Using video in the language classroom: benefits for teacher education

What are the benefits of using video in language teacher education? How can we record classroom interaction, and for what ends? What are the problems we face in this kind of enterprise, and why is it worth persevering?

Background

I come to this topic from an applied linguistic background: a BA in Languages (translation & interpreting), MA in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, and PhD in Linguistics with a dissertation on second language acquisition and a minor in language education (IU Bloomington, 1994). My teacher training experience comes from some 20 years in the English department at the university of Nice. For ten years I was in charge of the department’s oral English programmes, supervising 8 or 9 temporary native-speaking language assistants (see a legacy version of our handknitted Oral English website, for students, and the Lecteurs, or teacher pages). Those were the early days of the internet and our use of technology involved language labs with cassette tapes; by the early 2000s we burned CDs with recordings from online radio. Some idea of the context can be gained from these slides (in French, but with lots of pictures and cognates).

In the past ten years, however, my teaching has involved pre-service primary and secondary school teacher preparation both in EFL and technology for language education. Technological advances have meant more use of video in this work.

My research into classroom interaction has involved collaborative action research. A number of projects have involved supporting teachers in the integration of technologies in language teaching, via open educational resources and practices. We have used video to

  • document classroom interaction to investigate L2 use and development;
  • support in-service teacher development
    • directly using video-stimulated recall with project teachers, and
    • indirectly, by creating open resources for teacher education (itilt.eu and www.itilt2.eu);
  • encourage reflective practice among novice teachers, especially in Masters in Teaching English programmes.

Video examples

I recently gave a research presentation (in French) at Grenoble university where I focus on four uses of video. The first two, on in-service teacher development, and the last, on pre-service training, are relevant to this post.

Pilot project on whole-class videoconferencing for primary EFL

This project was initiated by the local educational authorities in response to a national funding opportunity for videoconferencing in English at primary school level. I participated in a pre-intervention training period to help teachers develop teaching materials, then filmed each side of 3 class-to-class VC sessions. I segmented the recordings of each session into 4 or 5 clips lasting 5-10 minutes, corresponding to the different class activities. Then I uploaded the clips to a closed Google site for viewing by all the project teachers.

These clips, together with the follow-up interviews I conducted with each teacher, provided the data for a study of the integration of the new VC technology by this group.

One of the findings was that the teachers tended to select one of two configurations for learner production: either small teams of pupils “broadcast” rehearsed material to the remote class, or individual learners interacted in pairs, each with the support of the teacher.

The use of video in this project allowed the teachers to gain some perspective on their use of this new technology: to compare the recording of their own and the remote class with their own experience during the session, to reflect on their pedagogical choices and their learners’ participation, and in some cases to develop new goals for language teaching.

Whyte, S. (2011). Learning to teach with videoconferencing in primary foreign language classrooms. ReCALL 23(3): 271–293.

Open educational resources project on the IWB in language education

A second project used video in more structured manner: in the EU-funded project iTILT, we filmed language classes at the interactive whiteboard and shared extracts on an open website. Visitors can view short clips, read a description of the activity, see teacher and learner comments and access associated pedagogical materials (lesson plans, IWB files).

Our data collection protocol involved the teacher and researcher viewing class recordings separately, then meeting for a video-stimulated recall (VSR) interview to select video clips for the website. More information about the projects can be found in these publications:

  1. Whyte, S., Cutrim Schmid, E., van Hazebrouck, S., & Oberhofer, M. (2014). Open educational resources for CALL teacher education: the iTILT interactive whiteboard project. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27 (2), 122-148
    This paper describes how the videos were recorded, edited, and tagged, and how teacher interviews were conducted to provide data for the website and associated research.
  2. Whyte, S., Beauchamp, G., & Alexander, J. (2014). Researching interactive whiteboard use from primary school to university settings across Europe: an analytical framework for foreign language teaching. University of Wales Journal of Education, 17, 30-52.
    This paper presents a framework for analysing IWB use in the language classroom based on the tags selected for the 267 video clips collected during the project. It provides an overview of IWB use by the 44 project teachers in 6 countries in three areas: IWB use (teacher, one learner, several learners at the board), IWB tools and functions (e.g., drag-and-drop, spotlight), and language teaching objectives (e.g., listening, speaking, grammar).
  3. Whyte, S. (2015). Implementing and researching technological innovation in language teaching: The case of interactive whiteboards for EFL in French schools. Palgrave Macmillan.
    In the book I trace the development of the 9 French teachers in the project (4 primary teachers, 4 secondary, and 1 teacher educator) using a collaborative action research approach combined with a community of practice model. I show how different teachers gained skills and confidence in different technical and pedagogical dimensions of their teaching. I propose a framework for teacher integration of technology to try and account for variation across the group.

These publications show both the advantages and the drawbacks of video with respect to VSR protocols and open educational practices. As in the previous study, the teachers tended to appreciate the opportunity to gain perspective and reflect on their own practice through comparison and exchange with others. The project afforded opportunities for teachers to preview clips from other teachers’ classes both locally and in other project countries, and these teacher focus group sessions seemed to stimulate reflective practice and individual development, as well as offer a rich sources of data for language teacher education research.

Peer filming in pre-service teaching practice

In a third, smaller-scale project with pre-service secondary EFL teachers, I asked trainees to develop teaching activities for the classes they worked with in 2-week school placements, and to record each other delivering their lessons on their smartphones. We used a design brief developed by Samuda (2005) to define the type of teaching activity we wanted to record. Then students used Breen et al’s notion of critical incident as a way to approach the videos they made. They presented their insights to the group and wrote reflective papers on their experience. More information about this initiative (and references) are in this post and on these slides:

Many of these novice teachers selected critical incidents related to classroom management or to learner errors. Two, however, focused on the actual tasks they implemented, one on the task-as-plan, reflecting on flaws in the plan (slide 39), and one on task-as-process, reflecting on an error in the implementation phase (slide 40).

The use of video in this project was intended both for individual reflection and group sharing and feedback. The fact that students made their own recordings gave them control over what was shared. It is entirely possible that students experienced other critical incidents which they preferred not to share with the group.

Most schools gave permission to film, though some restricted us to audio only; in the event the quality of many clips was so poor as to need no blurring were any wider sharing planned. The goal was, of course, to allow better feedback and discussion with these novice teachers, since it is always easier to understand any teaching moment with some audio-visual record.

Feedback on this trainee experience was obtained from students’ reflective papers analysing their critical incidents. In our Masters programme, our novice teachers spend a first year preparing for national competitive teaching exams, and their second year teaching part-time as they complete their training. They often report difficulty in finding time to address all aspects of the programme: preparing for exams, adapting to practical classroom conditions, and accommodating often conflicting perspectives from school tutors, inspectors, and university instructors. The strong pedagogical focus of a task like the one reported above is often not yet a priority for these pre-service teachers.

Whyte, S. (2015). Taking to task(s): Exploring task design by novice language teachers in technology-mediated and non-technological activities. XVII International CALL research conference proceedings, 30-36.

The technical side

When I do my own filming, I use a Sony HDV1080i/miniDV with an additional mic and a tripod, and Mac software (iMovie). I bought it with funding for a previous project at a time when the mini-cassette provided the best compromise between cost and quality, and I have not updated. I sometimes use an iPhone or iPad for a second view. In the iTILT project we also used a professional AV team (2 cameras, one fixed, one mobile, mics for teacher and by board, additional lighting; Final Cut for editing).

In the iTILT project, an issue arose regarding the trade-off between minimising the impact of filming on the classroom context, on one hand, and producing video clips of sufficient quality for online viewing on the project website on the other. We found using a single static camera at the back of the room and no extra microphones meant recordings which were too indistinct for easy comprehension. More intrusive methods using professional audio-visual teams with teacher microphones, both fixed and mobile cameras, and even extra lighting resulted in better quality films. In addition, professional editing of clips using footage from both cameras produced a more polished final product. I learned that the unedited record of a pristine class environment from a tripod in the back corner is no more faithful to what happened in class than a more disruptive recording arrangement which captures the expressions, gestures, and details which are also essential to our interpretation of events.

And in an ideal world

Some of the problems I see with this work, in additional to those mentioned already, relate to the novelty of using video in these ways for teacher education. Experienced teachers are often distracted on first viewing their class films by their own physical appearance and presence in class, or by disruptive learner behaviour which had passed unnoticed during the lesson. Novice teachers may have trouble identifying key elements of effective teacher behaviour from video recordings, as they are often sidetracked by problems which appear superficial and inconsequential to more experienced teachers. Trainees are also often prone to criticism, and try to judge overall effectiveness in ways that are impossible to substantiate from short extracts.

What would make the use of video in language teacher education easier for me are

  • better access to a range of classes through institutional policy which normalises the use of video recording for all types of language teacher education;
  • better recognition of the value of second language teaching research in teacher preparation programmes (for students as both consumers and producers of classroom research)

Improving these two aspects would contribute to the normalisation of analysing video of teaching practice in teacher education, and I believe improve the quality of the training we provide.

Thanks to Tilly Harrison for posing the questions I have addressed here as part of a current British Council project at Warwick University led by Steve Mann.

The task of teaching

I was at the American University of Paris yesterday on a beautiful day in a beautiful part of the city.

FullSizeRender 49

I was invited to talk about pedagogical innovation by integrating technology in the language class; AUP is a liberal arts college with an international study body and students learn French as the host language and academic English for their studies.

I ran a workshop in French taking an OER perspective on task-based language teaching with technologies, with activities focusing on both specific teaching ideas and particular digital tools.

More interesting for me were subsequent discussions with AUP and visiting faculty on more general issues concerning pedagogy and the changing roles of teachers and students in university teaching. Two themes emerged for me: motivation for learning, and general objectives for teaching.

Delayed gratification?

Who is responsible for student motivation and learning?

Some faculty feel quite strongly that it is up to students to find a way into the course content that is presented to them. The consensus among those discussing this yesterday was that instructors have some responsibility in this both in the way they present material and the assignments they set their students.

I was reminded of A.N. Whitehead’s three-stage model of learning, where he recommends teachers try to keep three balls in the air at all times: a “romantic” or big-picture reminder of what a class is trying to achieve and why it matters, “precision” or practice activities that help students develop essential skills and understanding, and a “generalisation” phrase where their attention is drawn to how these new skills are already bringing them closer to their big-picture goals.

I have applied this model to language teaching in a talk on “digital pencil sharpening” (see slides 20 through 36 for the section on general teaching and learning). I believe Whitehead was on to something when he complained that too much teaching spends too long on low-level information, skills and practice, and does so in isolation from what we might term pre- and post-practice reflection, which would help learners make sense of the drudgery.

Other university educators have taken a similar stance. The mathematician Paul Halmos provided the pencil-sharpening metaphor to refer to our tendency to procrastinate in order to avoid intellectually challenging work. I think this also applies to classroom contexts when we fill our syllabus with basic texts and boilerplate assignments to provide “background” which we see as an essential preliminary to the “real” content. But the “good stuff” keeps receding over the horizon.

Screen Shot 2017-04-13 at 08.25.32

Robert Duke makes this point in his excellent 2008 talk Why Students Don’t Learn What We Think We Teach. He is especially good on conflicting student/instructor agendas and agrees with Whitehead on the importance of the “here and now,” as this little extract shows:

I wrote about this in a paper on technology and learner autonomy in language education. The more I discuss pedagogy with teachers of subjects other than languages, the more I feel task-based language teaching has a lot to offer the wider educational community.

A second area of my discussions with AUP colleagues is perhaps more related to education in its broader sense than to the specifics of what happens at the chalkface.

What role do we in humanities or liberal arts play in teaching students to think?

Thinking about things that matter

Perhaps inevitably in the current political context, our discussions turned to some of the bigger issues of our times: climate change, immigration policy, electoral discourse. How should we address these with our students?

In the run-up to the US presidential campaign I came across the work of cognitive linguist George Lakoff on political discourse.  Lakoff uses frame theory and metaphor to explain how political thought is shaped (and thus manipulated).

He applies this theory to the Trump campaign on his website, and you can read more here for example. I decided to take this theme as our topic for an undergraduate translation course in our media and communication strand: the science of framing political debate. While we need to be careful about political bias in our teaching, I feel we also have some responsibility to take on issues like these when relevant to our classes.

Here’s my take on Lakoff’s contrast between strict father and nurturing family frames in a presentation I prepared for my students:

Screen Shot 2017-04-13 at 09.55.12

MoralPolitics

Translation classes, perhaps more than other foreign language classes, allow discussion of issues in a somewhat impartial and unemotional manner. It’s a good opportunity to tackle the meaning and implications of texts in a neutral way: does this expression in language A mean that same as that one in language B? Why did the writer use this particular expression, and how can we render it faithfully yet idiomatically? We’re not discussing what we think about a particular argument or line of thinking. We’re focusing on what the intended meaning seems to be, and how different translations render different aspects of that meaning salient.

The framing comes, of course, from our selection of texts to translate.

What do I take from all this?

Perhaps that it’s stimulating to talk about teaching and learning with colleagues in other disciplines in different university contexts.

Perhaps that language education might have some approaches and ideas for addressing pedagogical issues that are relevant to other university disciplines.

Or simply that the “here and now” can shift depending on both the focus of your attention and your vantage point.

References

Duke, R. (2008). «Why Students Don’t Learn What We Think We Teach» [lecture; online]. http://www.cornell.edu/video/?VideoID=225 (2013-06-01).

Halmos, P. (1985). I Want to Be a Mathematician. New York: Springer Verlag.

Halmos, P. (1975). «The Problem of Learning to Teach». American Mathematical Monthly, 82, pp. 466-476.

Whitehead, A.N. ([1917] 1932). «The Aims of Education». In: Whitehead, A.N. The Aims of Education and Other Essays. London: Ernest Benn.

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

 

La vidéo dans la classe de langue : analyse et partage dans l’exploration de l’agir professoral

Shona Whyte                                                                               Séminaire LIDILEM 5 avril 2017
UMR 7320 Bases, Corpus, Langage                                                    Université Grenoble Alpes
Université Côte d’Azur                                                             Le numérique et l’agir professoral

 L’enregistrement vidéo de séances de classe est un moyen privilégié d’étudier les interactions en classe de langue et l’agir enseignant de manière générale. La généralisation d’outils d’enregistrement vidéo permet l’acquisition de données primaires qui peuvent ensuite être confrontées à d’autres sources d’informations sur les processus cognitifs des acteurs (Rivens-Mompean & Guichon, 2009). Un objectif majeur de ce type de recherche est en effet de confronter la pensée enseignante avec l’agir enseignant (Borg, 2003, 2006). La rétroaction vidéo (Tochon 1996) permet un rappel stimulé, souvent au cours d’un entretien d’autoconfrontation, et constitue pour Woods (1996) “un point de départ concret pour provoquer de la discussion pédagogique.” Elle permet également de reconnaître l’agentivité des praticiens et de leur rôle de médiateur dans les interactions de classe, voire de les inclure dans la démarche de recherche, notamment dans le cas de la recherche-action collaborative.

Nous présentons des données de trois projets sur l’intégration d’outils numériques dans l’enseignement des langues, notamment de l’anglais langue étrangère dans l’enseignement primaire et secondaire en France : un projet académique de visioconférence à l’école primaire (Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012; Whyte, 2011), un projet européen de création de ressources éducatives libres pour la formation des enseignants de langue (Whyte et al, 2013; Whyte, 2014), et une expérimentation sur la tâche par vidéocommunication en anglais lingua franca à l’école (Whyte & Cutrim Schmid, 2014; Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2015). Nous abordons les questions d’ordre pratique pour enregistrer des données en perturbant le moins possible l’écologie naturelle de la classe tout en conservant une qualité technique suffisante pour les besoins du projet. Nous analysons des exemples de commentaires d’enseignants et d’apprenants démontrant l’intérêt d’un visionnage individuel et collectif d’extraits de films de classe au service d’objectifs de formation divers. Nous terminons par quelques remarques sur les ressources et les pratiques libres et le rôle de la vidéo dans ce type de partage d’expérience.

 

References

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 1-26.

Brewer, S. S. (2008). Rencontre avec Albert Bandura: l’homme et le scientifique. L’orientation scolaire et professionnelle, 37(1), 29-56.

Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.

Borg, S. (2003). Teaching cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching, 36: 81-109.

Breen, M. P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied linguistics, 22(4), 470-501.

Brewer, S. S. (2008). Rencontre avec Albert Bandura: l’homme et le scientifique. L’orientation scolaire et professionnelle, 37(1), 29-56.

Burns, A. (2005). Action research: An evolving paradigm?. Language teaching, 38(2), 57-74.

Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (2015). Teaching young learners with technology. In Bland, J. (Ed.). Teaching English to Young Learners. Critical Issues in Language Teaching with 3-12 year olds. Bloomsbury.

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. [link]

Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (2012). Interactive Whiteboards in School Settings: Teacher Responses to Socio-constructivist Hegemonies. Language Learning and Technology 16 (2), 65-86.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R.E. Shaw & J. Brqnsford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Macaire, D. (2007). Didactique des langues et recherche-action. Les cahiers de l’Acedle, 4, 93-120.

Rivens-Mompean, A., & Guichon, N. (2009). Assessing the use of aids for a computer-mediated task: Taking notes while listening. JALT CALL Journal 5(2), 45-60.

Samuda, V. 2005. Expertise in second language pedagogic task design. In Johnson, K. Expertise in language teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Tochon, F. V. (1996). Rappel stimulé, objectivation clinique, réflexion partagée. Fondements méthodologiques et applications pratiques de la rétroaction vidéo en recherche et en formation. Revue des sciences de l’éducation, 22(3), 467-502.

Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., & Verhelst, M. (Eds.) (2007), Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Cambridge Scholars

Whyte, S. (2014). Implementing and researching technological innovation in language teaching: The case of interactive whiteboards for EFL in French schools. Palgrave Macmillan.

Whyte, S. (2011). Learning to teach with videoconferencing in primary foreign language classrooms. ReCALL 23(3): 271–293.

Whyte, S., Beauchamp, G., & Alexander, J. (2014). Researching interactive whiteboard use from primary school to university settings across Europe: an analytical framework for foreign language teaching. University of Wales Journal of Education, 17, 30-52. [link]

Whyte, S., & Cutrim Schmid, E. (2014). A task-based approach to video communication with the IWB: a French-German primary EFL class exchange. In Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (Eds.). Teaching languages with technology: communicative approaches to interactive whiteboard use. A resource book for teacher development. Bloomsbury.

Whyte, S., Cutrim Schmid, E., van Hazebrouck, S., & Oberhofer, M. (2014). Open educational resources for CALL teacher education: the iTILT interactive whiteboard project. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27 (2), 122-148

Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making, and classroom practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Woods, D., & Knoerr, H. (2014). Repenser la pensée enseignante. Le français dans le monde : recherches et applications, 56: 16-32.