The British Council Signature event at the IATEFL 2024 conference in Brighton was dedicated to the launch of a groundbreaking new report on the use of artifical intelligence in English Language Teaching (ELT). This report can be downloaded here, It looks at how AI is being used for the learning and teaching of Ennglish worldwide as well as discussing the opportunities, issues and challenges. One of the most interesting aspects of it is a review of literature on AI and ELT, which will be very useful going forwards as this is undoubtedly going to increase exponentially. The British Council also consulted experts and surveyed a range of people involved in ELT, asking their opinion of the subject.
Showing posts with label britishcouncil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label britishcouncil. Show all posts
Sunday
Remote Teaching for Success (2016)
Presentation given during the British Council's Teaching for Success Online conference: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/graham-stanley-remote-teaching-success
Remote Teaching for Success
Presentation given during the British Council's Teaching for Success Online conference: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/graham-stanley-remote-teaching-success
Friday
Ceibal English blog posts
The Ceibal English (Ceibal en Inglés) is a project involving language teaching via video-conferencing in Primary schools throughout Uruguay.
The British Council Uruguay is managing the Ceibal English (Ceibal en Inglés) project for Plan Ceibal and I was working as the project manager. (update: I am now Country Director for the British Council in Uruguay)
As it develops, expanding from 500 to 1,000 classes a week in 2013, and doubling again to 2,000 classes a week in March/April 2014, I am recording and relfecting on different aspects of the project.
This page lists all of the blog posts I have written about the programme.
- Remote Teaching for Success
- Ceibal English - Invitation to feedback session for forthcoming chapter
- Remote Teaching, distance learning, team teaching or blended learning? (updated)
- Interviews with Remote Teachers on Ceibal English project
- Results of the Project Impact Test 201
- Remote teaching, distance learning, team teaching or blended learning?
- The Ceibal English lesson plans
- Training for Ceibal English classroom teachers
- Use of L1 in Ceibal English remote teaching
- There's video-conferencing...and then there's video-conferencing
- Distance learning? Remote learning?
- 3 Months of Ceibal English
- Plan Ceibal: Dario Luis Banegas
- Paul Woods: One laptop per child
- The Whys and Wherefores of OLPC in Uruguay
Thursday
New British Council podcast - Ceibal English interview
Earlier this month I was thrilled when asked to be interviewed by Rob Lewis about the Ceibal English project for the new British Council English Agenda podcast for teachers. It was an honour to be part of the first episode and a lot of fun to do. The result can be listened to here:
http://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/content/englishagenda-podcast-15th-october-2013
1. You’ve been in Uruguay for a few months now – can you tell us about the project you’re managing?
Ceibal en Ingles (Ceibal English) is a project the British Council won after a tender was issued by Plan Ceibal for English language teaching via video-conferencing in Primary schools in Uruguay. You will have heard of Plan Ceibal as the organisation that has succeeded in the OLPC initiative.
It started five years ago, and now each state school child in the country has received a laptop. With English, however, there aren’t enough qualified and experienced English teachers to be able to offer primary children classes, and although in the long-run the solution will be to increase the English level of the existing primary school teachers (something which we are also involved in as part of the project), the short to medium term solution is to offer the children English classes via telepresence solution using remote teachers from Montevideo, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico and the Philippines to teach the classes in tandem with the children’s regular classroom teachers.
2. A lot of people probably associate this tool (VC) with business meetings. When you talk about video-conferencing in the classroom, what do you actually mean?
Yes, nowadays, people either associate VC with low quality, low bandwidth tools such as Skype which work more or less well on most computers and with an internet connection…or with the higher quality video conference suite equipment, that as you mention, is most associated with international business. The latter, using fibre optic lines and high quality equipment is what is used in this project. The reasons for this are many. One factor is reliability. With a classroom teacher and 25+ kids waiting for a weekly lesson, we need to know that when a remote teacher connects it is going to work, and with this equipment you can 95% (or more) guarantee it is going to work. You wouldn’t be able to offer a similar guarantee with something like Skype. Another factor is quality of image. With this equipment the remote teacher (or RT as we call them) can see details of the children (and can also zoom into specific kids, etc) and so it becomes easier for them to learn their names and recognise them. The high quality also means that on the other end of the line, in the classroom the image is so sharp on the big screen that it is as close as possible to actually having the RT in the classroom, which makes a big difference for the kids. It is hard to appreciate how important this is without actually going and observing a class in progress.
3. I’m sure there have been ups and downs. What’s worked well so far?
Yes, of course. After a successful pilot that showed it was possible and which also proved the children were learning, we are now teaching almost 1000 classes a week (reaching around 25,000 children). This will double to 2,000 classes in 2014 and more than double again in 2015 to 4,500 groups (around 120,000 students). The best part of the project for me has been the response. Classroom teachers volunteer to join the programme and there has so far been no shortage of teachers volunteering. This is despite the extra effort and time these teachers need to have in order for the project to work well. The classroom teachers (or CTs as we call them) have to spend extra time coordinating with their RTs and are also learning English themselves, which enables them to understand the classes and also to do the follow-up practice lessons that have been built into the programme so that the kids have enough English to get them from a CEF level of A0 to one approaching A2 (we hope) after three years of classes.The reaction of the kids has also been heart-warming – English classes, once the privilege of a few who could afford to pay for private classes are now being given to primary children all over the country, many of whom live in difficult circumstances. It is a real game-changer as far as helping to level the playing field and provide equal educational opportunities to all.
4. And anything that’s not worked so well?
We are learning all of the time and changing things to help improve the teaching and learning. One thing we have discovered is the importance of coordination between the CT (local primary classroom teacher) and the RT (remote teacher). In order to avoid transmission teaching (i.e. the “teacher on the telly” syndrome) the CT & RT need to work closely together, to talk about out what is going to happen in the remote class and follow up classes. Originally we were hoping that all teachers would be able to do this synchronously (e.g. using Skype) but because of time differences, busy schedules, and other reasons, most of this coordination is by necessity being done using email. For this to work well, there needs to be a flow of 4-5 emails between the two teachers. The majority of the problems we have experienced have been due to a lack of rapport between the CT & RT and because both have not been able to do the necessary lesson coordination.
5. I can imagine it changes the dynamic somewhat having a CT and a RT present in classes… does it have a significant impact on the pedagogy too?
Yes, it does, and I have been spending a lot of time recently observing classes and taking note of good and not so good practice. Some of what is important is the same with regular YL classes. For instance, the teachers need to establish routines, pace the classes and use a variety of activities, including games and songs. The kids can’t also just be sitting down watching the teacher on TV in the same way that you wouldn’t want a class of children sitting down through a regular YL class. There are some interesting avenues that we still need to explore and which some teachers are already exploring. For instance, and this came up in a discussion during a recent visit by Jeremy Harmer, the fact there is a TV lends itself to adding an aspect of performance to the lessons. The kids can write, rehearse and act out dialogues and other theatrical routines in front of the TV, for example. We have also been discussing the role and amount of L1, which varies enormously depending on the teachers involved. We are recording all of this and developing guidelines which will end up becoming recommendations for any educators involved in this unique type of language teaching be they on this project or any other one that may appear in the future.
6. It must have an effect on the learning opportunities too? E.g. if a learner wants to experiment with language or has a question, how can the RT be there ‘on the spot’ to support? Or is it possible for the RT to give feedback? How have the RTs taken to it?
Feedback is something each RT struggles with. I have seen RTs give on-the-spot pronunciation feedback and error correction during classes, so it is possible. More difficult is giving feedback on student writing. We have set up a system of virtual classes using a Learning Management System (LMS) that requires the children to upload their written work using their OLPC laptops and which means the RT can then correct. Other RTs have used blogs or wikis as a way of sharing student work and dealing with correcting writing. We are still working on this as we are not entirely happy with the solutions we have come up with so far.
7. How have the CTs taken to it? Are they taking part in any training? And what about the students?
Yes, in general, as the CTs are volunteers, they have shown an incredible amount of passion and commitment to the project and most of them have also started to learn English themselves. There are some primary teachers that have said they are not interested, but I’m happy to say they seem to be in a minority at least at the moment. Our challenge will come as we expand and incorporate what we hope will be all of the primary schools into the programme. The students, as I mentioned earlier have very much taken to it. There has been pressure from students and parents on teachers and schools to sign up and join in the project, which has been nice to see.
Training has been built into the project very much as an integral part. Each of the CTs need to attend a 2 day orientation course in Montevideo before they can join the programme. We are also developing a 12 hour supplementary course for CTs that will act as an online reference guide for them after the OC. RTs have a 15 hour self-access online course they need to do before teaching and we recommend that the RTs observe at least two classes before teaching one themselves. Apart from that, the RTs are connected via the LMS and can share their concerns and ideas there via a forum. We also have plans to get some of them together in December in Montevideo for a training day to share good practice. We will record this and make the discussions available to the RTs who cannot attend.
8. What next? Long term programme? Research must be part of it? Lots of countries must be looking on with interest!
We are developing a model of teaching that has a lot to offer other countries and organisations outside of Uruguay. Research has been built into the project, with regular surveys of RTs and CTs and a lot of data collection being undertaken internally. We have also just finished testing the children and will be repeating this test at the end of the year in order to determine what the impact of the English classes is having. We are giving the test to classes of children not involved in the programme too, so we have a control groups. We have also been approached by different educational bodies in different countries who are looking at what we are doing with a lot of interest and wondering if it could be something they too could implement.
Tuesday
How many online learners of English are there?
As part of my role as social media consultant for the British Council's English Innovation team, I've just been involved in an interesting discussion about how many learners of English it's possible for the British Council to reach online.
I thought it would be interesting to share my thoughts about this with people here, as I'm be particularly interested in finding out from people if my thinking about this is completely off, or if I'm making a reasonable guestimate.
So, here it is:
David Graddol estimated the figure of 1 billion 'learners' of English in English Next (2006), saying it would increase to 2 billion in 10-15 years.
The figure of 1,000,000,000 is interesting. The total population of the world is currently 6,894,200,000 (US Census Bureau). So that means an estimated 14.5% of the world is learning English.
When you look for estimated figures for 'speakers' of English, you find the following figures:
- 371,000,000 people 'native speakers' of English
- 760,000,000 people are 'speakers' (native or second language speakers), which is 11% world population (via Wolfram Alpha), so there are more people learning English than there are who speak it.
As a side-note this makes me wonder...
- When does a 'learner' of English become a 'speaker' of English?
- At what point do these learners of English stop? When they become a 'speaker' of English?
Then there is the question of how many of these learners of English use the Internet. There are 1,571,000,000 Internet users in the world (again via Wolfram Alpha), so that's 22.7% of the world's population.
How many of these speakers is it possible to reach online? Taking into account all of this, perhaps we can assume it's only possible to reach a maximum of 22.7% of the world's language learners, which means 220,000,000 people.
If we assume this, then the British Council currently reaches around 14,000,000 learners a year with its websites, which is 6.4% of maximum possible audience.
One of the ways that this guesstimate falls down, perhaps, is in the % calculation of language learners who use the Internet. My educated guess is that the % of learners who have access to the Internet is much lower than this- perhaps half the figure above (so, 110,000,000 people).
If this is so, then the websites reach an estimated 12.7% of total possible online audience, which sounds like a more reasonable number.
As I'm no statistician, and Maths is one of my weak points, I'd love to hear if I'm completely off-track here . What do you think? Is this fuzzy thinking?
TESOL Spain Presentation: Learn English Second Life for Teens
I was in Madrid recently for the TESOL Spain 2008 convention, which was a lot of fun.
I was there presenting the British Council's Learn English Second Life for Teens project, which has been going through a pilot. The slideshow with recording made in Madrid is included below. If you'd prefer to download the audio only, then you can do so here.
I also set up a wiki to support the presentation: http://tesol-spain.wikispaces.com/
I was there presenting the British Council's Learn English Second Life for Teens project, which has been going through a pilot. The slideshow with recording made in Madrid is included below. If you'd prefer to download the audio only, then you can do so here.
I also set up a wiki to support the presentation: http://tesol-spain.wikispaces.com/
Friday
The Interactive Whiteboard - white elephant or teacher's pet?
The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) is a technology that promises to truly transform the classroom and yet is seen as a threat or a waste of money by many teachers. Their views range from luddite, regarding the introduction of any teaching technology as unnecessarily contaminating the classroom to the (more reasonable) preoccupation that this tool will lead to a overly teacher-focused environment and a group of learners passively sitting dazzled by the bells and whistles used by the sage on the stage.
It doesn't have to be that way though. In this post, I will reflect upon the recent discussion on the Dogme (teaching unplugged) list about the pros and cons of IWBs, and put forward the view that the key to a successful IWB implementation is in the training, something which seems to be missing when many organisations unpack and install these shiny new toys.
Before I continue, let's stop and take a look at the tool itself. There are many different types of IWBs, but features are similar (consult the Wikipedia entry on Interactive Whiteboards for further details).
The market leaders at the moment are Promethean, Smart and Mimio. These manufacturers make IWBs which have similar features (but with some important distinctions) but it is important to note that the software used by each company is not compatible. Thus, the first important decision to make before buying is which one to choose.
Smart technologies seems to have been around the longest and is very common in the USA, and this is why many people still call IWBs Smartboards, but this is the equivalent to calling a vacuum cleaner a Hoover.
Promethean appears to have gained more ground recently and is very popular in the UK and Australia. The British Council (my employer - I should declare now that I have a bias for Promethean boards because they are the ones I have used the most), for example, is installing ACTIVBoards in many of their teaching centres around the world.
Mimio seems to have become popular of late because they offer the possibility of turning regular whiteboards into IWBs, thus being a lower cost solution. I have no direct experience of the Mimio system, but I do know colleagues who have tried it and were not that impressed.
Apart from the hardware, careful attention should be paid to the software, how it works and how it is supported. This is the key to IWB functionality and makes the big difference between using an IWB or a data projector (beamer) and a standard whiteboard. Most IWB software works like a combination between a graphics package and presentation software (e.g. Powerpoint). Certainly, teachers who have used graphics software before have a much easier time than those who haven't.
What differences are there between software? Much is down to look and feel, but, for example, you can write on a smartboard with your finger, but need a special pen to write on a Promethean ACTIVboard.
Software support is important too: Promethean, for example, offers online training and accreditation and a user site, Promethean Planet, whose forums (where teachers share resources, tips and ideas) are second to none. An important reason why the British Council chose the Promethean IWB system was because the licence includes the ability to install the software on their home computers (so they can plan from home) and a free student version (view only) which means they can review flipcharts (what the Promethean IWB created materials are called) at home.
It wasn't the first time that the subject of IWBs had appeared in the Dogme list. Previously, in April 2007, Alan Pulverness had mentioned that there was a tendency for "the technology to
produce a more frontal style of teaching, and consequently fewer opportunities for genuine interaction."
I think this is true if teachers are let loose without any training on how to use the IWB effectively. One of the ironic things about the IWB is that although it resembles a tool that is familiar to all teachers, it requires a sea change in methodology if it is to be used optimally in the classroom. Of course, you can use it in the same way as any other (black or white) board (i.e. by walking into class and writing on it without any prior preparation), but this is akin to using a truck to drive to the corner shop for groceries and coming back home with a bottle of milk and a tin of baked beans.
Strangely enough, writing on an IWB during class time takes longer than on a regular whiteboard, and you'll probably not be able to fit as much on the board. And as for those teachers who are used to sectioning a board with part for class agenda and space for vocabulary? This is a waste of space and time on the IWB, especially as you have unlimited number of pages to flip back and forth through whenever you want. And there's no need to make students wait while you write something from a coursebook on the board - you should have done that before the students even entered the room. Breaking old teacher habits that have no place and make no sense when using this tool is as important as experimenting with new ways of using it.
It should come as no surprise that training and practice are the keys to using the IWB effectively. The interactive whiteboard is not cheap technology, but this is one of the hidden costs. Another is a need for increased technical support in situ, but as far as learner impact is concerned, the sure way to drive a stake through the heart of an IWB project is to try to cut costs in training. But, because it looks like a reglular board, there is a temptation for organisations to hand teachers a pen and let them get on with it. This results in the learners losing out.
Back to the Dogme discussion . Browsing the other posts written by members of the Dogme list about IWBs, it becomes clear that some of these teachers have had as much experience of and interest in using an interactive whiteboard as Paolo Freire had of playing with a Nintendo Gameboy. Then there are others that have formed opinions based on observing sales reps. giving ten minute demonstrations of the technology at conferences. The negative "seems to be used for presenting grammar mcnuggets" view is hardly surprising given the kind of ELT publisher materials available I suppose. Only one or two of these people seem to have based their opinions on actual teacher observation (albeit cursory observation, i.e. saw a teacher through a window...). And most interestingly, those of us who have actually used an IWB were positive about the potential.
So, what was the result of all this debate? I'm pleased to say that some of the Dogme die-hards have been prompted to take another look at the technology. And if we can persuade organisations to invest more in training teachers how to use the interactive whiteboard well, then this will do a great favour to teachers and learners who find themselves having to use it. Will all teachers have to use one in the future? Who knows? I have started to see "experience in using an IWB" appearing in some of the job advertisements for teachers, and I think we will see more of this in the future. So long as the potential of this fabulous tool is not wasted by misuse and methodological abuse.
Note: Please feel free to contact me for IWB training offers
_______________________________________________________
Further Reading / References
Follow the Dogme discussions on using the IWB in a learner-centred way here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_whiteboard
Using the Interactive White Board in EFL - a blog I started in 2005. I've been encouraged by this experience to started posting here again
Promethean/Mirandanet project report on interactive whiteboard use worldwide : http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/partners/promethean_iwb.htm
It doesn't have to be that way though. In this post, I will reflect upon the recent discussion on the Dogme (teaching unplugged) list about the pros and cons of IWBs, and put forward the view that the key to a successful IWB implementation is in the training, something which seems to be missing when many organisations unpack and install these shiny new toys.
- A good workman never blames his tools
Before I continue, let's stop and take a look at the tool itself. There are many different types of IWBs, but features are similar (consult the Wikipedia entry on Interactive Whiteboards for further details).
The market leaders at the moment are Promethean, Smart and Mimio. These manufacturers make IWBs which have similar features (but with some important distinctions) but it is important to note that the software used by each company is not compatible. Thus, the first important decision to make before buying is which one to choose.
Smart technologies seems to have been around the longest and is very common in the USA, and this is why many people still call IWBs Smartboards, but this is the equivalent to calling a vacuum cleaner a Hoover.
Promethean appears to have gained more ground recently and is very popular in the UK and Australia. The British Council (my employer - I should declare now that I have a bias for Promethean boards because they are the ones I have used the most), for example, is installing ACTIVBoards in many of their teaching centres around the world.
Mimio seems to have become popular of late because they offer the possibility of turning regular whiteboards into IWBs, thus being a lower cost solution. I have no direct experience of the Mimio system, but I do know colleagues who have tried it and were not that impressed.
Apart from the hardware, careful attention should be paid to the software, how it works and how it is supported. This is the key to IWB functionality and makes the big difference between using an IWB or a data projector (beamer) and a standard whiteboard. Most IWB software works like a combination between a graphics package and presentation software (e.g. Powerpoint). Certainly, teachers who have used graphics software before have a much easier time than those who haven't.
What differences are there between software? Much is down to look and feel, but, for example, you can write on a smartboard with your finger, but need a special pen to write on a Promethean ACTIVboard.
Software support is important too: Promethean, for example, offers online training and accreditation and a user site, Promethean Planet, whose forums (where teachers share resources, tips and ideas) are second to none. An important reason why the British Council chose the Promethean IWB system was because the licence includes the ability to install the software on their home computers (so they can plan from home) and a free student version (view only) which means they can review flipcharts (what the Promethean IWB created materials are called) at home.
- Interactive White Elephant
It wasn't the first time that the subject of IWBs had appeared in the Dogme list. Previously, in April 2007, Alan Pulverness had mentioned that there was a tendency for "the technology to
produce a more frontal style of teaching, and consequently fewer opportunities for genuine interaction."
I think this is true if teachers are let loose without any training on how to use the IWB effectively. One of the ironic things about the IWB is that although it resembles a tool that is familiar to all teachers, it requires a sea change in methodology if it is to be used optimally in the classroom. Of course, you can use it in the same way as any other (black or white) board (i.e. by walking into class and writing on it without any prior preparation), but this is akin to using a truck to drive to the corner shop for groceries and coming back home with a bottle of milk and a tin of baked beans.
Strangely enough, writing on an IWB during class time takes longer than on a regular whiteboard, and you'll probably not be able to fit as much on the board. And as for those teachers who are used to sectioning a board with part for class agenda and space for vocabulary? This is a waste of space and time on the IWB, especially as you have unlimited number of pages to flip back and forth through whenever you want. And there's no need to make students wait while you write something from a coursebook on the board - you should have done that before the students even entered the room. Breaking old teacher habits that have no place and make no sense when using this tool is as important as experimenting with new ways of using it.
It should come as no surprise that training and practice are the keys to using the IWB effectively. The interactive whiteboard is not cheap technology, but this is one of the hidden costs. Another is a need for increased technical support in situ, but as far as learner impact is concerned, the sure way to drive a stake through the heart of an IWB project is to try to cut costs in training. But, because it looks like a reglular board, there is a temptation for organisations to hand teachers a pen and let them get on with it. This results in the learners losing out.
Back to the Dogme discussion . Browsing the other posts written by members of the Dogme list about IWBs, it becomes clear that some of these teachers have had as much experience of and interest in using an interactive whiteboard as Paolo Freire had of playing with a Nintendo Gameboy. Then there are others that have formed opinions based on observing sales reps. giving ten minute demonstrations of the technology at conferences. The negative "seems to be used for presenting grammar mcnuggets" view is hardly surprising given the kind of ELT publisher materials available I suppose. Only one or two of these people seem to have based their opinions on actual teacher observation (albeit cursory observation, i.e. saw a teacher through a window...). And most interestingly, those of us who have actually used an IWB were positive about the potential.
- Conclusions
So, what was the result of all this debate? I'm pleased to say that some of the Dogme die-hards have been prompted to take another look at the technology. And if we can persuade organisations to invest more in training teachers how to use the interactive whiteboard well, then this will do a great favour to teachers and learners who find themselves having to use it. Will all teachers have to use one in the future? Who knows? I have started to see "experience in using an IWB" appearing in some of the job advertisements for teachers, and I think we will see more of this in the future. So long as the potential of this fabulous tool is not wasted by misuse and methodological abuse.
Note: Please feel free to contact me for IWB training offers
_______________________________________________________
Further Reading / References
Follow the Dogme discussions on using the IWB in a learner-centred way here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_whiteboard
Schmid, E. Cutrim : Investigating the Use of Interactive Whiteboard Technology in the English Language Classroom through the Lens of a Critical Theory of Technology
Using the Interactive White Board in EFL - a blog I started in 2005. I've been encouraged by this experience to started posting here again
Promethean/Mirandanet project report on interactive whiteboard use worldwide : http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/partners/promethean_iwb.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Moving to Substack
I've decided to start blogging on Substack rather than here. Come and join me over there .
-
The Interactive Whiteboard ( IWB ) is a technology that promises to truly transform the classroom and yet is seen as a threat or a waste of...
-
On his substack, Jason Gulya outlines a paradox: "Learning with AI tools suffers from a paradox. To use AI as an effective tool, learn... -
This is part 2 - part 1 can be read here Sugata Mitra 's plenary on the last day of the IATEFL conference was entitled The Future of L...