How web 2.0 changed classical lessons

The main difference between the Web we all know with Web 2.0 is that it is not longer used only for reading, but for creating and uploading content as well, i.e. there is a strongly user participation. Networking sites (Facebook, Instagram), Blogs, MySpace, are some examples of Web 2.0 sites. In their article Teaching with Web 2.0 Technologies: Benefits, Barriers and Best Practices, Yun-Jo An, Bosede Aworuwa, Glenda Ballard & Kevin Williams point out that the major benefits of using Web 2.0 technologies in teaching include interaction, communication and collaboration; knowledge creation; ease of use and flexibility; and writing and technology skills.

We have decided to make a project in which students will learn about the story of rock and roll in general, and the biography of the most long-lasting bands. In order to do so, we selected two web 2.0 pages: Mindomo and Timetoast. 

Students will use Mindomo to create a mind map about the story of rock; they will read some sources and select the facts that are relevant to create the mind map. Then, they will share it with their partners by copying the URL on Edmodo. After that, the rest of the class will be assigned some specific bands to create a timeline using Timetoast.

The pictures below are sample activities we have created using the webpages suggested, so that students will be able to see how both the mind map and the timeline look like:

Mind Map

Timeline

Web 2.0 allows teachers and students to be connected beyond the barriers of the classroom. Thus, if you are a teacher, or you are about to become one, you need to accept that web 2.0 tools are here to stay, and as fast as we employ them we will be able to see how learning comes alive in the classroom.

Tips for designing your own teaching materials

We all have sometimes listened to English teachers complaining about their groups of students at school: 'these kids just do not behave', 'this group is out of control', 'they do not and will not care about the subject', among other things. But, have these teachers ever thought that they may need to do something about the way they teach and the resources they use so as to change these problems?

Nowadays, it is very common that the majority of teachers rely heavily on coursebooks. In their work Guidelines for Designing Effective English Language Teaching Materials, Jocelyn Howard and Jae Major point out that "most coursebooks remain organised around grammar elements and the PPP (presentation, practice, production) model of teaching, often with an 'unrelenting format' which can be 'deeply unengaging'".

Thus, what teachers may find useful would be the creation of their own teaching materials; nevertheless, they are likely to find some difficulties in doing so. Howard and Major describe some disadvantages when designing materials; they name the fact of organisation (which they say coursebooks fulfill greatly), quality (in the sense that teachers' designs "seem ragged and unprofessional next to those produced by professionals" (Block, 1991, p.212, emphasis in original) and time (labeling this activity as a time consuming one)

We will pay close attention to guideline number 1 and guideline number 4, which we consider extremely important when deciding to use yor own materials:

The first one exposes that materials should be contextualized, taking into account three specific areas: the curriculum they are intended to address, the experiences, realities and first languages of the learners, and the topics and themes that provide meaningful, purposeful uses for the target language. In short, they state that both the institution where we teach and the learner's specific culture will determine the techniques we may decide to use so as to ensure engagement and provide motivation.

Guideline number four, which states that language teaching materials should allow for a focus on form as well as function, puts emphasis on the importance of seeing languages as something to be manipulated. Thus, as well as providing instances for real communication, materials should allow students to form and test their own hypotheses, within the frame of an analytical approach.

In conclusion, if we follow what these guidelines suggest, we are likely to produce a change in learners' moods, getting them to a "state of 'expectancy' (What will happen this time?) rather than 'expectation' (Oh, not that again!)" (Marley, 2003, p.2)

                           Some issues to think about when deciding to design...

http://www.eslteachersnotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Custom-Designed-ESL-Resources-2.png

Dispelling Myths

Since nowadays the majority of teachers are Digital Immigrants, term defined in our first entry, the inclusion of technology in the classroom is usually neglected. This is so because they do not seem to see a connection between what is pedagogical and what is technological.

Nevertheless, we have been introduced to two models that state the opposite: The Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition Model (SAMR) and the Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge Model (TPACK).

According to Dr. Ruben Puentedura, SAMR not only offers a method of seeing how computer technology might impact teaching and learning, but it also focuses on the level of student engagement.

So as to make it clearer, we chose a picture and a video which we think explains SAMR in a concise way:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBn_SauVIAE7WTE.jpg

                                         

http://es.slideshare.net/kdgeorge1969/samr-model-27507779?from_action=save

As regards TPACK, it is said to be the combination of subject matter knowledge and technology, which is more than simply adding Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to traditional approaches. This mixture depends upon deep knowledge of how ICT can be used to access and process subject matter (Technology Content Knowledge) and understanding how ICT can support and enhance learning (Technology Pedagogical Knowledge) in combination with Pedagogical Content Knowledge, which is the subject matter knowledge with profound understanding of what is good for learning. 

                              An image, and a video, count more than a thousand words...

  https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoNEYJVJiAM_jSsRmU51VFMRcrCZrtnnheOLPV_AxqXGEYv3ZO6qNQ_lZU3Devgbyh9ExStVCG2Lc1Y_jM0x7KA18XwxqOOpibUxPnqQjuRxl8Z18yuwJDAv5rUuR7XXvrsFgBlWFKkwo/s1600/tpack+label.JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQtwC5bJ-yo

In order to show that the so mentioned “gap” between pedagogy and technology does not actually exist, we planned a didactic unit for teaching the Present Simple tense related to daily routines, based on the models previously mentioned.

Aiming to reach our objectives, we decided that the final task was that students create a comic that would show a daily routine. So as to do so, we selected a website called Pixton, in which they could choose among different settings, characters and tools for the creation of the comic. The final step of this unit was to present the comic to the class by using power point, and then share it on the Facebook group they have for English lessons. 

The picture below is a sample of a comic which we made in order to show how it looks like when finished:

https://www.pixton.com/comic-strip/f95xu7ua

If you want to know more about our didactic unit, you can find it here.

Relating this unit to SAMR, we Redefined the task in the sense that every student would be able to fulfil it no matter whether they have the ability to draw well, or the chance of affording the materials needed to do a poster presentation, or not. So, in this way it would be impossible to complete the task without the use of technology.

Finally, TPACK is present in the unit when students use their netbooks and internet connection to work on the comic as well as when presenting it to their classmates.