Whyte, Shona; Cutrim Schmid, Euline & Beauchamp, Gary (2014): Second language interaction with interactive technologies: the IWB in state school foreign language classrooms. Paper presented at the AILA conference, Brisbane, Australia, August 2014.

1. Second language interaction
with interactive technologies:
the IWB in state school foreign language classrooms
Shona Whyte (University of Nice, France)
Euline Cutrim Schmid* (University of Education Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany)
Gary Beauchamp (Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK)
AILA World Congress 2014 Brisbane, Australia 11 August 2014

2. Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
touch-sensitive screen – video projector – computer

3. Background

4. Growing use of IWB in classrooms
… one in eight classrooms
(34 million teaching spaces)
across the world now have an
IWB and by 2015, one in five
will have one.
Hennessy & London, 2013

5. IWB penetration by country

6. Types of interactivity at the IWB
Level
1
no interactivity lecture supported
didactic
IWB
illustrates,
learners
copy from
IWB
technical teacher
displays,
learners
copy
authoritative teacher
controls IWB,
fixed questions
and answers
Level
2
dialectic learners use
IWB to justify
responses
interactive teacher
uses more
tools
physical teacher
presents,
learners
come to
IWB to
show
answers
dialogic input is
provided by
learners as
well as teacher
Level
3
synergistic all learners
use IWB to
contribute
ideas
enhanced
interactivity
fluent
technology
use,
flexible
lesson
structure
conceptual learners
contribute,
teacher at
back of
classroom
Whyte, 2013
Adapted from: Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2010; Glover et
al., 2007; Jewitt et al., 2007

7. Communicative competence and task-based
language teaching
Prioritisation of meaningful communication and interaction
over drilling and memorisation of grammar and vocabulary:
● negotiation of meaning and practice in communication
(Savignon, 2007)
● use language with an emphasis on meaning to achieve
an objective (Bygate et al., 2001)
● three of four dimensions of communicative competence
(sociolinguistic, discourse, strategic) presuppose
interaction (Blyth, 2001)

8. Research on the IWB for language teaching
● increase in motivation, multimodality, and pace (Cutrim
Schmid, 2008, 2010; Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012)
● compatible with any teaching style, including teacher-
controlled whole-class activities (Gray et al., 2007;
Gray, 2010)
● long learning curve involving both technical and
pedagogical development for teachers (Cutrim Schmid
& Whyte, 2012; Whyte et al., 2013)

9. Challenges for language teaching
● identifying and exploiting key affordances of novel
technologies for one’s own teaching context (Whyte,
2011)
● adopting strongly CLT and TBLT methods in traditional
state school settings, where rote learning of
vocabulary and grammar rules remain common (Cutrim
Schmid & Whyte, 2012; Whyte, 2011)
● the specificity of the IWB as a complex tool which can
be relatively easily integrated into existing practice but
requires teacher support in context and over time if it is
to mediate pedagogical innovation (Hennessy &
London, 2013)

10. iTILT Project

11. Design of IWB
training
Implementation of
IWB training
Use of IWB in
classroom
● 1st visit
● 2nd visit
Selection of video
examples
Creation of Open
Educational
Resources
● video recording of
IWB-mediated
language teaching
● learner focus group
interview
● video-stimulated
teacher interview
● 267 videos from
● 81 lessons by
● 44 teachers of
● 6 languages in
● 7 countries at
● 4 educational levels
http://www.itilt.eu
Whyte, Cutrim Schmid,
Thompson and Oberhofer,
2013

13. Method

14. Participants: EFL Teachers
France Germany Total
primary 4 4
lower
secondary
2 1 3
upper
secondary
2 2 4
Total 8 3 11

15. Teacher M/F Age Teaching Learners IWB Level
AF F 40+ 20+ 9-10 2-3 Primary
BF F 40+ 20+ 8-9 2-3 Primary
CF F 20+ 0 7-11 0-1 Primary
DF F 30+ 4 7-12 2-3 Primary
EF F 30+ 7 12-13 0-1 Lower Secondary
FF F 20+ 2 11-12 2-3 Lower Secondary
HF F 40+ 20+ 16-17 0-1 Upper Secondary
IF M 30+ 10+ 15 4-5 Upper Secondary
BG M 25 + 2 11-12 0-1 Lower Secondary
DG F 40 + 20 + 16-17 5 Upper Secondary
EG F 25 + 4 15-16 2 Upper Secondary

16. Video clips
France 33 Germany 21
Round 1 26 Round 2 28
Primary 15 Secondary 39

17. Analysis

18. Language Context Planning
(task-as-
plan)
Control
(task-as-
process)
Drill
Display
Simulation
Communication
Levels of IWB-mediated Interaction

19. Language Context Planning Control
Drill • pre-planned
language
• closed
questions
• repetition,
choral
repetition
• teacher
feedback on
form
• limited attempt
to
contextualize
language
• focus on
linguistic
form
• opportunities
for language
production are
entirely pre-
planned by
teacher
• entirely
controlled by
teacher
• language pre-
selected for
presentation
and practice
• teacher
controls
access to
board and
turn-taking
Level 1: Drill

20. Video Clip 1

21. Language Context Planning Control
Display • pre-planned
language
elements but
some learner
choice in
language to be
produced
• input/output
goes beyond
minimum
target items
• closed
questions but
also some
open questions
• teacher
feedback
mainly on
language
form
• limited
attempt to
contextualize
language
• effort to extend
input and
output
• no simulation
of real-world
activity
• opportunities
for language
production
are mainly
pre-planned
by teacher
• board
elements
support some
unplanned
production
from teacher
and/or
learners
• mainly
controlled by
teacher with
some space
for learner
choice
provided
• main objective
is to practice
pre-selected
language
elements
Level 2: Display

22. Video Clip 2

23. Language Context Planning Control
Simulation • some focus on
meaning
• teacher
feedback on
form but also
on content
• interaction
based on
communicatio
n rather than
language form
• meaningful
context
• role-play:
pretending to
be someone
in a real-life
activity
• activity
includes some
space for
learner
choice
• teacher
expands on
minimal
requirements
of activity to
allow more
communication
• learner-
oriented
activity
• voluntary
participation
• learner choice
in how to
participate
Level 3: Simulation

24. Video Clip 3

25. Language Context Planning Control
Communication
• focus on
meaning
• teacher
feedback on
content
• interaction
based on
genuine
communication
rather than
language form
• learner choice of
language forms
and shaping of
communicative
event
• authentic
context
• activity
worth doing
in L1
• interaction
represents
real-life
activity
• exchange of
participants'
own opinions
or reactions
• open activity
with space for
learner choice
• advance
planning/
preparation by
learners
• learner-centred
activity leading
to learner
controlled
activities
• space for
spontaneous
interaction
Level 4: Communication

26. Video Clip 4

27. Findings

28. 33%
41%
17%
9%
Overview of interactivity types

29. 27%
39% 42% 39%
15%
4%
15%
18%
First and second rounds of filming

30. French and German teachers

31. 73%
20%
7%
15%
60%
5%
20%
21%
37%
16%
26%
Primary and secondary teachers

32. Discussion

33. Summary of findings
● general preference for activities involving lower levels of
interactivity
● drilling mainly in primary classrooms; communication
restricted to secondary classrooms
● more drill and display activities by French teachers,
more variety in German classes
lower
levels of
interactivity
basic IWB tools
and features
involving
single learner at IWB
reactive
(gratuitous)
interactivity

34. Possible explanations
● early stages of IWB adoption not associated
with pedagogical transformation
● core beliefs about second language teaching
and learning lead to resistance to CLT and
TBLT
● institutional influences: less CLT orientation,
primary ELT training in France, more TBLT in
Germany

35. Conclusion

36. Implications
● no clear-cut positive effects on classroom
interaction associated with IWB use
● more classroom-based research in state-school
settings involving teachers in collaborative
action research
● stronger focus on teacher education in design
and implementation of communicative tasks

37. Further reading
● Cutrim Schmid, E. & Whyte, S. (Eds.) (to appear in September
2014) Teaching languages with technology: communicative
approaches to interactive whiteboard use. A resource book for
teacher development. Bloomsbury.
● Whyte, S. & Alexander, J. (2014). Implementing tasks with
interactive technologies in classroom CALL: towards a
developmental framework. Canadian Journal of Learning and
Technology, 40 (1), 1-26. PDF
● Whyte, S. (to appear). Implementing and researching technological
innovation in language teaching: the case of interactive
whiteboards for EFL in French schools. Palgrave Macmillan.
● Cutrim Schmid, E. (to appear). Interactive whiteboards and
language learning. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds). Routledge
handbook of language learning and technology. Routledge.

38. References: http://wp.me/p28EmH-3Z