students are less likely to have a high level of proficiency.
3. Specific tasks or activities may assist with addressing the psychological barriers and supporting lower-level students.
4. Text chat may be a stepping stone. Even if text chat is not considered the intended form of communication, it may lead to the learner gaining familiarity and confidence to be able to move on to using voice.

An interesting aspect of setting specific tasks is that it bridges the gap between formal class activities and informal language practice. This means that what happens in class can support the activities out of class and vice-versa. Homework tasks can be prepared within class time and then subsequently drawn upon during lessons after the Second Life based work that is done for homework. It is worth mentioning that by integrating lesson work and homework, we are increasing the variety of opportunities to use Second Life for communicative language learning.

There are three main types of tasks that draw on the above…

1. Interviews with other Second Life residents can focus the conversation on a particular subject and give greater purpose to the dialogue. This can also be embedded within a broader project or quest-based work. Second Life has many themed islands, which help students find interviewees for a particular topic. If the subject has cultural aspects, then the student can visit the appropriate community or virtual city, such as “Second Krakow”, “Virtual Berlin” or Second Life Japan. In the future this may become a more natural activity if virtual worlds such as Twinity become more widespread.
2. Economic-based tasks such as visiting shops and offices in Second Life allow students to carry out tasks that mirror real life activities. Although there are many real life companies that no longer staff their Second Life offices or stores, there are many real life and Second Life shops that continue to have live assistance. When virtual worlds become more widespread and commonly used, this will be a much greater opportunity.
3. Events in 3D virtual worlds, such as the SLanguages conference, tutorials and even political demonstrations all offer the possibility to speak with others and to research a topic. Conferences and political events allow a focus on the language of opinion and persuasion.

Second Life is Real Life
All of these tasks draw their relevancy precisely because Second Life and other 3D virtual worlds are so real. Indeed Pierre’s presentation (within Second Life) was so motivating for him because others attended and engaged in discussion with him.

21st Century Skills
Aside from being real, virtual worlds are different and the different styles and habits of communication will likely become more widespread as virtual worlds themselves play an increasingly role in our lives. As such virtual world communication skills form a part of 21st Century Skills and so language education with virtual worlds takes on validity in its own right, in much the same way that cell phones, pagers and text chat have entered mainstream business and society.

The Teachers’ Role
The focus of this presentation and text has intentionally been on how independent language teachers can best use virtual worlds with their students. This approach to using Second Life is more low-tech than the development of islands specifically for language learning. Clearly such projects are not feasible for independent teachers, but more importantly this approach concentrates on the unique qualities of Second Life: namely that it is a social space that is well suited to certain aspects of language learning. The teachers’ role is therefore one of facilitating the students’ use of virtual worlds in a similar way as that envisaged in Dogme language teaching with virtual worlds. Although the teacher will play an active role in the development of the activities so too will the students to ensure that the use of Second Life is engaging and motivating.

Dogme and Task-Based Learning
There are opportunities to embed the activities in a Dogme or TBL (Task-Based Learning) approach with the Second Life social activities either being an experience that leads to language emergence (in the case of a Dogme lesson) or as a task that is intended to concentrate on a particular aspect of the target language (in the case of TBL). Although the methodology could differ the Second Life activity itself would be possibly quite similar. It is the teaching style that would perhaps differ most, with Dogme being more reflective and TBL being more planned and intentional.

Some related links…

• Dogme for Virtual World Language Learning
• SurReal Quests for Language Learning

Photo of Dennis’ Villa in Second Life (image by Sanja).

Carol Rainbow kindly recorded the audio of the meeting and you can listen to it on Blip.TV or download/play this mp3 recording of the discussion about Augmented Reality Language Learning in Second Life.

The event took place at Dennis’ villa on EduNation – so thank you Dennis for hosting the meeting. And thank you to all for attending and making it such a interesting conversation.

I think you can only hear 3 voices (most participated via text-chat within Second Life) and they are of Dennis Newson, Scott Thornbury and me.

What is Screen-Sharing?

Screen-sharing lets other people see your screen – so they can see exactly what you can see on your computer. This could be really useful for using Google Maps Street View or other applications in online lessons.

Twiddla already allows you to surf websites together with others online, so depending on what you want to do, it may be better to use Twiddla (quicker and easier). However, there are certain times when Twiddla won’t work and Mikogo fills this gap nicely.

I. Google Maps

Google Maps can’t easily be combined with Twiddla (you have to embed it as a widget) and so it is difficult to share all the functions in Google Maps. However, with Mikogo the teacher can allow the student to see the map s/he is looking at. This means that they can work together to plan journeys, give directions and create Google maps.

II. Google Maps Street View

Although Google Maps Street View is immersive, it is not really a social place in the way that a 3D virtual world is. This means that students and teachers can’t actually meet each other in Google Maps the way they can in Second Life.

However, a screen-sharing application such as Mikogo allows the student to see where the teacher is in Street View. So if the teacher invites the student to share the screen (or at least share the browser) then the student can guide the teacher around a city (eg “turn left at the lights” etc).

This makes Street View a much more interactive tool and one where the student and teacher can virtually visit places together.

IIl. Surfing a Website Together: Watching YouTubes and Completing Online Forms

Twiddla works fine for most websites, but if the teacher and student want to watch a YouTube video together or fill out a form (perhaps for getting train times or finding property), then Mikogo will be needed.

· YouTube videos can be given to a student to watch by sending the page address (URL). However often a teacher will want to control when to stop and start the video (perhaps to be able to ask questions at certain times). In this case, a screen-sharing tool like Mikogo works best.

· Although the teacher may want to take information from a website (for use in lesson) without necessarily giving the student the web address, there are other times when the student will be choosing the information. In this case it can be better if the teacher and student surf the same page at the same time.

Whiteboard Function

The whiteboard function allows the meeting host to use different colours to highlight parts of the screen (perhaps pointing to a part of a website or to a building in Street View)

Allowing Someone Else to Take Control

Mikogo allows you to offer the controls to the other participant and this means that they can guide your computer (or the applications that you have allowed access to). It is probably best to limit the collaborator’s access to only those programs (eg the browser) that he/she needs to be able to use.

Limitations

Mikogo has a couple of limitations compared to Twiddla…

• No saving of scribbles – You can’t save any scribbling you do using the built in whiteboard (unless you take a screenshot and save as an image file using a program like Paint)
• Small download – users need to download and install a small application, although this is extremely small and very quick and easy to do

Further Information

Website: http://www.mikogo.com

Tutorial Video: http://www.mikogo.com/tutorials/flash_voa/voa.html

If we see learning as a process of constructing meaning, and therefore one where relevance is key to enabling the learner to both find and create meaning, then the actual medium (be it online or offline) is not necessarily so significant. What seems more pertinent is the ability to create excitement and engagement such that language learning opportunities surface in class.

French 2.0

I find my French classes engaging, precisely because I use topics such as “web 2.0 in language learning” as vehicles for the development of my French. I bring in texts from sites such as Apprendre 2.0 and I write blog posts for a personal blog of mine. As I get better in French I hope to play a more active role in online communities such as Apprendre 2.0. I find these opportunities to use French in a way that is meaningful to me very exciting and enjoyable. Furthermore there are two observations about these classes that stand out for me:

1. the classes implicitly draw upon Dogme ideas: there are no textbooks; language emerges from my interaction with texts (that I read or write) and the activities are very real for me

2. the web plays a critical and highly enabling role in the lessons: the materials used in class can only be accessed online and the lesson topics are so real for me precisely because I am able to connect with others via online communities.

This is not to suggest that coursebooks should be avoided – just that it seems difficult to see how a French textbook could satisfy my desire to communicate about what interests me most. Likewise I am not suggesting that lessons must involve the internet – just that drawing on the potential of the web helps me connect with others (in a specialized field), and therefore jointly create meaning, with other people who are also interested in the same topics.

Relevance, Motivation and Communication

I see communication as essentially being driven by a desire to be heard and understood. And that we are motivated to communicate what we find relevant to our lives: if something resonates with a student and sparks a desire to be heard on the subject, then she/he will be motivated to express themselves as best they can. This becomes a springboard for learning (through language emergence etc). As a teacher, how can I tap into this desire to enable the student to achieve more effective communication in a foreign language? How can teachers facilitate relevance in the classroom (virtual or physical) so that students are naturally able to engage in constructing meaning – in our case in a foreign language?

As such, this question can be seen from both views (2.0 or Dogme). For a Dogme-inspired teacher, the question points to using the web to find greater relevance; to finding content and opportunities for online collaboration that will inspire the learner to engage. For teachers already keen on the internet, the Dogme principles offer a pedagogical structure for how best to draw on the web to ensure relevance and enable communication that leads to language emergence and therefore learning.

Ensuring Relevance for the Learner

Not all classroom teachers should use the web in class, nor should online teachers follow a Dogme dogma (although I am certainly sympathetic to the latter). Rather that focusing on the construction of meaning within the learning process, we are naturally led toward the question of relevance for the learner. And as our lives increasingly take place online and our learning becomes more and more specialized, the search for relevance benefits from using the internet.

Moreover, if two-way communication is seen as the central vehicle in language learning, then online communication (in a variety of forms) can help the learner connect with a far wider audience (or far more exact audience) than is possible within the four walls of a classroom. In its 2.0 form the web is highly interactive and the audience becomes a conversation partner – indeed a collaborator in the process of knowledge co-construction.

For me the question is not about whether to use the internet; it is more about how to use the net – precisely because the English teaching I do is entirely online. However the far more significant question is how to ensure relevance for the learner.

This post is adapted from a message on the Dogme ELT Yahoo Group.

]]> http://www.avatarlanguages.com/blog/relevance-dogme-web-20/feed/ 1 http://www.avatarlanguages.com/blog/textbooks-relevant-20-world/ http://www.avatarlanguages.com/blog/textbooks-relevant-20-world/#comments Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:46:59 +0000 Howard Vickers http://www.avatarlanguages.com/blog/?p=273

Jane Petring of Collège Édouard-Montpetit (Longueuil, Québec) asks this very question in an article and forthcoming discussion at TESOL 2009. She notes that “materials writers need to take an honest look at how Web 2.0 is changing the way people interact and learn if we want to remain relevant in the 21st century”. Petering is not alone – the future of the course book is also being discussed on the IATEFL Cardiff Online forum.

The web 2.0 is clearly changing how we work, communicate and learn. So, if the textbook is to keep up with these developments, what should it look like?

End of the Textbook?

Textbooks are still in demand – there are both teachers and students who appreciate the structure and order of a published coursebook. In fact at Avatar Languages we make use of the online English-to-Go service, which provides a valuable and solid textbook-like collection of lesson plans and materials.

However, as we strive to focus on the student’s needs we have found that many language learners are looking for a more flexible and tailored approach. The internet and especially 2.0 applications are key in enabling this because of the following attributes…

• Enormous source of up-to-date content such as BBC news and independent blogs
• Online language reference materials such as grammar explanations and dictionaries
• Interactive applications such as virtual worlds and Google Maps Street View
• Opportunities to create and collaborate through editing wikis, writing blogs or participating in forums

The above attributes of the new internet mean that more people are finding the web increasingly engaging and that it has greater relevance to their (increasingly online) lives than a paper-based textbook does. A previous blog post on “Dogme 2.0” mentions some of the reasons behind this trend and looks at some pedagogical principles that can guide the use of the web 2.0 in language lessons. This blog also has other posts that give concrete examples of how web 2.0 tools can be used in language lessons…

Google Maps Street View to allow students to visit real cities online and describe their virtual surroundings.

Second Life allows for more immersive experiences and can also be used for practicing activities such as presenting in a virtual world conference.

Wikipedia articles can be edited by students as well as being used as a source of information.

Textbook 2.0

But where does this leave the coursebook? And how should it change to keep its relevance? I see the following as possible attributes of a “2.0” textbook…

• Online format with print-friendly option
• Real content that keeps the book continually up-to-date
• Embedding and linking as the means to connect with third-party content
• Encouraging online engagement and collaboration
• Events online to bring together students for social learning and teachers for professional development
• Teachers’ Book offering greater support to the teacher as a facilitator of 2.0 learning

Nergiz Kern suggests similar possibilities on the IATEFL Cardiff Online forum.

Teacher Support Service 2.0

It seems that it is not just the book that may need to change, but also the business model. The textbook 2.0 could be more of a service than a product, because it would need to be continually updated and would therefore feel more like work in progress. Essentially the “book” could be rented as an online subscription rather than purchased as a finished product.

In large part, the textbook 2.0 could allow language schools to contract out some of the work that their teachers already do (finding and adapting resources that engage the students so that language learning opportunities emerge) rather than the current practice of buying in the materials and lesson plans (in the form of a course book).

This is an extreme alternative to the current model of a printed textbook, but perhaps this in itself is a measure of the challenges of keeping up with 2.0 developments.

Real-Life Activities Online – with a Social Element

The internet now has an enormous range of content (audio, video, images, text and applications) and is also becoming increasingly interactive and social. Under the general title of “web 2.0”, the new internet allows us to do more and more tasks online and engage with others in the process. A few examples…

• Shopping (for almost anything) and reviewing the products on the store’s website
• Planning (for travel, holidays and events) and sharing our plans and experiences
• Researching (for background information, daily news, opinions) and giving feedback comments
• Socializing and meeting others: chat-rooms, conferences (in virtual worlds), video-conferencing
• Creating and sharing content: uploading YouTube videos, slideshare presentations, podcasts, writing blogs and editing Wikipedia

With such a huge range of real-life, social activities that are now carried out online, there is an infinite quantity of language learning material available on the web. This material is up-to-date, interactive and very real. It is therefore especially relevant to language learners who do many of these tasks online in their own language and therefore would like to feel more confident doing them in another language.

Example Lessons with Web 2.0

Over the next few weeks this blog will look at some 2.0 tools and discuss how they can be used in language lessons. Some offer more social experiences, such as using Second Life for language learning and others draw on the practical uses of the internet such as using Google Maps Street View in a language lesson. Our students are also producing presentations that are hosted on Slideshare.net (a YouTube service for PowerPoint presentations) and have created podcasts which are hosted on Blip.tv. Others have written and edited Wikipedia articles, while some preparing talks for conferences in virtual worlds. All these examples demonstrate how the web 2.0 can offer a more relevant, real-life focused way to learn a language.

Dogme ELT: Inspiration for Web 2.0 Teaching

Using the internet in this way leads to a very different kind of learning from that offered in a textbook-based lesson. And so the ideas of the Dogme ELT movement (of educators who prefer not to use coursebooks) are particularly relevant to language teaching with Web 2.0 tools. Dogme ELT started in the mid 1990s and took its inspiration and its name from the Dogma 95 film movement. Dogme ELT promoted the use of real content in the language classroom in place of the artificially created materials from coursebooks. This real content serves to create real discussions within lessons and these discussions become the basis of language learning. Language then emerges from the communication in a more organic way than the structured and ordered approach of coursebooks.

Dogme ELT Principles

Scott Thornbury, one of the founders of the Dogme ELT movement, has highlighted several key principles of the Dogme approach. Here is a quick summary…

• Learning happens most directly through interactivity (eg between teachers and learners) and so knowledge is co-constructed in learning rather than transmitted by the teacher.
• Learning takes place through communication and conversation, through which language emerges. The learner’s voice (beliefs, knowledge, experiences) are valid content in lesson.
• Content should engage learners to enable learning – the learners themselves should supply this to ensure relevance. The teacher enables the emergence of language and guides the students toward it

* all emphasis my own

Dogme 2.0

These principles fit well with the teaching opportunities of web 2.0. In fact web 2.0 applications strengthen some of the most important aspects of Dogme ELT approaches: learning is more interactive, knowledge is co-constructed between many more people and materials are re-edited by students to reflect their voice.

• Knowledge is co-constructed amongst a far wider pool of players when using the internet. Communication is not just between teachers and students, but also with other web surfers, who watch slideshare presentations, read lonelyplanet.com reviews and attend (virtual) conference presentations.
• The distinction between consuming content and producing content is now blurred. For example, in a paper-based lesson, a newspaper article remains unchanged by the class activities (at most a letter to the editor could result). In a web 2.0 lesson the texts can be from a Wikipedia article and are therefore editable by the student, or from a blog post, which can then be commented upon by the student.

So perhaps we are looking here at an opportunity for the Dogme ELT approach to evolve into a “Dogme 2.0”, where the “2.0” tag represents the ability for students to engage, interact and create online.