Quick and dirty e-mail lists: when your LMS can’t give you the group you need

You know the paradox: technology is everywhere, you want to update your students with information relating to your classes, your institution wants you to use an official platform, your students want access to course resources, they’re fact-checking you live during lectures on their smartphones, and yet … you can’t find an up-to-date list of e-mail addresses that your students actually check.

Photo by Diego PH on Unsplash

Here’s my work around.

1. Create a sign-up form.

Here’s an example using Google Forms which anyone can edit and use. If you access the menu from the three vertical dots beside your account image (top right) you can duplicate it then edit your own copy.

2. Get the Link to Share.

Once your form is complete, you need the link to communicate to the students in front of you in your class. From the Send button get the Link to Share.

3. Shorten the link.

This link will be too long for your students to type accurately, so go to bit.ly and use the orange Create button (top right) to get an automatically generated shortcode. You can even suggest your own: http://bit.ly/ThisForm

4. Invite students to sign up.

Now you can share the link with your students in class and they can sign up directly using their phones. Tell them to open any browser on their phone, type in the shortcode and then fill out the form (carefully).

It will take less than 2 minutes for the first students to submit the form depending on their connection speed and general tech fluency, by 5 minutes you will have most and the stragglers will come in by the end of class or shortly after.

5. Access addresses

Back in your form in Edit mode, you can access the Responses in real time or after class. Use the green Sheet icon to open a spreadsheet where all the data is recorded in rows and columns. Now you can copy the column of e-mail addresses and e-mail the group.

Use the spreadsheet functions to alphabetise the list and delete doubles. You can also highlight typos in addresses (which bounce when you e-mail) to flag to the group next class meeting.

6. Update

Don’t forget to give out the address for the form in subsequent classes to add late arrivals to your list. I try to leave it top right on my whiteboard throughout class.

Advertisements

Digital faceplant: using VLC to anonymise classroom photos

Photo by Alex Perez on Unsplash

Those of us involved in teacher education often worry about recording classroom interaction. On one hand, the digital revolution has opened wonderful possibilities for education through easy recording and sharing of images and audiovisual materials from a variety of teaching contexts. On the other, it creates the problem of internet safety and the digital footprints we leave of our young pupils. Teacher educators like classroom photos as evidence of teaching activities and to increase peer learning among student-teachers. But schools, parents, and teachers themselves are wary of sharing digital materials where individuals can be identified.

Teachers try to get around the problem by taking photographs with pupils’ backs turned, or by blurring faces. Often these methods rob images of much of their value. Another option is available in the free, open-source digital video editor VLC, which many language teachers use in everyday teaching. It’s a lesser known functionality accessible from the video effects toolbox, which you can find in the Windows drop-down menu. I’m showing the Mac version below; on a PC it seems to be accessible from the Tools menu.

  1. Import your picture into VLC. Here I took a screenshot from a video (ALT-CMD-S) and opened it in VLC (CMD-O).
Screenshot from video

2. Go to Windows > Video effects to see this box

Check Gradient to alter image

3. Check Gradient to see this effect:

“Gradient” image of first screenshot above

Other possibilities include Edge within the Gradient section:

Gradient > Edge
“Edge” image of first screenshot above

You can also change colour using the Colour threshold option

Image of first screenshot above without colour

And there you have it, an easy way of digitally modifying images (or video) that preserves the essential character of classroom interactions without compromising pupil privacy and safety.

Grohmann: the language faculty and biolinguistics

Lecture at Nice University (January 2019) by Kleanthes Grohmann
University of Cyprus & Cyprus Acquisition Team

Photo by The Roaming Platypus on Unsplash

Speaker

Kleanthes K. Grohmann is Professor of Biolinguistics in the Department of English Studies at the University of Cyprus (UCY) and the Director of CAT, the Cyprus Acquisition Team (CAT Lab). He received his Ph.D. from the University of Maryland (2000) and has published widely in the areas of syntactic theory, comparative syntax, language acquisition, impaired language, and multilingualism. Among the books he has written and (co-)edited are Understanding Minimalism (with N. Hornstein and J. Nunes, 2005, CUP), InterPhases (2009, OUP), and The Cambridge Handbook of Biolinguistics (with Cedric Boeckx, 2013, CUP). He is founding co-editor of the John Benjamins book series Language Faculty and Beyond and editor of the open-access journal Biolinguistics.

Biolinguistic considerations of the language faculty across phenotypes

Abstract

Universal Grammar (UG) denotes the species-specific faculty of language, presumed to be invariant across individuals. Over the years, it has shrunk from a full-blown set of principles and parameters to a much smaller set of properties, possibly as small as just containing the linguistic structure-building operation Merge, which in turn has been argued to derive the uniquely human language property of recursion (Hauser et al. 2002)—or rather, the Labeling Algorithm (Chomsky 2012, 2015; Berwick & Chomsky 2016). UG qua human faculty of language is further assumed to constitute the “optimal solution to minimal design specifications” (Chomsky 2001: 1), a perfect system for language. Unfortunately, the human system or physiology does not always run perfectly smooth in an optimal fashion. There are malfunctions, misformations, and other aberrations throughout. The language system is no exception.

This talk aims at considering theoretical and methodological issues that shed light on the human faculty of language with respect to language development and pathology. The main proposal derives from joint work with Evelina Leivada and Maria Kambanaros (Leivada et al. 2017) on the Locus Preservation Hypothesis, which in addition has implications for typical language acquisition, second language learning, and language variation in general. The first part of this talk will build on joint work with Ianthi Tsimpli and Maria Kambanaros(Tsimpli et al. 2017) and present language pathology from the perspective of the underlying system: What can non-intact language tell us about UG? Particular emphasis will be put on evidence from Greek, and how the investigation of impaired (cognitive-)linguistic abilities from one language can inform the study at large—and how it can (not) shed light on the study of a(n impaired) language faculty. The second part picks up the long-standing observation that grammatical markers are not uniformly impaired across speakers of different languages, even when speakers share a diagnosis and the marker in question is grammaticalized in a similar way in these languages. This work aims to demarcate, from a cross-linguistic perspective, the linguistic phenotype of three genetically heterogeneous developmental disorders, such as Specific Language Impairment, Autism Spectrum Disorder, and Down Syndrome.

References

Boeckx, C. (2006). Linguistic minimalism: Origins, concepts, methods, and aims. Oxford University Press.

Leivada, E. (2015). The nature and limits of variation across languages and pathologies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Barcelona.

Leivada, E., Papadopoulou, E., Kambanaros, M., & Grohmann, K. K. (2017). The influence of bilectalism and non-standardization on the perception of native grammatical variants. Frontiers in psychology8, 205.

Tsimpli, I. M., Kambanaros, M., & Grohmann, K. K. (2017). Language pathology. The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar, 486-508. PDF

Chomsky’s 1986 Five questions

1. What is knowledge of language? (Humboldt’s problem, Chomsky 1965)
2. How is that knowledge acquired (Plato’s problem, Chomsky 1986)
3. How is that knowledge put to use? (Descartes, bread and butter of linguistics)
4. How is that knowledge implemented in the brain (Broca, imaging, Boeckx)
5. How did that knowledge emerge in the species? (Darwin’s problem, Jewett 1914)

Linguistic theories deals with these questions with a certain form of idealisation (ideal speaker-hearer, idealised monolingual). We have some answers but there are still outstanding issues. This talk addresses a different aspect of these questions, that is how they relate to pathological cases:
1. knowledge of language: Universal Grammar and language faculty
2. acquisition: impact of impairment: delay vs deviance
3. language use: relevance and effect of impairment
4. brain: differential impairment/breakdown
5. species: genetic factors

There is a need for interdisciplinary collaboration.

Chomsky (2005) three factors

  1. genetic factors (UG)
  2. epigenetic (experience)
  3. third-factor considerations (not language-specific but domain-general)

Developmental language impairments (eg SLI) and acquired language disorders (eg aphasia) have been studied for a very long time. For good reasons:

  • to inform the diagnosis and therapy of speech disorders
  • localisation of language in the brain (imaging, ERP)
  • identify which areas of language may be impaired (morphology, phonology, grammar, pragmatics, semantics)
  • discover more about the language faculty (FL).

Earlier Universal Grammar (UG) approaches include Government and binding (GB) theory, positing a modular structure of the cognitive system including a language module, which itself has a modular structure. The language module has a hierarchical structure (X-bar theory, theta theory): lexicon, d-structure, s-structure, phonetic form (PF) and logical form (LF). It was thought that in language pathologies, some modules were impaired and that investigating impairment would inform GB theory. More recent research takes a minimalist approach focusing on either a broad or narrow conception of FL.

Language pathology research

Tsimpli, Kambanaros & Grohmann (2017)

UG denotes the species-specific faculty of language, presumed to be invariant across individuals. Over the years it has shrunk from a principles and parameters model to a single operation: “merge.” There may be a neural footprint of “merge” that allows for the recursive properties of language.

Broad language faculty (FLB): all mechanisms involved in language

Narrow language faculty (FLN): subset of mechanisms unique to humans and to language. Modular theory has been abandoned in favour of a minimalist programme.

UG is assumed to constitute the “optimal solution to minimal design specifications” (Chomsky 2001: 1). Yet the physiology does not always function perfectly.

Grodzinsky (1986): aphasics have difficulty interpreting passives (inversion of theta roles). Tree-pruning or truncation hypothesis: difficulties on left periphery could support a modular interpretation of impairment (projection problem). Studies of impairment shed light on invariant human faculty of language.

4 Pertinent issues

  1. Can pathology affect the core of language abilities (i.e. the use of universal operations and primitives) or does pathology restrict language-specific properties (giving rise to optionality or variability)? (In other words, is there any evidence that language operations such as external or internal Merge are unavailable or otherwise impaired in any population with language pathology?)
  2. Does language pathology affect linguistic competence (in language-specific options) or does the variability in language use depend on accessing this knowledge due to affected mechanisms mediating language use (such as working memory resources)?
  3. Does language pathology affect language use differently depending on whether we are dealing with an acquired or a developmental language disorder? (Associated with this question: Could we distinguish between language use vs. language knowledge issues as a function of acquired vs. developmental language disorders?)
  4. Can we disentangle the contribution of language-external factors in human cognition such as executive control or in the environment, such as input frequency of a particular token, type, or structure from language-impaired performance in developmental or acquired language disorders?

Speech, language and communication difficulties (SLCDs)

Theoretical assumptions raise issues about links or dissociations among speech, language and communication disorders. The three terms are important in diagnosis and intervention, but tacit assumption is that impairment is rarely selective (all three are affected in one individual).

Inverted T-model: Sentences (pairings of sound and meaning) are produced by selecting elements from the lexicon, merging (spell-out) and then feeding the PF (SM) and LF (CI).

Objectives on ongoing research

  • identify grammatical markers across atypical cognitive phenotypes which are consistently impaired,
  • revisit deficient syntax in SLI, autism and Down’s syndrome
  • compare standard and Cypriot Greek

Meta-analysis (Leivada 2015: Locus preservation hypothesis)

Collins (2005): morpho-syntactic difficulties associated with tense inflection appear across pathologies with different genetic causes (SLI, ASD, DS, Williams syndrome) => variable expressivity.

The effects of genetic disorders on FL appear to be surprisingly non-specific (affect same markers), but are also highly specific (target only some parts of language while consistently sparing others). May also appear in neurotypicals (eg effect of tiredness).

What is needed is a fine-grained analysis of locus of variation using distributed morphology framework (unlike inverted T model). One problem with previous research is its focus on English. This work is limited by the impoverished inflectional system of English, so it is interesting to include more richly inflected languages such as Greek. Research on these languages using quantitative methods suggests that what has been identified as impaired or deficient syntax in the literature is in fact something else.

Specific language impairment

delays in process of language acquisition. No inclusionary criteria, rather exclusionary, and heterogeneous disorder. Research in later 1990s reported particular characteristics in SLI Greek (omissions of definite article, but not indefinite; object clitics also suggested as vulnerable markers) but there is variation depending on data collection techniques and replication has not been successful.

What do omitted markers mean? Even if markers are omitted, their selectional requirements remain fully operative (Mastropavlou & Tsimpli, 2011). SLI research supports a delayed account rather than a deviant account, since a high percentage of correct use is ultimately manifested.

Down’s syndrome

Phonetically conditioned differences in DS are due to the distinct physiology of the articular apparatus, coupled with a small residue of morphologically and phonologically conditional differences (Christodoulou, 2011). Final -s omission might suggest case problem but is in fact phonological. Grammatical markers are highly accurate (tense inflection, subject-verb agreement, pronouns, anaphors, tense and aspect). So impairment is at the level of external expression. English research does not agree, so perhaps English is not best language to study; more inflected languages are a better source.

ASD (autism)

ASD group (Terzi et al, 2012, 2014) had high performance in all types (pronouns, clitics), lowest performance in comprehension of clitics. Narrations are often underinformative, or lacking in temporal linking.

Variation across pathologies

Syntactic deficits are assumed on basis of omissions of free or bound markers. On closer analysis, the omissions boil down to of morphophonological markers or

Variation across pathologies can be formally captured by Locus Preservation Hypothesis

Through the Locus Preservation Hypothesis, a classical chicken and egg question can be addressed: Do poor conceptual resources and memory limitations result in an atypical grammar or does a grammatical breakdown lead to conceptual and memory limitations? Overall, certain morphological markers reveal themselves as highly susceptible to impairment, while syntactic operations are preserved, granting support to the first scenario. The origin of resilient syntax is explained from a phylogenetic perspective in connection to the “syntax-before-phonology” hypothesis.

Leivada, E., Papadopoulou, E., Kambanaros, M., & Grohmann, K. K. (2017).

In sum, syntactic operations are impenetrable to variation: their manifestations are universally preserved across the species. The computational system (“merge”) is intact, and problems occur only in externalisation, that is, at the phonetic interface or in terms of pragmatics

The high level of individual variation suggests that core syntax cannot be damaged or impaired, supported a “small UG” slimmed down framework, rather that a “big UG” modular framework. When surface syntactic deficits manifest, they do not follow from FL defects but stem from problems in the externalisation – consistent with small UG (rather than big UG). There is need for more cross-linguistic study, focusing on a spectrum of language pathologies taking perspectives drawing on comparative bilingualism, biolinguistics, and linguality.

Questions

  1. Use and interpretation of clitics or pronouns or articles depend on pragmatics. Grohmann expects deficiencies here to be apparent only in particular data collection circumstances, that is, only when contextual information is required.
  2. Neural footprint: granularity mismatch problem – current instruments do not allow linguistics to access fine level of granularity that interests them
  3. Does UG boil down to “merge”? Since animals can concatenate, does this mean they can merge (making UG not species-specific)? Animal concatenation is not considered to be an example of merge.

TBLT & CALL: challenges and obstacles in ELT

An introduction to computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and task-based language teaching (TBLT) for student teachers in our Masters in Teaching English programme at the University of Nice. I’ve linked to a number of examples of CALL projects and classroom technology use, as well as references to other resource sites and a short annotated bibliography. Feedback welcome!

Technology-mediated CALL in your classroom

Story Slam

Moth story

an example of a technology-mediated task: storytelling with second year students of English, Media & Communication.

  • the teacher prepares introductory lesson using a Moth story with transcript prepared on storyscribe
  • students talk in class, record on smartphones, then upload a recording to SoundCloud
  • the teacher creates a Google Form to collect SoundCloud links (see also Form tips here)
  • the teacher creates a generic message on gmail for individual feedback
  • the teacher makes a webpage for general feedback including resources for further study (WordPress, Google sites or Weebly)

NB: play safe (learner/parental authorisation) and play fair (copyright/creative commons). Voir également cette présentation en 180 secondes en français.

Technology-mediated CALL to connect classrooms

Who’s who? task

Primary EFL class exchange (France-Germany)

The French primary class makes a set of video selfies to send to a partner class in Germany, using English as a lingua franca. The German class does the same, and each class watches their partners’ videos to identify the pupils in a group photo.

Tools

  • Tablet technology: to make and share their video selfies, the learners used the iPad camera
  • Online sharing: for exchanging videos, the teachers used Google Drive and Gmail.
  • Classroom exploitation: to watch the videos, the teachers used
      • iPads
      • a laptop computer (with projector)
      • an IWB.
  • Video-stimulated recall: to facilitate discussion of classroom activities, the teacher educator used
    • camera, microphone, tripod
    • iMovie video editing application
    • Vimeo video sharing platform (http://vimeo.com).

Technology for professional development

Peer filming in task-based language teacher education

This activity was designed for first year students in our Masters in Teaching English programme at the University of Nice. It involves peer filming, where student teachers watch each other teach an activity in a secondary school EFL class and make video recordings using their smartphones. They then select an episode for discussion in their university class, and write up their analysis in a reflective paper.

Going further

Digital tools for the language classroom

iTILT mini-guides to technology for language teachers

  • digital resources
  • digital tools
  • digital networks

12 tools plus 1: Basic tools for language education

Going open with LangOER: advice for using and sharing open educational resources

ViLTE project

Task-based language teaching

Musicuentos Black Box video series (YouTube) – a set of presentations explaining classroom implications of second language research

PPP or TBLT? (slideshare) – explaining the difference between presentation-practice-production (PPP) and task-based language teaching (TBLT)

Language educators in ELT

EFL Classroom 2.0 (D Deubelbeiss)

TESOL teaching and learning website (P Chappell)

Reading

1. Goals for language education

    • Kramsch, C. (2018). Is there still a place for culture in a multilingual FL education? Langscape Journal, 1. doi 10.18452/19039

A recent discussion of critical approaches to foreign language education tackling intercultural and symbolic competence and multilingual practices, including criticism of stereotypical attitudes to FL culture in textbooks. Read some extracts here.

    • Unsworth, S., Persson, L., Prins, T., & De Bot, K. 2014, An investigation of factors affecting early foreign language learning in the Netherlands. Applied Linguistics.

Research on young and very young learners of English in the Netherlands (summary)

    • Whyte, S. (2016). Who are the specialists? Teaching and learning specialised language in French educational contexts. Recherches et pratiques pédagogiques en langue de spécialité, 35(3) [link]

Modern foreign languages, second language research and languages for specific purposes: what are the intersections and what does this mean for language teaching and learning?

    • Whyte, S. (2014). Digital pencil sharpening: technology integration and language learning autonomy. EL.LE, 3(1): 31-53. Università Ca’ Foscari, Venezia. [PDF]

This article discusses pedagogical goals in language education and gives suggestions for how teachers can create conditions for language acquisition to occur using classroom technologies.

2. Language teacher education

    • Bland, J. (Ed.). (2015). Teaching English to young learners: critical issues in language teaching with 3-12 year olds. London: Bloomsbury.

A collective volume on ELT with younger learners focusing on research and practice in key areas of language education.

    • Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (Eds.) (2014). Teaching languages with technology: communicative approaches to interactive whiteboard use. A resource book for teacher development. London: Bloomsbury.

This book offers a collection of classroom case studies showing how different language teachers integrated the interactive whiteboard into communicative approaches in a variety of contexts (ages, languages, proficiency levels).

    • Edwards, C., & Willis, J. R. (Eds.). (2005). Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

A collection of action/exploratory research projects conducted by graduate students in language education to address questions and problems arising in their own teaching contexts. A good source for replication for student-teachers new to classroom research.

    • Whyte, S. (2015). Implementing and Researching Technological Innovation in Language Teaching: The Case of Interactive Whiteboards for EFL in French Schools. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

A study of 9 French EFL teachers (4 primary, 2 lower secondary, 2 upper secondary, and 1 teacher educator) learning to integrate interactive technologies in their classrooms through an extended collaborative action research project. It seeks to explain differences in uptake of new pedagogical and technological affordances.

3. Task-based language teaching

Compare these two articles:

    • Anderson, J. (2016). ‘Why practice makes perfect sense: The past, present and future potential of the PPP paradigm in language teacher education’. ELTED, 19: 14-21.
    • Ellis, R. (2013). Task-based language teaching: Responding to the critics. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 8(1), 1-27.

See also

    • Erlam, R. (2015). ‘I’m still not sure what a task is’: Teachers designing language tasks. Language Teaching Research.
    • Erlam, R. (2013). Listing and comparing tasks in the language classroom: Examples of Willis and Willis’s (2007) taxonomy in practice. The New Zealand Language Teacher, 39,7-14.

The Moth story slam: le numérique et l’apprentissage par tâches pour communiquer en anglais

Journée Parlons pédagogie à l’université
UNS, 6 novembre 2018

The Moth story slam: le numérique et l’apprentissage par tâches pour communiquer en anglais

Pour améliorer les presentations à l’oral des étudiants il est important de trouver une motivation pour communiquer et d’assurer une correction ciblée pour chacun. Le format “story slam” permet aux étudiants de raconter une histoire personnelle sur un thème commun devant un public et un jury de leurs pairs. Ils s’enregistrent avec leur smartphone et partagent leur fichier audio avec l’enseignant sur une plateforme de distribution audio pour un retour personnalisé (lexique, grammaire, phonologie)

Quick and dirty video transcription: the YouTube solution

Maybe everyone has been doing this for years and I’m coming late to the party, or maybe YouTube has unobtrusively added some functionality recently, but it seems it’s now possible to get a quick and dirty transcript of a video by uploading it to YouTube and letting the platform offer automatic closed captions. You can then keep it warts and all, or use the integrated editor to make modifications in the text and the timing to produce acceptable subtitles. Then you can export the subtitle file in a number of formats, such as .srt, which you can open in a word processor/text editor and save as .txt for example. This process is useful for language teaching, for open educational resources, and for research relying on video corpora.

Here are the steps.

  1. Upload your video to YouTube.

This is one we made some years ago as a Christmas video suitable for secondary EFL:

This video is public (obviously) but you can set it to private if you wish, either before you upload or once it’s online.

2.  View the closed captions

Just click on the icon to toggle captions. You can specify a language when you upload, or just let nature take its course. A video in English by one of my French students was misidentified as Dutch, so best to set the language if there’s a risk of misidentification.

3. Edit captions

If you click on Edit you will see the following menu:

Screen Shot 2018-10-24 at 16.48.36

You need the Subtitles/CC option. Once here, click on the Edit button (top right) and you get something like this

Screen Shot 2018-10-24 at 16.54.48

You can edit in the left menu or on the ribbon below the video. You can change timecodes in either place, though it’s easier to use the waveform beneath the video.

If you look closely at the transcript above you’ll see all is fine until the fourth entry, at “have divine free” which doesn’t seem to make sense. Select this section and hit play and you’ll hear “add the vine fruit” – pause the video to give yourself time to modify the text. The next error is “county peel” which on closer listening turns out to be “candied peel” so I can fix that too. If you do check the video on YouTube you’ll see only the correct version since I’m correcting as I write this post.

Once I save the changes I see this. My edited subtitle file appears as English and this is one I should select to appear with my video and to download for other uses.

Screen Shot 2018-10-24 at 17.01.34

4. Export captions

From the Subtitles/CC option in the Edit menu, you can download the subtitles from the Actions drop-down menu

Screen Shot 2018-10-24 at 16.52.51.png

You have a choice of formats – if you take .srt you can open it with a basic wordprocessor and save as .txt.

And that’s pretty much it. Come to think of it, I’m sure this option wasn’t available when I uploaded this video back in 2011, but the captions are there now and it seems pretty straightforward to exploit them for any number of purposes, such as teaching, OER or research purposes in my own case.

Tech-mediated pedagogy in higher ed: SHOUT4HE

Cardiff Metropolitan University hosted the kick-off meeting for our new Erasmus+ project on SHaring Open practices Using Technology for Higher Education. The goal is to share practice examples of technology-mediated teaching at university and college level to develop technological and pedagogical competences among colleagues in a range of European HE contexts.

SHOUT4HE project

1. Cardiff Metropolitan University (Coordinator)
  • Gary Beauchamp, Professor of Education, senior researcher in educational technology
  • Huw Jones: research and innovation officer

Partners

2. Université Côte d’Azur

  • Peter Follette: associate professor of English (scientific English), office of international scientific visibility
  • Natalia Timus: senior pedagogical advisor, centre for active pedagogy (CAP),
  • Shona Whyte: professor of English, Second language studies research

3. Hogeschool PXL, Belgium)

  • Wouter Hustinx, Head of Research, Centre of Expertise PXL Educational Innovation

4. University of Limerick

  • Dr Fiona Farr, Fiona: applied linguistics and TESOL
  • Dr Angelica Risquez, Lead Educational Developer
  • Dr Liam Murray
  • Sinead Spain, (Digilanguages project)
5. University of Bordeaux
  • Sue Becaas: English for academic purposes, Défi international (teaching in the international classroom) EQUIP project
  • Melanie White: ESP teaching (biology/health sciences, sports education), student engagement through blended learning, storytelling
  • Laüra Hoskins: blended learning for human sciences, health sciences, EQUIP, EMI
  • Joanne Pagèze, VP international collaboration

SHOUT4HE objectives

  1. Recognize and validate innovative and high quality ICT-supported teaching practices in European HEIs.
  1. Share these innovative teaching practices in a community of practice on a  freely available, open access project website/portal
  1. Promote  international networking and international cooperation & mutual learning between HE teachers working in different disciplines.
  1. Inspire HE teaching staff in their development of more attractive, contemporary education using technology effectively.

SHOUT4HE events

  • Hasselt, Belgium
    April 2019: Recognition framework
  • Limerick, Ireland
    November 2019: e-platform to share open practices
  • Bordeaux, France
    May 2020: reflection on teaching practice
  • Nice, France: e-resources
    Dec 2020
  • Cardiff, Wales
    Final conference:
    June 2021

Project outputs

1. Recognition framework

Creation of a progressive conceptual framework for technology-mediated teaching in higher education drawing on previous research and current practices and needs.
Output led by Limerick.
Examples:
  •  http://www.allaboardhe.ie/map/
  • PXL template
    • 4 levels
      • unsatisfactory
      • promising
      • good (actual criteria)
      • excellent (additional criteria) on
    • 6 dimensions
      • Instructional design
      • digital course structure/ergonomy
      • content
      • evaluation
      • technology
      • quality control
This agreed framework will identify the essential components of effective examples of teaching with technology, which will in turn an provide educators across Europe with a solid, progressive conceptual framework to engage with educational research practice.
It is envisaged that the achievement of these results will also involve the following:
• A synthesis of the literature in instructional design and pedagogical patterns (Laurillard, 2012) in teaching with technology in HE.
• Semi-structured interviews via a uniform approach of each partner in order to get insight in the way ‘successful’ HE teachers integrate technology in their practices (with attention to the process and product)
• A validation of the prototype of the framework with a representative sample of HE teachers to evaluate its effectiveness as a sharing tool that showcases teaching with technology practice and evidences the impact on students’ learning.
• Collaborative finalisation of the recognition framework.

2. E-platform

Allowing HE teachers to consult, read, watch, self-evaluate, ask questions, and collaborate to share and develop teaching practice.

Output led by PXL.

Each of the 5 project partners will work with five core members of the teaching staff at their institution, plus three colleagues new to technology-mediated practice. Each will produce a video to illustrate each teacher’s approach.

By the end of the project the platform will host

  1. the recognition framework
  2. 40 videos of HE teaching practice
  3. e-resources drawing on project data and participants’ experiences

3: E-resources

The e-resources cover the three main dimensions of the project:
a) the innovative open teaching practices most valued by participants,
b) their views and advice on the development and delivery of such practices, and finally
c) lessons learned by project researchers regarding the creation of successful communities of practice in technology-mediated open practice at HEIs.
The e-resources include
  1. Your shout: advice from HE teachers to HE teachers concerning technology-mediated innovative open practice (Nice)
  2. Something to shout about: developing communities of practice to support innovation in HE pedagogy (Bordeaux)
  3. Shout out: a selection of best open practices with technology