Portfolio by Anna Krinitsyna

Digitally-mediated language learning (DMLL) is no longer a separate area in language teaching, but rather an integral part of it. If our goal is to teach using real-life examples and situations, we should be teaching using technology. For example, instead of going to the bank exclusively in person, we now use a banking app in most cases. Thus, if we teach language based on daily functions and real-life situations, which is part of functional and communicative competence (Ortega, 2013), we should be teaching language and culture-specific ways of online banking. Similarly, if young learners already spend time playing games on smartphones and iPads, the homework we assign can be in the form of an online game. Many of the approaches widely recognized in language teaching can be done through DMLL.

In our DMLL Discussion Sections of the Curriculum and Materials Development course (LT 548) and the Assessment course (LT 549), we completed online modules on the theory and practice of implementing DMLL. What we learned in the DMLL sections directly connects with what we studied in other courses. For example, the activities we plan must be integrative and foster critical thinking. They must also be at higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Shrum & Glisan, 2016), which is a model that helps teachers think about how to create activities that use higher-order thinking. We also learned that activities must show validity and reliability (see Assessment competency).

I have included my certificates of completion (scroll through images), which include the titles and bullet points of each topic. We studied what makes a good or a bad digital resource for language learning. I learned that many of the tools currently in use are not backed by research. In fact, some even have a negative impact on language learning. For example, the instructor of our DMLL discussion section had mentioned that there is much user attrition with Duolingo because it makes some people feel as though they can’t succeed. This group of learners get discouraged and give up.

One thing I did not expect from the modules was that we would be taught how to create a game. I believe this was an important exercise, even though we did not finish the process. Considering the amount of game creation resources available, it is important for language teachers to know not only how to use the resources, but also the pedagogical and language teaching saliency that should be incorporated in a game. It is preferable to create activities and games that have a specific task or purpose. For example, instead of only teaching or testing vocabulary words, learners do something with the vocabulary, like organize clothing into categories or choose appropriate clothing for different weather situations.

In one of the modules, we examined a sociolinguistic approach to a needs analysis (Kaewpet, 2009), which consists of conducting an inventory of how learners use social media sites and what their needs are. This analysis directs the inclusion of specific or historical language for domain-specific needs. An example of a learner-centered approach that I noted for myself is to allow learners to select which digital games they would like to use, then have students select a preferred game for a content analysis project. An example of a task-based approach is to select a task and then have learners highlight both digital and non-digital language needed to complete the task. Finally, an example of a system approach, which was covered in the first area of my project, is to have learners keep a technology log of digitally mediated discourse over the course of two weeks and then use information from these logs to inform curriculum design choices.

While it would be too long to describe each module, the word “understanding” and the phrase “evidence collection” sum up what I have learned in the courses. Teaching for understanding versus knowledge, as explained in Ritchhart (2015), takes knowledge to the next level, the level of action. This includes applying, performing, and anything that gets students to be independent. Anything we do, be it goal setting, organizing, designing, assessing, collecting, and experimenting needs to be done with the idea of teaching for understanding. In my own teaching, I have started to implement what I have learned in these modules and in my other classes. As I am a one-on-one tutor, I explain to my students the importance of having language learning goals. I have my students choose several ACTFL Can-Do statements from a list I provide them with each month. Then, I keep coming back to the statements from time to time when I give them feedback. Each time I choose a text or an online activity, I ask myself how students can demonstrate understanding.

Evidence collection is important not just for showcasing work, but also for tracking language learning progress. I believe it goes hand-in-hand with understanding, my first point. Feedback should not only be corrective (pointing out what was wrong), but should include evidence of excellence, which should serve as future repeated outcomes. I wish I had implemented evidence collection from the beginning with some of my long-time students. I am currently reviewing the online tools I learned about in the modules for the right one for my elementary students. It needs to be a safe place, easily accessible for parents and students, user-friendly and preferably free of charge. It also needs to work for written, audio, and visual student work.

To further demonstrate application of DMLL, I have included the artifact titled “Spanish Activity: Strategies for Choosing Between Direct and Indirect Requests, Considering Rank of Imposition in Everyday Requests.” This was an assignment from our Pragmatics course (LT 538). Similarly to how teaching is done in university classes, I used Google Slides to present the lesson and guide activities. In the activity, I planned for students to view authentic video clips, such as YouTube Shorts, for the purpose of studying how requests are actually made by Spanish speakers. After collaborating on the strategies using the IPIC chart, students practice applying the strategies to their own lives. Furthermore, students practice finding similar videos by themselves.

REFERENCES

Donato, R., & Adair-Hauck, B. (2016). PACE: A story-based approach for dialogic inquiry about form and meaning. Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction, 5, 206-230.

Kaewpet, C. (2009). A framework for investigating learner needs: Needs analysis extended to curriculum development. Electronic journal of foreign language teaching, 6(2), 209-220.

Ortega, L. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition. Routledge.

Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating cultures of thinking: The 8 forces we must master to truly transform our schools. John Wiley & Sons.

BACK TO 'PROJECT' PAGE

NEXT COMPETENCY