Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Se está descargando tu SlideShare. ×

Designing for personalization and contextualization

Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Próximo SlideShare
Contextualizing language
Contextualizing language
Cargando en…3
×

Eche un vistazo a continuación

1 de 48 Anuncio
Anuncio

Más Contenido Relacionado

Presentaciones para usted (20)

Similares a Designing for personalization and contextualization (20)

Anuncio

Más reciente (20)

Designing for personalization and contextualization

  1. 1. Designing for personalization and contextualization Prof. dr. Jozef COLPAERT University of Antwerp, Belgium 7 May 2014 #TISLID14
  2. 2. ¡Gracias! Henri De Braekeleer. 1872. Antwerp Cathedral
  3. 3. Warning!  Some statements in this presentation may be perceived as provocative and may cause irritation and even frustration.  This speaker is not responsible for possible side effects like goose bumps, peak blood pressure, stomach burn or headache.  Some participants will probably say:  This is why he has added the following two slides …
  4. 4. Look who‟s talking …  1970-1976: student Latin-Mathematics  1976-1980: master Romance Philology  1980-1986: teacher French-Spanish secondary education  1986-2004: developer ( > 100 applications)  1988-2007: project manager ( > 100 projects)  2002- …: editor CALL Journal (Taylor & Francis)  2005- …: director R&D LINGUAPOLIS Language Institute  2005- …: professor CALL, Educational Technology & ID  2007-2013: vice-chairman Institute for Education and Information Sciences
  5. 5. Look who‟s talking …  More info:  jozef.colpaert@uantwerpen.be  www.uantwerpen.be/jozef-colpaert  www.jozefcolpaert.net  www.facebook.com/jozef.colpaert (personal)  www.twitter.com/JozefColpaert (academic & scientific)  www.linkedin.com > Jozef Colpaert  www.linkedin.com > Computer Assisted Language Learning Group (1.800 members)  XVIth International CALL Research Conference Antwerp 7-9 July 2014: www.antwerpcall.be
  6. 6. How do I feel ?  Torn between …  what I know I should do …  what I feel I want to do …  what they tell me I have to do …  But how do you feel ?
  7. 7. You feel …  … you should use technology for „some‟ reason  … pressured by:  peers  students  superiors  researchers  companies  techies  …
  8. 8. You feel…  … you should use words like:  flipped classrooms  virtual learning environments  digital pedagogy  blended learning  BYOD  MOOCs  digital natives  serious games  …  Problem: pervasive terms, persuasive language use & blurred ontologies
  9. 9. You feel …  … you should use advanced statistics  From “my students just loved it” to Structural Equation Modelling  But: “If you need advanced statistics to show a difference, then the difference is not big enough” (me on Twitter)  … you should „prove‟ or „measure‟ something in research  “When we give proper weight to local conditions, any generalization is a working hypothesis, not a conclusion.” (Cronbach, 1975: 125)  Need for replication in other contexts  Bayesian epistemology: knowledge building = changes in probability that something is true
  10. 10. You feel …  … you should start an article with statements like  “The Internet has revolutionized the way we learn and teach.”  “In recent years, computers have shown to play an important role in the language learning process”  … you should refer to others  “Games increase motivation (x 2001; y 2009; z 2013)”
  11. 11. Just submitted:  “With the rapid development of technology, technology-assisted language learning (TALL) (Kuure, 2011; Thorne & Smith, 2011) is a trend. Some studies revealed that using computer-assisted language learning (CALL) (Claire & Mike, 2009; Jarvis & Achilleos, 2013; Ramirez & Alonso, 2007; Rusanganwa, 2013) can facilitate achievement in foreign language. With the progression of technology, mobile learning (m- learning) not only possesses the advantages of computer-assisted learning (CAL) but also has fewer limitations on time and space (Jarvis & Achilleos, 2013). (…)”.  “Nowadays English has become the most important international language (Cheon, 2003; Huang et al., 2012). Thus, English as a foreign language (EFL) is emphasized and commonly taught in countries of the Asia-Pacific region, such as Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. According to foreign language learning theories (Harmer, 2007; Krashen, 2009; Swain, 2008), to make language learning more efficiently, a student needs not only receive the target language (read and listen) but also makes meaningful output (write and speak). However, there are limited opportunities to speak English or listen to a speech in English in countries where it is not a native language. (…)”  “With the advent of the digital age, emerging technologies have come to permeate many daily activities, be they chatting with friends, checking bank statements or shopping online. Because of their unlimited potential and adaptability to multiple uses, “It should come as no surprise, then, to find that, to a great extent, these technologies have been co-opted by the field of education in general, and TESOL in particular” (Smith & Rilling, 2006, p.1). EFL researchers and practitioners globally acknowledge the fact that technology-enriched learning produces enhanced output. Emerging technologies provide opportunities for instructors to adopt the latest approaches in their teaching on the one hand and to challenge students on the other. (…)”
  12. 12. Just submitted:  “Giving feedback in second language writing is a popular point of debate and a common practice for second language instructors. With the myriad of affordances provided by the growing array of technology- based tools, instructors constantly have new ways of providing, delivering and using feedback.(…)”  “College students of today, identified as so-called “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001; Rosen, 2010; Thompson, 2013) who have grown up surrounded by digital technology and are thus keen to integrate it into various aspects of their daily lives, including in learning (Alghazo, 2006). The impact of instructional technology on students‟ learning outcomes is still controversial, and both the academic and practical domains of education await more empirical evidence (Thompson, 2013). (…)”  “Game provides communication, sharing and relaxing fields that play an important role in human education process as studied by anthropology, psychology, pedagogy or communication sciences, etc (Binark, 2009, as cited in Soyluçiçek, 2011). In other words, Game is not only an entertaining means but also it could be used as a teaching method. Studies on the using games had shown that teaching a lesson with a game environment attracts students‟ attention and increases their motivation to the lesson (Cornillie, 2012, Demirbilek, 2010). Teaching through games develops into a new method during this decade. Followers of teaching through game concentrate their studies on teaching in the course of computer game or motor activity or language game. CALL programs have been found to be effective in many language learning studies. Through playing digital games, even the shy students participate in language learning (Aghlara& Hadidi Tamjid, 2011). (…)”
  13. 13. Even worse …  An accepted finding or proven fact should be  measurable  repeatable  generalizable  Most statements are vague and gratuitous, many are NOT TRUE.  “Students learn better with technology”
  14. 14. Who has come by plane?
  15. 15. How do planes fly ?
  16. 16. Explanation
  17. 17. So …  Planes are not pushed up by the air.  Technology does not „push‟ learning effect.
  18. 18. Ecological Paradigm Shift  So where does the targeted learning effect come from?  Any targeted learning effect can only come from the entire learning environment (LE) as ecology.   What do we mean by learning environment?
  19. 19. The learning environment  LE ingredients:  actors: learner, teacher, parent …  content  teaching model  learning model  evaluation model  infrastructure  technology + recipe, procedure, design model… (how-to …)
  20. 20. Process-oriented paradigm shift  The eventual learning effect is proportional to the designedness of the LE  Designedness = the extent to which it has been designed in a methodological and systematic way  Design leads to polymorphous results  Consequences for research and evaluation
  21. 21. Psychological paradigm shift  Focus on personal goals is a more efficient way to achieve pedagogical goals  COLPAERT, Jozef. “Elicitation of language learners‟ personal goals as design concepts.” Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. Vol. 4, No 3, November 2010, 259-274. Taylor and Francis.  Between Self-Determination Theory and Dörnyei‟s L2 SELF model
  22. 22. Personal goals  Pedagogical goals: explicit, detailed, conscious  Personal goals: difficult to elicit and to formulate  Elicitation technique: analysis of emotional and cognitive friction  When I think about … I think about the following problems  When I think … I feel ….  I feel … because I …   The learning environment should first focus on …
  23. 23. Ten tenets 1. The ecological paradigm shift 2. The process-oriented paradigm shift 3. The psychological paradigm shift 4. The engineering hypothesis 5. The distributed design hypothesis 6. The ontological specification hypothesis 7. The transdisciplinarity hypothesis 8. The generic content structure hypothesis 9. Educational Engineering as Instructional Design Model 10. Educational Engineering as Research Method
  24. 24. Engineering
  25. 25. What is engineering exactly?  Wikipedia: “Engineering is the discipline, skill, and profession of acquiring and applying scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order to design and build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes.”  B.V. Koen. 1985. Definition of the Engineering Method. “By the engineering method I mean the strategy for causing the best change in a poorly understood or uncertain situation within the available resources.” (p.5)  Strategy to apply when not enough knowledge is available  Building process-hypotheses to be validated theoretically and empirically
  26. 26. Educational Engineering  EE is about building best possible (optimal) educational artefacts  documents, tools, content, concepts, models and solutions such as textbooks, syllabi, lesson plans, curricula, graded readers, exercises, tests, applications or electronic learning platforms …  Artefact = construct, working hypothesis built on theory and practice  real-world hypothesis testing  less iterative prototyping
  27. 27. Educational Engineering  ADDIE loop (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation)  Series of Intermediate Artefacts towards Optimal (virtual) Artefact e i d d a v1 v2 v3 v4
  28. 28. Educational Engineering  Number of loops depends on available resources, resistance …  While development focuses on the product (shape, form, role), engineering focuses more on the process  how to build more efficiently?   EE formulates process-oriented working hypotheses built on theory and practice
  29. 29. The EE process Analysis Development Implementation Evaluation conceptualization specification prototyping Design Theory Technology
  30. 30. First steps  Analysis:  Formulate requirements in terms of aspects amenable to change (which can and should be changed)  Design:  Conceptualisation:  Concept based on reconciling conflicting personal and pedagogical goals  Specification:  Pedagogical  Architectural  Content  Technological
  31. 31. Examples  Positive in my case:  Wiki for knowledge coconstruction:  http://ce3.ua.ac.be/wiki  Google Docs for synchronous collaborative writing  Interactive textbooks  Flashmeeting  More problematic:  OERs, MOOCs …  Evaluation:  Cfr Cupcake Wars  Evaluate the process on its reasoning, not the product on its features
  32. 32. EE as Research Method  Hypothesis validation: ∆ (outcome, expected outcome)  “What is the expected/actual effect of a justifiable change in the design process, in terms of product and process indicators?” (Colpaert 2010)  “What are the characteristics of an <intervention X> for the purpose/outcome Y (Y1, Y2, …, Yn) in context Z” (Plomp, 2007)  “If you want to design intervention X for the purpose/function Y in context Z, then you are best advised to give that intervention the characteristics A, B, and C, and to do that via procedures K, L, and M, because of arguments P, Q, and R.” (Van den Akker, 1999)
  33. 33. Current research  Need for:  personalization  contextualization  … of the learning process
  34. 34. Personalization  Literature & experience:  adaptive, anticipatory learning  Adaptation:  user-defined (menu system)  system-defined (“intelligent”)  teacher-defined  Adaptation in terms of:  level, topic, skills, task types, degrees of freedom …
  35. 35. Personalization  How possible?  learner information through learner analytics, personal goal analysis, learner info, teacher info, social media, …  generic routine & architecture  Evaluation  less user-defined:  learner autonomy overrated ?  choice stress  challenge for MOOCs?
  36. 36. Contextualization  Literature & experience:  adapt learning process to the geotemporal context of the learner  a.o. Situated Learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991)  Need for:  relevant documents  meaningful, useful and enjoyable tasks  relevant exercises  generated questions
  37. 37. Contextualization  Affordances of mobile devices  detect Points of Interest (such as museums, railway stations, cash machines, post offices, restaurants, attractions …) in close proximity of the user (any GPS);  look up and present information about these Points of Interest (e.g. Google Street View);  find Persons of Interest (friends, family, colleagues, co-learners …) in close proximity to the user and to interact with them (e.g. Foursquare);  adapt their own appearance, content or behavior to the presence of specific locations and users (Ambient Intelligence);  present customized information just-in-time (Google Now);  enrich perception of reality with an extra information or visualization layer (Augmented Reality; e.g. Google Glass)
  38. 38. Contextualization  The Web 3.0 phenomenon entails an explosion of available data based on the concepts of  openness (e.g. Open Knowledge Foundation, Open Data, Open Source)  data enrichment  semantic networks (e.g. Linked Open Data Cloud, Google Knowledge Graph, Microsoft Probase)  interoperability of applications.
  39. 39. Contextualization  Information sources:  authentic content available from the Web;  tagged, enriched materials;  semantic networks (e.g. DBpedia, ConceptNet, BabelNet, Freebase, Europeana, LinkedGeoData);  social media services (e.g., OpenStreetMap, Foursquare, TripAdvisor, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook);  existing course materials and Open Educational Resources (OERs);  existing interactive learning content;  new task-based learning content;  human-delivered information, i.e. interaction with native speakers in the context.
  40. 40. Contextualization  Example:  It is about noon. My smartphone shows me the lunch menu from an Italian restaurant in the neighborhood, with translations adapted to my level. It shows a button “Make a reservation” and “Invite friends”  … (you?)
  41. 41. LSP  Typical example of personalization & contextualization  need to know more about needed topic for the learner  need for more specialized content  Example:  you? …  Computational linguistics & corpora revisited?
  42. 42. I have just told you …  EE is an iterative and cyclic instructional design model:  No technology carries an inherent, measurable and generalizable effect on learning. The LE as ecology does.  This targeted learning effect is proportional to the designedness of the LE (focus on the methodological design process).  “Which, when, how and where ICT” is the result of a process and will thus depend on the LE.  “Which, when, how and where ICT” can only be defined by teachers
  43. 43. I have just told you:  Do not:  Evaluate LE / ICT on product level (boxes ticked)  Apply pedagogical models (theories of learning) as such  Conduct experiments with treatment analysis  Call your work Action Research  Do:  Redesign your LE  Formulate process hypotheses  Consider yourselves educational engineers as professionals  Turn your daily work into EE-research
  44. 44. From push to pull  The role of technology is to allow the realization of a powerful learning environment  A methodological design process creates a pull-effect towards technology (or not)  Result of the design process = specification of needed technology  Required technology may not exist yet.
  45. 45. Approaches to ICT integration  Pedagogy-based  application of a pedagogical model based on theory  Attribute-based  effect of specific features on learning  Affordance-based  new activities  Technology-driven  hype, pressure  Demand-oriented  just needed  Educational engineering  ??
  46. 46. And finally…  use:  flipped classrooms > well-designed classrooms  virtual learning environments > real learning environments  digital pedagogy > sound pedagogy  blended learning > distributed learning  digital natives > young people  Massive Open Online Courses > freely accessible courses  BYOD > work on any device  serious games > meaningful, useful and enjoyable tasks
  47. 47.  XVIth International CALL Research Conference Antwerp (7-9 July 2014)  www.antwerpcall.be  Pre-conference activities (30 June – 4 July 2014):  International Master Class in Educational Engineering  Summer School in Research Design  www.jozefcolpaert.net  Follow me on Twitter, LinkedIn (group: Computer Assisted Language Learning) and Facebook.

×