Актуальные вопросы лингвистики и лингводидактики: традиции и инновации. Часть 3

Исходя из принципа опоры на родной язык и родную культуру, обучение чтению на иностранном языке в начальной школе должно опираться на имеющийся у учащихся опыт чтения на родном языке, т.е. идентичность процесса чтения на разных языках служит основанием для переноса уже имеющихся у учащихся приемов зрелого чтения на родном языке в чтение на иностранном языке.

Резюмируя вышесказанное, мы склоняемся к тому, что тексты учебника должны включать и познавательные культуроведческие тексты по различным темам, представленным в Примерной программе обучения иностранному языку. Соответствующим образом отобранные культуроведческие тексты и задания к ним способствуют не только развитию интереса школьников к чтению на иностранном языке, который в свою очередь является важным фактором успешного овладения этим видом речевой деятельности, но и формированию культуроведческих умений.

Литература

1. Гальскова Н.Д. «Образ лингвокультурного человека» как стратегический ориентир языкового поликультурного образования // Дидактика языков и культур: проблемы, поиски, решения: коллективная монография по материалам международного научно-методического симпозиума «Лемпертовские чтения – ХХ». Пятигорск, 2018.

2. Никитенко З.Н. Иностранный язык в начальной школе: теория и практика: Учебник. М., 2018.

3. Сафонова В.В. Проблемы социокультурного образования в языковой педагогике // Культуроведческие аспекты языкового образования: Сборник науч. тр. М., 1998. С. 27–35.

4. Сафонова В.В. Социокультурный подход к обучению иностранному языку как специальности. 13.00.02: Дис …. д-ра пед. наук. М., 1992.

Programming an english course: technology and interdisciplinary learning at a technical university

Windstein E.V.

MA in Linguistics, MA in Economics

Taylor J.

MA in History

Teachers at Saint Petersburg University of Information Technologies, Optics and Mechanics

Abstract. The present article discusses the immediate and ultimate objectives, methodology and outcomes of an experimental General English course designed by the teaching staff of the Saint Petersburg University of Information Technologies Mechanics and Optics (ITMO) for three groups of second-year students. The authors undertake to justify their adherence to an interdisciplinary approach and “significant learning” concept. The article provides a brief outline of the course-building procedure, putting special emphasis on the selection of study materials (YouTube videos, printed media, etc.), a massive open online course (MOOC) and an LMS platform.

Keywords: significant learning, interdisciplinary approach, Schoology, LMS, MOOCs, BYOD.

Introduction

“What and how to teach?” arises as a fundamental question whenever a faculty member is faced with the challenge of designing a university course. While the question might seem rather straightforward on the surface, in many instances it becomes a real dilemma, considering the plethora of approaches and educational technologies available today. This is especially true if the instructor intends to promote so-called significant (meaningful) learning [2; 4] to mold knowledgeable professionals armed with such soft skills as critical thinking, ethical behavior, and effective interpersonal communication. The second part of the question is just as demanding. With the advent of new teaching philosophies (Constructivism, Connectivism, etc.) and new teaching concepts (blended learning, flipped classroom, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) [3, 7], Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) [5], educators have to demonstrate an unprecedented creativity while designing cost-effective, engaging, learner-centered courses.

Methodology

2.1. The Academic Process at ITMO, General Information

The academic process at ITMO is organized into semesters and modules. There are two semesters per academic year and two modules per semester. Hours are distributed across semesters and modules unevenly, partly due to internships students complete at the beginning of the spring semester. Thus, the second-year students from the authors’ course had 4 ac. hrs of classroom instruction per week during the first semester and 6 ac. hrs during the second, which translates to 2 classes per week in the first semester taught by different instructors (a native speaker and a Russian teacher) alternatively. In the second semester, in-class time is increased by 2 ac. hrs., where one instructor teaches two classes per week, and the other – one. The university staff closely follow students’ progress and attendance. Classes missed in excess of 25% are compensated during special compensation sessions.

2.2. Motivation for Building an Experimental Course

When initial work began with three second-year groups in the fall semester of 2017, it was decided to test each group’s ability. The results showed varying levels of competency across the groups. At ITMO, the common practice in this situation would be to organize a repeat C1 course for the weaker groups, using Open Mind Advanced. The strong group would work with the Pearson Proficiency English textbook. After three weeks of working with these materials, the authors concluded that the Open Mind groups were not being adequately challenged. The other group, however, was enjoying the materials from Proficiency Expert and the themes covered in that textbook had perspective for different projects and meaningful discussions. Given that each of the authors had other courses to prepare for in addition to these advanced groups, the decision was made to unite all the groups in question under the Proficiency Expert textbook, with adjustments to be made when necessary depending on the group in question. Since these changes were made in the middle of the semester, however, the authors found it difficult to coordinate their efforts, since they planned their lessons separately and organized them in two different cloud storage systems (Google Drive and Dropbox), trying their best to maintain a logical connection between lessons. This, at times chaotic, approach to planning prompted the authors to seek a different tactic for the second semester.

To bridge the gap between the interests of the individuals involved in the learning process, the students and the instructors, it was decided to dedicate each of the three classes to a specific topic to make them more engaging, stimulating and informative, in line with the principles of an interdisciplinary approach and significant learning concept. The classes were broken down as follows: General English (2 hrs/wk); Video Class (2 hrs/wk); MOOC (2 hrs/wk). The General English part would still be taught with the Proficiency Expert textbook, the purpose of the other two (Video Class and MOOC) would be to teach students soft skills pursuant to Ausbel’s significant (meaningful) learning concept.

2.3. Creation of Video Class Lessons: Challenges, Advantages, Innovations

Though the authors were free to choose whatever materials they thought fit, there were certain limitations, including language and authenticity; relevance of the topic, which had to correspond to the theme taught in Proficiency Expert that week; relevance to students’ interests; thought-provoking content; limited duration (15–20 minutes on average). Though the Video Class was the most exciting of the series, it was the most demanding in terms of instructional design. Instructors watched dozens of videos, prepared discussion questions, incorporating tasks involving mind-maps, quests, group competitions, polls, surveys and riddles. During the 12-week semester, about 30 freely available videos were selected and shown as part of the classwork or homework assignment. These classes gave introverted STEM students the opportunity to engage with each other in discussions (on several occasions, two of the groups were combined to promote socialization and collaboration).

2.4. Integration of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC): Advantages, Challenges

Following the interdisciplinary approach and exercising the principle of significant learning, the authors made the decision to incorporate a MOOC to promote the development of soft skills. To select a suitable MOOC, authors referred to Class Central’s catalog (https://www.class-central.com) and chose the 8-week Developing Your Research Project MOOC by University of Southampton streamed on FutureLearn platform. The course was chosen as it was in English, had a relevant duration and content and a built-in assessment system. To supplement the MOOC’s content, textbooks and videos were used. Students were to prepare a proposal and a prospectus of a future thesis paper by the end of the semester. This approach also allowed teachers a break from planning, but also provided authentic materials (videos and articles) that covered transferrable skills.

2.5. Selection of a Learning Management System (LMS): Advantages, Challenges

In the first semester, the instructors used two different file hosting services (Dropbox and Google Disc) to store materials, which was confusing and inconvenient. At the beginning of the second semester, the initial idea was to choose a single data storage service, but then the authors decided to go with an LMS to both store materials and create quizzes, tests, polls, surveys, grade tasks, create blogs, etc. Despite MOODLE being the first LMS to come to mind, the authors decided to find a more streamlined, sleek, support-free alternative. Having examined about 15 LMS platforms, SCHOOLOGY was shortlisted as it was an intuitive, free, cloud-based, course-creating, integrated, support-free solution with an interface resembling that of a social networking site with a mobile version. [6]

Conclusions

At the end of the spring semester students took a survey to assess the experimental course. The goal was to measure their attitude towards the course in general (organization and content) and towards Schoology specifically. When asked whether they were satisfied with how classes were arranged in the second semester, 50% of students responded in the affirmative, 31% in the negative and 19% demonstrated an indifferent attitude. Students noted that the breakdown of the course into three sections allowed them to better prepare for each class, as they knew what to expect. Much of the negative response was directed towards the research class, which many students found to be uninteresting and/or not practical. The authors were not surprised by these opinions, as the majority of students were still indecisive of their thesis topic at the time of the course, which significantly reduced their interest in this topic. The MOOC materials were too generalized as well and not challenging enough. As compared to the previous semester, however, students were satisfied with the changes made and found their experience to have improved.

As concerns Schoology, students were asked to assess both the presence of the platform in the course as well as their experience using it. In regard to the first point, students responded in overwhelming positive tones on the use of Schoology to organize assignments and lessons. They enjoyed the ease with which they could find homework assignments and make up for missed classes. The reduced amount of paper in the classroom was also the theme of several comments, where students wrote that less paper was both good for the environment, and for avoiding losing important assignments, etc. As mentioned above, these points all correspond to the authors’ original motivation for deciding to use Schoology. Considering the technical side of Schoology (their experience using the site), student responses varied across the spectrum of “unsatisfactory” (15%), “satisfactory” (38%), “good” (23%), and “excellent” (23%). These responses show that students accepted Schoology as a positive addition to the course and viewed it overall as a positive tool. Here we should note that Schoology could have received a higher ‘grade’ from students had there not been issues with the on-campus Internet connection, which was unstable on many occasions, and had students not been asked to use their own devices (some, especially those who pay tuition fees, expected the university to provide equipment for them).

Concerning negative aspects of using Schoology, the students raised several practical issues that the authors wish to share with colleagues considering the use of LMS platforms (especially Schoology) in their classrooms. While the majority of students at ITMO use smartphones or tablets, many students noted that the screen size of their tablets made using them difficult. Another issue was internet connectivity. ITMO’s wi-fi network lags and at times simply does not work, forcing students and teachers to rely on their mobile internet, which in turn costs money. The authors would also like to note that while LMS platforms provide a convenient space for quizzes and materials, the process of adding and editing these materials can be time consuming. On a positive note, the authors believe that it was a worthwhile investment of time, as the automation of quizzes reduces grading time; the course can be made available to any instructor teaching C2 groups at ITMO; the course can be used, re-used or recycled on an as needed basis. Perhaps the most useful comments to consider concern how students learned to use Schoology. Many wrote that once they acquired a sense of how to use the system, they found it appealing. This implies that many underwent a period of self-teaching in order to use the site. This means that teachers should devote class time to presenting features of the LMS program to be used, which in turn requires that the teachers themselves be well-informed on how to use the platform. This corresponds to Alshammari, et. al.’s concept [1] of a “technology acceptance model”, according to which students should perceive a technology to be easy to use in order for it to be effective in the classroom. As again shown in the survey results, students responded positively to Schoology, although comments do indicate certain issues concerning ease of use. On the whole, all three groups of students perceived Schoology as easy to use and, therefore, as an effective tool for the classroom.

References

1. Alshammari S., Ali M., Rosli Mohd. (2016). The Influences of Technical Support, Self Efficacy and Instructional Design on the Usage and Acceptance of LMS: A Comprehensive Review in The Turkish Online Journal of Education Technology, Vol. 15, Issue 2.

2. Ausubel D. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.

3. Dunaway M.K. Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for networked information landscapes in Reference Services Review, Vol. 39 (4), pp. 675–685. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907321111186686 (дата обращения: 15.09.2018).

4. Fink L.D. (2013). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses, Edition 2. Jogn Wiley & Sons, Inc.

5. French A.M., Guo Ch., Shim J.P. (2014). Current Status, Issues, and Future of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD). Communications of the Association for Information Systems. Vol. 35, Article 10. Retrieved from URL: http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol35/iss1/10 (дата обращения: 15.09.2018).

6. Gotarkar R. Which LMS is better- Moodle or Schoology? Edwiser. 2017. Retrieved from URL: https://edwiser.org/blog/which-lms-is-better-moodle-or-schoology/ (дата обращения: 15.09.2018).

7. Israel M.J. “Effectiveness of Integrating MOOCs in Traditional Classrooms for Undergraduate Students”, IRRODL, Vol. 16 (5), 2016. Retrieved from URL: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2222/3402 (дата обращения: 15.09.2018).