Implementing tasks with interactive technologies in classroom CALL: towards a developmental framework / Vers un cadre de développement pour la mise en œuvre de tâches à l’aide de l’apprentissage des langues assisté par ordinateur (ALAO)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classroom foreign language teachers using technology in task-based language teaching (TBLT) may experience pedagogical regression during technological development (Fullan, 2001), and fail to transform pedagogy because tools like interactive whiteboards (IWBs) support traditional as well as newer approaches (Avvisati et al., 2013). IWB-supported teacher education in TBLT must therefore develop new technological know-how and encourage pedagogy often also experienced as innovative. This study used questionnaire, video, and interview data from 9 French EFL teachers contributing to a website for IWB-supported TBLT to explore a) teachers’ IWB use; b) task versus non-task-oriented activities; and c) teachers' IWB confidence and engagement. Results suggest three developmental stages: 1) restricted IWB use, little techno-pedagogical development; 2) improvement in technical but not pedagogical skills; and 3) high IWB fluency, greater pedagogical engagement, and some more task-oriented teaching. A starting point for a developmental framework, these findings also suggest need for more pedagogically oriented teacher support. Les instructeurs en langue étrangère utilisant en classe la technologie pour l’enseignement des langues basé sur les tâches (ELBT) peuvent connaître une régression pédagogique lorsqu’ils apprennent à maîtriser la technologie (Fullan, 2001) et ne pas réussir à transformer leur pédagogie, les outils tels que les tableaux blancs interactifs (TBI) appuyant tout autant les approches traditionnelles que les approches plus récentes (Avvisati et al., 2013). La formation des enseignants utilisant les TBI dans le cadre de l’ELBT doit donc développer de nouveaux savoir-faire technologiques et encourager une pédagogie souvent perçue comme innovante. Cette étude utilise un questionnaire, une vidéo et les données d’entrevues de neuf professeurs francophones d’anglais langue étrangère contribuant à un site Web pour l’ELBT soutenu par les TBI, afin d’explorer a) l’utilisation des TBI par les enseignants ; b) les activités fondées sur des tâches eu égard à celles qui ne le sont pas ; et c) la confiance et l'investissement de l’enseignant dans les TBI. Les résultats suggèrent trois stades de développement: 1) l'utilisation limitée des TBI et un faible développement techno-pédagogique; 2) l'amélioration des compétences technologiques, mais pas des aptitudes pédagogiques ; et 3) la maîtrise des TBI, un plus grand investissement pédagogique, et un enseignement davantage orienté vers les tâches. Points de départ pour un cadre de développement, ces résultats suggèrent également le besoin d’aider davantage les enseignants sur le plan pédagogique.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Study of teachers implementing interactive technology in task-based language teaching; the object is classroom pedagogy and teacher development, not research practice.
It studies teachers' use of classroom technology and pedagogy, not research itself.
Language-education study of IWB tasks in classroom CALL; teaching practice, not research.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".