Supporting Active Learning in CLIL through ... - Semantic Scholar

Supporting Active Learning in CLIL through Collaborative Search Ivana Marenzi1, Rita Kupetz2, Wolfgang Nejdl1, Sergej Zerr1 1

L3S Research Center, Appelstrasse 9, 30167 Hannover, Germany {marenzi, nejdl, zerr}@L3S.de 2 Leibniz Universität Hannover, Königsworther Platz 1, 30167 Hannover, Germany [email protected]

Abstract. In CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) the context is to explicitly teach a subject through a foreign or second language but also implicitly to teach a language through a subject; adding the activity of social networking is part of making the context, and hence language learning, real. In this paper we describe the learning design and infrastructure of a CLIL seminar for trainee teachers. Active learning is supported by our LearnWeb2.0 infrastructure which helps students in collaborative searching and organization of resources to design CLIL materials for their future pupils. In LearnWeb2.0 searching is focused on a specific subject providing materials from appropriate Web2.0 platforms, ratings and comments are directly linked to the resources and easily shared within the learning group. We also present our evaluation design, as well as the first promising evaluation results. Keywords: CLIL, foreign language learning, collaborative search.

1 Introduction “CLIL refers to situations where subjects, or parts of subjects, are taught through a foreign language with dual-focused aims, namely the learning of content, and the simultaneous learning of a foreign language" [7]. In the last 10 years, CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) has been considered to be one of the most promising approaches to foreign language learning. The European Commission website1 stresses the benefits of CLIL when building intercultural knowledge and understanding developing communication skills, improving language competences and oral communication skills, developing multilingual interests and attitudes, providing opportunities to study content through different perspectives, diversifying classroom methodology, and increasing learners' motivation and confidence in both the language and the subject being taught. The promise of integrating both content and language learning is very challenging, and to be successful, good resources, a clearly defined set of objectives, and good task 1

http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/language-teaching/doc236_en.htm

design are essential. Most importantly, CLIL teachers cannot simply „transmit‟ the content, assuming that their students understand. Rather, CLIL requires an adjustment in methodology to ensure that students understand the content (whether conceptual or procedural), and teachers have to think of other means (group work, tasks) which actively involve the students and give the teacher additional possibilities for feedback, regarding the language as well as the content being taught. Educational materials have to focus clearly on the role that language plays in the students‟ assimilation of concepts. Current research in the field focuses mainly on the structural and lexical aspects of language [2][10]. In our work we deal with the content and collaboration aspects relevant for successful CLIL material design. Specifically we focus on CLIL methodology and how to support learners and teachers during the learning process. From the pedagogical point of view, we adopt a real life and explorative learning approach where students within the project work collaboratively, collect and design materials for CLIL. From the standpoint of computer science we support searching for and organization of relevant multimedia objects. Specifically our LearnWeb2.0 infrastructure connects different Web2.0 repositories such as Flickr, YouTube, Delicious and provides easy access to multimedia objects as well as grouping functionalities. In this context we address the following research questions: (1) Which pedagogical and project design should be used to support teaching CLIL concepts at universities in teacher education to foster student reflection on methods and materials appropriate for CLIL? (2) How can an infrastructure for collaborative work and collaborative searching be appropriately used and adapted in a teacher training context, so that it helps in the process of learning how to teach English in a CLIL context? In answer to the first question we describe the design of our CLIL seminar and discuss how it enhances students‟ learning processes. In answer to the second question, we show how our LearnWeb2.0 system supports collaborative work and knowledge sharing. We also describe our evaluation design and first promising evaluation results.

2 Content and Language Integrated Learning In the curricular model [11], the role of language in the CLIL classroom is different to traditional foreign language learning. It is a medium through which specific subject content is learnt and provides the connecting link to the cognitive level. The language necessary for these curricular purposes is subject-related and everyday communicative skills are of lesser importance.

Fig. 1. A curricular framework for CLIL [11]

Supporters of CLIL argue that it is considered superior to conventional language teaching because of its higher degree of authenticity and its higher frequency of exposure. Learners become more competent in the foreign language because they are exposed to it for longer periods of time than in conventional language teaching. Second, using a foreign language as the working language for the content subject is more authentic than using it to talk about the traditional topics of a foreign language classroom. It is not only interaction which becomes authentic in the CLIL classroom, however; subject-specific materials (maps, graphs, pictures) which are used in the classroom can also be more authentic than foreign language textbooks. Language is presented in real-life contexts in which the natural use of language can boost a learner’s motivation towards learning languages. In CLIL, language is a means, not an end, and when learners are interested in a topic they will, hopefully, be motivated to acquire language to communicate. One basic principle is that the content drives the curriculum and consequently is very influential. This principle leads to another, equally important one. A CLIL classroom offers an environment for explorative learning: exploring the content subject and experimenting with specific aspects of the subject are natural activities in a CLIL classroom. Discovery learning and project work are much easier to embed into such a learning environment than in a conventional language classroom.

3 CLIL Course and Learning Design The target group attending our seminar are trainee students who will become future CLIL teachers. The course was held in the summer semester, April-July 2010. 25 students registered for the course, ten of them came out of interest, not for gaining credit points. In order to stress both methodology as well as content appropriate for CLIL teaching, and to provide an active, explorative and adequately computersupported learning environment, we structured the seminar into two phases, where the first phase provides the necessary background information on CLIL, and the second involves the students in project work simulating their future CLIL teaching at school in terms of material design. The assignments during these phases include tasks for individual work, group work and classroom discussions, and are depicted in the following script [4] [5] [9]:

Fig. 2. Script of the assignments in the seminar

Phase I Introduction and traditional face-to-face interaction. In the first part of the seminar, the procedure adopted is to move from theoretical aspects of the CLIL approach to the analysis and discussion of real cases using video materials. This phase includes two assignments: (1) CLIL Learning Module: read a text on CLIL development in Germany and listen to an expert talking about CLIL and the CLIL community, (2) Reading and classroom discussion: development of observation and reflection competences by watching and discussing classroom recordings together. Students use Stud.IP, a self-access online learning platform for individual study. Within our seminar, Stud.IP is mainly used as a structured repository of text and audiovisual materials, providing a basic text by Zydatiß on CLIL from a German perspective, and a commentary by CLIL experts on CLIL methodology through video interviews. Students are asked to read the relevant sections of the texts, provide an oral summary of the readings assigned and lead a group discussion of the readings from the standpoint of their potential application in various CLIL contexts. In class we provide two kinds of input to our students, video sequences of CLIL classrooms at school from various subjects and textual materials in a course reader (printed handout). After reading and watching the video, the most important phase is when they have to discuss what they have read and seen in order to grasp the concept of CLIL from a theoretical and from a practical perspective. Phase II Project Work. The overall goal of the second phase in the seminar is to consolidate each student’s expertise in applying CLIL principles and encourage a process of adjustment and further reflection. This phase focuses on the collection and integration into a lesson and/or syllabus format of appropriate CLIL materials supporting and making explicit each student’s perception of CLIL and understanding of constraints and affordances vis-à-vis the shaping and design of materials for CLIL ends. In the assignments, the students (3) search for and discuss materials on CLIL with others, and (4) design a CLIL teaching unit/module in small groups (2 to 4 students), based on a cross-curricular topic or based on their second subject (Geography, History, Biology). Here the students imagine and simulate their future teaching context in the classroom. We provide our students with a system which is designed to encourage the work of sharing and collaboration. Specifically, trainees use our LearnWeb2.0 online learning platform to shape and sharpen their CLIL materials design skills through ongoing step-by-step negotiation with other participants in the seminar. During their project work, students use LearnWeb2.0 to find, retrieve and organize resources for their subject. They write CLIL-oriented comments and share them with others. They also learn how to extend their commentaries and sharing activities to a full range of resources found on the Web: films, pictures, podcasts, blogs, animations and other multimedia genres. This process of extension of acquisition of resources from a very large dataset implies a fundamental rethinking of the constraints and affordances in the structuring of CLIL content and requires considerable reflection and practice on the part of each student. The students also write lesson plans for their CLIL unit. As a meta-cognitive support, the use of a Learning Diary (optional) is encouraged to ensure that trainees keep a record in English of the work carried out and the effects of the step-by-step approach adopted throughout the seminar. Personal reflections on readings and audiovisual materials should be recorded. The Learning Diary should

reflect an understanding of the potential relevance of the tools and techniques illustrated in the support of CLIL to each trainee’s overall apprenticeship in the theory and practice of CLIL teaching. Finally, the students prepare a presentation where they describe what they learned about the CLIL methodology and how they produced the teaching unit.

4 The LearnWeb2.0 Infrastructure The success of Web 2.0 platforms shows that people are willing to share resources and knowledge with other people. Popular resource sharing systems allow users to upload and share content, but do not focus on educational resources. Petrides et al. [8] point out that there is a need for platforms, which allow users to share open educational resources and inspire a culture of continuous improvement of these resources. In addition, sharing of educational material requires an environment, which permits the storage of resources in different formats. Almost all Web 2.0 infrastructures, though, focus on particular media types, videos in YouTube, pictures in Flickr, or bookmarks in Delicious [3]. Thus, despite the variety of available systems, linking distributed educational resources related to the same context is still difficult. Our resource sharing system LearnWeb2.0 provides several features designed to support collaborative group search and syndication of resources from different sources from ten Web 2.0 services including YouTube, SlideShare, and Blogger [1][6]. It provides: (1) a personal space offering access to the entire set of resources distributed across various Web 2.0 repositories; (2) sharing of queries and results through standing queries, where users are notified whenever a new learning resource matches the query; (3) collaborative aggregation of different resources via an intuitive drag-and-drop interface; (4) integration of the user's social networks from different Web 2.0 services as users can bookmark resources and collaboratively organize bookmarks in groups.

Fig. 3. LearnWeb2.0 User Interface and a Browser-Based LearnWeb2.0 Agent.

Figure 3 shows LearnWeb2.0 and the LearnWeb2.0 Agent (a browser plug-in), providing aggregation and annotation functions for Web 2.0 resources while browsing the Web. Using LearnWeb2.0, students as well as teachers can discover resources that fit a particular learning goal. The more interesting the material for the individual user is, the better the user can understand language and content. The resource discovery process can be divided into three steps 1) the students form groups of interest; 2) they carry out searches and select materials from Web 2.0 information sources; and 3) they discuss and rate the selected materials with respect to their importance for the learning tasks. Finally, the selected and rated resources can be used for course creation and self-directed learning. 4.1 User Groups In social networks the user can create and join various groups of interest. LearnWeb2.0 provides this functionality to support the collaborative learning process. At the beginning of the process, every user can create a group and let others join. The group page gives an overview of the group members as well as over their resource folders. In the CLIL context these groups help users to focus on a particular learning context and accommodate all corresponding resources in one place. Every user can join or leave a group at any time. 4.2 Collaborative Search LearnWeb2.0 provides a generic search interface for all kinds of resources (images, video clips, social network contacts). We kept the interface simple, similar to the search interface of a typical Web search engine. It contains a text field in which the user types in a query and a search button to start the search process. LearnWeb2.0 searches locally in its own repository and in external Web2.0 platforms. The aggregated search results are presented as a list and accompanied by meta information (snippets) and preview images. The user can interactively refine the results, e.g. sort the result list by attributes such as title, description, date or tag. In the advanced search settings, the user can specify properties of the desired resources. Properties include tags, creation date or file type, in case the user is only interested in particular media types such as videos or audios. The user can browse through the result list and select resources that suit his/her learning task best. As Web2.0 is a very dynamic information environment, new learning materials can arrive at any moment. To support ongoing learning activities LearnWeb2.0 can keep its users updated on new resources relating to queries, even if these resources were published after the search query was issued. This functionality enables users to monitor new resources corresponding to a particular learning task. For each search activity LearnWeb2.0 provides an RSS feed which can be used as a standing query in an RSS aggregator. This feed can be shared with co-searchers to inform them about mutual search activities and support exchanges of search results. If a user identifies a resource of interest in the result list, s/he can add it to the LearnWeb2.0 repository and share it within a user group. By clicking the “Add”

button the user can automatically enrich the resource metadata with query information and add it to the repository. The selected resource is automatically tagged with the corresponding query terms. These tags can be used later for resource recommendations to friends and colleagues within the network. LearnWeb2.0 supports collaborative learning processes in the search phase by identifying what resources have been selected by co-searchers using the group relations between the resource owner (who added the resource) and the searcher. 4.3 Organization of Resources LearnWeb2.0 metadata include title, description and tags. Since a single resource can be useful to more than one CLIL unit, it can be added many times with different metadata. The user can select or create a group folder within the repository where the resource will be stored. Folders are shared among the co-searchers and thus populated collaboratively. Changes in the group content are reflected in an RSS feed which keeps all subscribers up to date.

Fig. 4. Organization of Resources in LearnWeb2.0

After the resource is added to the repository, it can be commented on, rated and tagged by all users in the same way as in other Web2.0 platforms. Ratings reflect the value of the resource for the CLIL unit. By exchanging comments, the students and/or teacher can discuss resource quality and usability for the course. The tags help both to find a particular resource again easily, and describe the materials more precisely within the learning context.

5 Evaluation Design and First Results Our qualitative evaluation consists of three questionnaires delivered on-line through Google Document forms. We included questions on the use of Web 2.0 tools and on specific LearnWeb2.0 functionalities meant to support collaboration. Questions were multiple-choice and checkboxes, plus a space for additional comments.

The first questionnaire checks the students´ previous experiences and their expectations about the CLIL seminar. Questions include: Which tools did you use in the courses you attended so far? Which of these tools was most useful and why? What do you expect from the CLIL seminar? How do you use Web 2.0 tools (literature searching, forums, blogs, resource sharing and social networks)? How do you think you could use Web 2.0 tools for your CLIL project work? Which competences are needed for collaborative self-directed learning with Web 2.0 tools (searching, collaboration and co-ordination)? Most students already used Stud.IP during their previous studies, as well as other software such as PowerPoint. Only one student mentioned Moodle LMS. In general, they found Stud.IP useful as a storage platform to access and share documents and learning materials. From the CLIL seminar, the students expected mainly to learn how to design CLIL materials and a teaching unit. Regarding Web2.0 tools, students already use them to search for relevant literature as well as to share resources.

However, students consider sharing in social networks as a more private activity. Regarding the preparation of their project work, the students plan to use web2.0 tools mainly to search and share resources, and to collaborate with group members. For the question “Which prerequisites and competencies do you think are needed for collaborative self-directed learning with Web2.0 technologies?” all students chose Searching (ability to select a good keyword for the query in order to find relevant media resources), while only five of them selected collaboration and coordination.

The second questionnaire was about the use of Stud.IP and student satisfaction. We also asked in what aspects our use of Stud.IP differed from previous experiences and which resources and assignments were particularly helpful. All the trainees who answered the questionnaire had already used Stud.IP, but only 75% of them consider their previous experience useful. Most did not perceive any difference in use compared with the current CLIL seminar, one student remarked that

“integrating a learning module is not the standard when using Stud.IP”. Most students considered the resources provided in Stud.IP appropriate as an introduction to CLIL, and found written resources (67%) more helpful than video recordings (50%). They did not use other kinds of resources besides those already provided; only one mentioned statistics. Most students mentioned reading texts and classroom discussion as the most helpful assignments in Stud.IP. Only one student had difficulties accessing the materials in the Learning Module; 58% evaluate Stud.IP as a useful support in their future career as teachers. One student commented: “I think you do not necessarily need a learning module and you can provide all texts needed in class and do not need to use the learning platform. I think Stud.IP is just helpful for organizing my own schedule or to give information on a course, e.g. which room, what time,...”

The third questionnaire evaluated the use of LearnWeb2.0, as well as comparing its use to Stud.IP, to check whether and how its different functionalities support students’ learning process and whether they perceive it as a useful tool for their future work as school teachers. Questions include: What kinds of resources were particularly useful? Describe two resources particularly helpful for your CLIL module / final project work? Was it easy to find and access materials in LearnWeb2.0? Which parts of LearnWeb2.0 and the assignments did you find most helpful (search, selecting and grouping, discussing and commenting, designing the teaching unit, final presentation)? What should be improved? Preliminary informal feedback indicated that they found the functionalities provided very useful, but would like to see faster response times from the system. Synchronous collaboration facilities would probably also be useful. Answers to a specific questionnaire will be available at the end of the course. Our quantitative evaluation will be based on the log files of the LearnWeb2.0 platform. From the log files user actions and navigation through the application pages can be restored per each user and session. Logged user actions include resource selection, rating, commenting or tagging, as well as search and group membership.

6 Conclusions and Further Work CLIL students engage with a foreign language in a unique way, integrating content and language learning. The new perspective on content and learning materials, which students use and develop when they learn in another language, is equally important. The paper described course design and infrastructure of a CLIL

course in teacher education, providing the students with an active learning environment and an appropriate infrastructure to support collaborative search and project work. First evaluation results are promising, showing that this approach leads to an enhanced and more multi-perspective learning process than in previous courses. Based on student feedback on the learning platforms, we are currently working on enhancing LearnWeb2.0 speed as well as adding synchronous collaboration facilities. Acknowledgments We thank Mounika for her contributions in improving the LearnWeb2.0 functionalities according to the needs of the students. We are grateful as well to the students who supported our research on technology enhanced learning. The work has been partially funded by the European project STELLAR.

References 1. Abel, F., Marenzi, I., Nejdl, W., Zerr, S.: Sharing Distributed Resources in LearnWeb2.0. European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2009, Nice, France, (2009) 2. Coyle, Do.: Developing CLIL: Towards a theory of Practice. Nottingham: the Uiversity of Nottingham School of Education (mimeo: 21 pp.), (2006) 3. Demidova, E., Kärger, P., Olmedilla, D., Ternier, S., Duval, E., Dicerto, M., Mendez, C., Stefanov, K.: Services for knowledge resource sharing & management in an open source infrastructure for lifelong competence development. In: Intl. Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Niigata, Japan (2007) 4. Dillenbourg, P.: Over-scripting CCL: The risk of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P.A.Kirschner (Ed.) Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp.61-91). Heerlen: Open university Nederland (2002) 5. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann P.: Designing Integrative scripts. In F. Fischer (Ed.) Scripting Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (pp.275-301), Springer (2007) 6. Marenzi, I., Zerr, S., Abel, F., Nejdl, W.: Social Sharing in LearnWeb2.0. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning (IJCEELL), Volume 19 - Issue 4/5/6. DOI: 10.1504/IJCEELL.2009.028826 (2009) 7. Marsh, D.: Content and Language Integrated Learning: The European Dimension Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential (2002) http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/languages/index.html 8. Petrides, L., Nguyen, L., Kargliani, A., Jimes, C.: Open Educational Resources: Inquiring into Author Reuse Behaviors. In: Proc. of 3rd European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL), pp. 344–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) 9. Rummel, N., & Spada, H.: Can people learn computer-mediated collaborationby following a script? In F. Fischer (Ed.) Scripting Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (pp.39-55). Springer (2007) 10. Swain, M.: The Output Hypothesis. Just Speaking and Writing Aren’t Enough. The Canadian Modern Languages Review 50.1, 158-164. (1993) 11. Zydatiß, W.: Bilingualer Fachunterricht in Deutschland: eine Bilanz. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 36, 8-25. (2007)