Week 32: Reflection on the Mindlab course

Stage 1: Problem Identification

Frustration was what drove me to sign up to the Mindlab course. Frustration that, after 4 years teaching languages in Europe where the vast majority of students saw the purpose and value of language learning, back in New Zealand I was finding it difficult to engage my students; frustration that so many were choosing to give up on their language learning. The retention level of Year 10 students into Year 11 was very low. It was easy to identify student engagement as the problem. I hoped the Mindlab course would provide some solutions, fresh ideas and a challenge.

 

Stage 2: Observation and analysis

Having identified the issue of student engagement, the next step was to understand the problem. Surveys of students, interviews and observations, backed up by research, painted a picture of students who are not sure of why and how they learn a language. Karen Ashton’s research on the state of language learning in NZ was a valuable starting point and more recently Jeffreys’ (2019) BBC survey into the state of language learning in the UK supports my theory that change is necessary. The Mindlab course gave me the opportunity to reflect on my practice, to be exposed to new ideas and theories, and to learn more about the change process. Listening to the student voice was crucial and provided the focus for both parts of the course; incorporating 21^st Century Learning Design Rubrics during the first 16 weeks and looking at the impact of gamification on engagement for the Applied Practice course. I had the opportunity to give the students a sense of purpose and to “make the learning experience fun”, something that 40% of students were asking for.

 

Stage 3: Abstract reconceptualization

One of the key drivers for change during the first part of the course was the ITL research in to 21^st Century Learning Design Rubrics. I wanted to focus on why we learn French, its purpose. The three rubrics that stood out for me were collaboration, use of ICT for learning and real world problem-solving and innovation. If I could bring the French speaking world to my classroom and provide genuine communication opportunities with a real audience, it would provide the purpose for language learning that my students were not seeing. Kotter’s 8 step change model and a much clearer understanding of leadership theory was also vital so I could bring my colleagues on board with what I was trying to do. During the Applied Practice course, my inquiry into the impact of gamification on engagement has focused on the how we can learn. My research has indicated that gamification does have a positive effect and I now have developed a deeper understanding of how to lead this change. Using evidence to support my initiative has made the change more successful.

These changes link easily to the standards for teachers and specifically to “Design for Learning”, defined as “Design learning based on curriculum and pedagogical knowledge, assessment information and an understanding of each learner’s strengths, interests, needs, identities, languages and cultures.” By creating real world collaborative tasks and by gamifying elements of the course I am listening to the wants of my students and meeting their needs and interests. This addresses the issues of engagement and retention.

 

Stage 4: Active experimentation

My practice has changed over the last 32 weeks of the Mindlab course. Firstly, I have taken deliberate actions to address what the student voice is telling me. I have tried new ideas (e.g screen-casting), have built a new web-site, and have set up links with schools in France to have a virtual exchange. These are all still works in progress and I will continue to develop them. As always, time is my biggest hindrance, but I know from feedback that I have received that it is worth the work. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, I have been able to lead my colleagues and bring them on board with my changes. Whilst the course helped me gain valuable skills, the leadership element allowed me to empower my colleagues, thus benefiting not just myself.

 

References:

Ashton K., (January 2018). Exploring teacher views of multi-level language classes in New Zealand secondary schools: Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 69.

ITL Research (2012) 21CLD Learning Activity Rubrics retrieved from https://education.microsoft.com/GetTrained/ITL-Research

Jeffreys B. (BBC Education 2019), Save UK’s dwindling language skills, say MPs and peers https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47421735

Kotter International. (2017). 8 Steps for Accelerating Change (eBook). Kotter International

Ministry of Education (2017). Our code, our standards. Retrieved from https://educationcouncil.org.nz/content/our-code-our-standards

 

Week 31 Reflection: Evaluation of the impact on future inquiry / practice

 

What is the observed impact after the “Take Action phase”?

 

In the research phase of the inquiry I noted that Huotari and Hamari’s (2012) definition of gamification places engagement at the core of the use of gamified activities. Muntean (2011) states that gamifying motivates and Figuera’s research (2015) involving university students showed an increase in engagement. Having completed the take action phase, it is therefore not such of a surprise to me that I have noted an increase in engagement with the use of gamified activities using digital tools in the language classroom. Surveys, interviews and observation all indicate this. However it is not the sole engaging factor in the language classroom, as the surveys and interviews also indicated a strong desire for speaking activities. This is reflected by Munday (2016) who notes that technology is not a replacement for good teaching and is a supplement for what is already happening in the classroom. Language learning has communication at its heart and speaking is the essence of this.

 

How is the observed impact different / similar from the anticipated one?

I have already reflected that the observed impact is very much what I expected, but it has also thrown up some matters that I had not anticipated. The first observed difference is that the research showed that impact of gamified activities is far greater with students who are less engaged with learning a language. Those students who opt to continue language learning mostly cite communicative activities as being the most enjoyable. This might be because they clearly see the purpose for learning a language and those who are less engaged do not. This certainly links to what I was looking at in the first 16 weeks of the Mindlab course. The second and perhaps most rewarding impact for me is how my inquiry has almost been a catalyst for change amongst my colleagues. I had the opportunity to discuss my findings with colleagues and, as our department prepares to embed a new curriculum framework into our courses, the impact of creating a new website for French is motivating others to change and to adapt their practice. I had hoped that my inquiry might lead to some change so it is fantastic that a number of colleagues will be working alongside me as we build new sites for each of the European languages, with a clear focus on using gamified activities.

 

What is the impact on future practice / inquiry?

Our new COLL curriculum framework has a focus on personalised learning and the use of 21^st Century learning skills. Gamified activities on our new sites will be a part of that and this has come about due to my inquiry. Having the research and evidence to back up my position has certainly enabled me to bring around change. As Stoll and Temperley (2015) indicate, my inquiry has led to colleagues being prepared to collaborate and to having a shared focus. More importantly, they are actively getting involved in the change.

This inquiry has had an impact on my practice, as it has given me the chance to reflect deeply on what I do. I have always thought that most students take languages in my school because they enjoy it and they find it fun. The inquiry has proved that gamified activities do have an impact on engagement and therefore perceived ‘fun’. In the longer term, I need to find out whether this impacts on the number of senior students taking languages. I also need to consider if gamified activities using digital technologies have a positive impact on learning.

My research has shown that speaking activities also impact on engagement, perhaps further inquiry could look at how I can use these two factors to motivate students to continue to learn French in their senior years.

 

References:

Figueroa, J. (2015). Using Gamification to Enhance Second Language Learning In: Digital Education Review, 21, 32-54. [Accessed: 14/12/2018] http://greav.ub.edu/der

Huotari, K. and Hamari, J. (2012) ‘Defining gamification’, Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference on – MindTrek ’12, p. 17. doi: 10.1145/2393132.239313

Munday, P. (2016). The case for using DUOLINGO as part of the language classroom experience. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 19 (1), 83-101. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ried.19.1.14581

Muntean C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification Proc. 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL.

Stoll, L., and Temperley, J. (2015). Narrowing the Gap with Spirals of Enquiry: Evaluation of Whole Education’s Pilot. Whole Education, UK. Retrieved from http://www.wholeeducation.org/download,634

Week 30 Reflection: Reflection on your evidence

Over the last 8 weeks I have collected data from the following:

• Anonymous student survey of Y10 students from 2018 (28^th January – 8^th February)
• Focus groups with current Y10 students (2 focus groups with 7 students recorded 25^th February – 1^st March)
• Observation of a Y9 French class by colleague focussing on student reactions to using gamified activities. (4^th March)

The data from the Google Survey was downloaded into and Excel Spreadsheet. My first task was to highlight entries with any reference to use of gamified activities or making the learning fun (proxy for engaging) as shown below:

 

I conducted two focus groups on different days to give students two opportunities to participate. I recorded these interviews and transcribed them.

 

A colleague observed a Y9 French class. I did not receive the specific feedback that I was wanting on student reaction to using gamified activities, but, nevertheless the observation report did provide useful data.

 

Analysis of the quantitative data

I first looked at the number of responses and compared this to the total number of students who took French in Year 10 in 2018. 51 respondents equates to 78% of the cohort, so I believe I have a large enough group from which to obtain my evidence.  I looked at frequency of responses and then used percentages to make sense of the data. For each question that I asked, percentages enabled me to compare the data for all participants, participants who are no longer studying French and those who are continuing with French. This allowed me to analyse any differences between those who have given up the language and those who are continuing.  Below are the three charts for the question “what did you enjoy most about learning French last year?”

 

Analysis of the qualitative data

In my analysis of the qualitative data I wanted to focus on the perspectives held by students with regards to gamified activities. I used content analysis and simply highlighted in different colours data that was pertinent to my inquiry on engagement. I wanted to triangulate this qualitative data with my quantitative analysis of the surveys to see whether I could draw legitimate conclusions, with regards to engagement. As Babione (2014) suggests, for the classroom teacher researcher it is best to think of guidelines rather than procedures for data analysis. Lichtman (2010) recognises that most inquiry analysis is not done in a linear process but in an ongoing circular process which results in reflective and well-reasoned analysis.

Intepretation of the data:

There is evidence to show that gamified activities do have an impact on student engagement. 30% of students surveyed found gamified activites the most enjoyable activity in the classroom although speaking activities rated as highly. When asked to give advice to a language teacher, there is a clear request to make the language learning experience more fun. Whilst “fun” is not specifically related to gamification, there is already clear evidence that gamified learning activities are perceived as enjoyable. “Quizlet live is good because everyone wants to win, so you try your best, yeah like you’re learning things while you’re doing it as well” (Student 4). “The task at hand had the feeling of playing an online game and to successfully complete the work equated to moving to the next level of a video game.  This seemed to appeal to the students.” (teacher observation)

There are clearly many elements that make up an “engaged” French classroom. It is clear from the above data that online digital gamified activities do have an impact on student engagement. There is definitely a place for these activities in the classroom but there is also a clear case for an increase in speaking activities, especially amongst those students who are interested in taking their language further.

 

References:

Babione, C. (2015). Practitioner Teacher Inquiry and Research. USA: John Wiley & Sons.

Lichtman, M. (2010) Qualitative Research in Education: A User’s Guide. 2nd Edition, Sage, California.

 

Week 29 reflection: Consider your audiences.

In my action plan, I identified my local audiences as my students and my colleagues in the languages department. For this reflection, I will be focussing on the potential impact of gamification using digital tools on engagement within the context of second language learning in NZ and overseas. The audience again being both students and teachers.

My starting point for my Mindlab journey was Karen Ashton’s research into teacher views of multi-level language classes in New Zealand schools. She highlights a dramatic decline in students taking languages in senior classes. More recently research from the BBC (2019) shows that language learning in the UK is at its lowest level since the turn of the millennium, with French and German at the lowest levels. My inquiry directly relates to both this worrying downward trend and to using technology for teaching and learning one of the trends shaping education spotlight. (OECD, 2018). Can effective use of the latter lead to a reverse in the trend of the former?

Back in the UK, of the 2048 schools who responded to the BBC survey most said that the perception of languages as a difficult subject was the main reason for the decline in numbers. My research has highlighted a lack of engagement with the language as the key factor. Both reasons lead to the same outcome and language teachers and education leaders need to take action to reverse the decline.  Jean Coussins, Chair of the all-party parliamentary group on modern languages in the UK states “We are complacent. In the 21st Century speaking only English, is as much of a disadvantage as speaking no English at all.” Here in New Zealand and in the English speaking world we need to realise the importance and value of language learning. Peter Wittig, German Ambassador to the UK sums this up succinctly. “Speaking languages and engaging with other cultures are the currency of the 21st century. In today’s inter-connected world, communicators and bridge-builders are needed as never before.” In the light of recent global and local events his words resonate even more when he talks about how language “encourages friendship, trust and understanding across borders”.

How does this link to effective use of technology and to the use of gamification using digital tools in the language classroom? My research so far indicates that this does have a positive impact on student engagement. If students are engaged in their learning then it is more likely that they will want to continue to learn, especially if there is a clear purpose.  Paniaga and Instance (2018) talk about finding the right balance between the different elements that influence students learning and include in this the specific technologies available and the teachers’ professional competence. I have already alluded in previous reflections to the importance of promoting and participating in teacher learning and development (Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd, 2009.) Teachers need to feel comfortable using the available technology. Not only this, but they also need to be comfortable integrating it in their teaching.(Comi et al., 2016)  An outcome of my inquiry has been me leading my colleagues in this professional development, something, which I will be also doing later in the year with my wider audience at our “Loop” conference.

The student perceptions that language learning is difficult and that in New Zealand there does not seem a purpose for language learning are two major challenges facing language teachers. My inquiry seeks to find ways to address engagement, which I believe is at the root of these two perceptions. This is not something that can be resolved in this sixteen week project, but it is a starting point to address a national / English speaking countries problem. If I can bring about some change in my students and at my school, then I would hope that it might in some way lead to reversing the decline in student numbers learning languages.

 

References:

Ashton K., (January 2018). Exploring teacher views of multi-level language classes in New Zealand secondary schools: Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 69.

Comi, S., et al. (2017), “Is it the way they use it? Teachers, ICT and student achievement”. Economics of Education Review, Vol. 56, pp. 24-39.

Jeffreys B. (BBC Education 2019), Save UK’s dwindling language skills, say MPs and peers https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47421735

Jeffreys B. (BBC Edcation 2019), Language Learning, German and French drop by half in UK schools https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47334374

OECD. (2018).Trends shaping education 2018 spotlight. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/Spotlight-15-A-Brave-New-World-Technology-and-Education.pdf

Paniagua, A. and D. Istance (2018), Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments: The Importance of Innovative Pedagogies, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085374-en.

Robinson, V., Hohepa, M. & Lloyd, C. (2009). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (Executive Summary.) Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/60182/Chapter-1-Executive-Summary-redacted-2015.pdf

Week 28 Reflection: Discuss how issues of ethics, society, culture and professional environments (including law, regulations and policy) are being addressed while you are taking action

 

When looking at the ethics of technology in the classroom, there is a need for whakawhanaungatanga; if I have a positive relationship with the students, they will in turn be respectful when using technology. However for this reflection I will consider the ethical issue of bias when collecting data.

 

• What: One way I have decided to collect qualitative data is through focus groups. How can I avoid unintentional bias?

 

• So what: & 3) Now what: using Ehrich’s model for Ethical dilemmas (2011)

 

 

1.       The critical incident, which triggered the ethical dilemma	I need to collect useful qualitative data for my inquiry using a student focus group, which raises the issue of unintentional bias.
2.       Various sometimes competing forces, each of which impacts on decision-making from its own particular bias	Selection of students to be part of the group (social) – I need to get a fair representation of the class, not just the “good” students, otherwise data may be skewed.   Timing of focus group (organisational culture) – if I take up too much “free” time, data may be skewed due to resentment.   The leadership of the group (professional) -if I run the focus group, data may be skewed as students may say what they think I want to hear. If someone else leads the group, data may be skewed as there is no prior relationship and students may be less forthcoming.
3.       The individual’s values, beliefs, and ethical orientations in relation to the dilemma	I cannot force anyone to take part in the focus group so there must be free choice. This does mean that there is a chance that there may be more students who are already more engaged in learning a language. I believe I have a good relationship with the class and therefore will get fairer representation.   I cannot take students out of other classes and I cannot run the focus group during class, so timing is restricted to lunchbreak. This may impact those willing to take part, but I cannot avoid this.   I believe that if I have a good relationship with these students then they will answer honestly. If I carefully explain why I am carrying out the focus group, they will know that all opinions are valuable. It is therefore better for me to run the groups.
4.       The choice, which could be no action or the action taken formally or informally, internally or externally	The choice is to consider whether the data will be valid. Are there too many external factors impacting on the focus group? As I will collect data from a range of sources it can be triangulated with quantitative data, I can therefore justify the validity of the information.
5.       The action (or non-action) can create particular types of implications for the individual, organisation and the community, and from which new incidents or dilemmas can arise	After considering all the potential issues arising from the focus group I decided that there is clear merit for running the groups.   Our code and standards talk about the role of a learning focused culture and of design for learning. Through talking to the class about the focus groups and its objectives and by running the focus group, I am promoting a learning focussed culture where my students do have a voice that is heard.   I will consider the qualitative data that I collect as data that students were prepared to give me at the time.

 

Six students took part representing a quarter of the class. There was a wide representation of the class, which I do put down to the relationships that I have built. Two highly engaged, motivated and high achieving students, two weaker but motivated and engaged students and two students who are not that interested in French and who are less engaged. They all spoke honestly and openly. The two groups took place over two different lunchtimes. Some other students were not able to take part because of other activities.

 

References:

Barden, O (2015) Research Ethics; Liverpool Hope University, retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pCfq5QH_v4
Ehrich, L. C. , Kimber M., Millwater, J. & Cranston, N. (2011). Ethical dilemmas: a model to understand teacher practice, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 17:2, 173-185, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2011.539794

Education Council. (2017a). Our Code Our Standards.Retrieved from: https://educationcouncil.org.nz/sites/default/files/Our%20Code%20Our%20Standards%20web%20booklet%20FINAL.pdf

Week 27 Reflection: Examine how indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness are informing the way you are taking action

As a languages teacher the topic of cultural responsiveness is close to the heart. Our subject area is all about embracing different cultures and values and teaching others to be open towards new ideas and ways of thinking. Much importance is placed on intercultural competence, the ability to develop targeted knowledge, skills and attitudes that lead to visible behaviour and communication that are both effective and appropriate in intercultural interactions. (Deardorff, 2006). This is the idea that we must never impose our own cultural values on someone but seek to take steps towards the other culture, to embrace it and to foster a relationship that does not place presupposed values on another. Milne (2017) reflects this when saying that culturally sustaining practice has to take into account how to prepare students to be global citizens. In order to be able to make these steps towards other cultures and values we first must focus on relationships and this is where whakawhanaungatanga has a prominent role.  Effective communication has its foundation in the strength of a relationship.

One of the issues with intercultural competence and the notion of cultural intelligence is that it suggests an endpoint, a stage where competency is achieved. Foronda (2016) discusses the notion of cultural humility, which suggests a lifelong learning process. Cultural humility’s key attributes are openness, self awareness, egoless, supportive interactions and, self-reflection and critique. The proposed models of cultural responsiveness, whilst totally valid, do however seem to propose finite targets or measures. Being culturally humble suggests a never-ending journey.

Using Rolfe’s model I will look at how my inquiry has been informed by indigenous knowledge and culturally responsive pedagogy with regards to human resources. I will use Asil’s Culturally Repsonsive practice for Māori and will focus on whanaungatanga.

 

• What: Human resources, which I would define as my colleagues in the languages department and my students, are at the heart of my inquiry. Whanaungatanga, the fostering of relationships and the way I value student contributions and those of my colleagues is essential. (see Appendix 1)

 

 

• So what: The successful outcome of my inquiry will be to have measured in some way the level of engagement that students have with gamified digital tools. In order to measure this I have to develop a relationship with my students so that they feel that they can speak openly about what we are doing. This is meeting W4 & W5, students need to know that they feel valued and that they have a voice that will be heard. The data that they will be giving me through surveys and focus groups will be used to enhance the collective learning experience. I value the voice of my maori and pasifika students and will actively seek to include this. My relationships with my colleagues are also vital as, if I am going to bring about any change across the department, then I need to ensure that these are both supportive and trusting.

 

• What next: The next step for me will be to look at how I can involve the wider community in my inquiry. I will need to share my findings so that others can understand what it is that I am trying to do and why I am doing it. This will be not only for colleagues but for whānau. This will also tie into one of the focuses of our kahui ako.

Appendix 1: Taken from Asil (2017) – A school based measure of culturally responsive practices)

Whanaungatanga – (Building relationships)
W1	Teachers get to know all students and learn about their family context
W2	Staff successfully build strong relationships with Māori students and their whānau, having implemented ideas from the school’s whānau group
W3	Tuakana/teina relationships are in place throughout the school
W4	Māori students know their teachers care about them and have high expectations for them, and teachers communicate this to them
W5	Staff provide opportunities in class for students to use their prior knowledge and experiences and to share their worldviews and knowledge in ways that enhance learning

 

References:

Asil, M. (2017). A School-Based Measure of Culturally Responsive Practices. Frontiers in Education 2(17), 1-7. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2017.00017

Deardorff, D. K. (2006) , The Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization at Institutions of Higher Education in the United States, Journal of Studies in International Education 10:241-266

Foronda, C., Baptise, D., Reinholdt, M., Ousman, K. (2016),  Cultural Humility: a concept analysis, Journal of Transcultural Nursing 2016, Vol. 27(3) 210–217

Milne, A.(2017), Coloring in the white spaces: reclaiming cultural identity in whitestream schools. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

 

Week 26 Reflection: Apply a reflective model to discuss something that has happened during your Inquiry so far and how it impacts on taking action

 

In this post I will be using Rolfe’s Model of Reflection (Otago University, n.d.) which is a three step process for analysing one’s practice. I will break up the post into the three sections. What, So what and Now what.

What: Describe something that is significant and has happened during your Inquiry so far:

It is the end of week 2 of my action plan. I am still on track. I have sent out a reminder email to my students from last year. It is pleasing to note that I have had a good number of responses. They are all giving useful information too, perhaps this is because a lot are no longer involved in the subject and feel they can speak honestly. I have also spent time in classes getting students signed up to Google Classroom and Quizlet, and introducing my new look site for French. There are still a few issues with Y9 classes and accessing the wifi but these should be resolved next week. The most significant aspect of the inquiry so far is the building and introduction of the new website and it is on this that I will focus my reflection this week.

So what: Evaluate the most interesting/important/useful aspects of this event:

I wrote last week about the reaction of my colleagues when I presented my new site at a department meeting and spoke about servant leadership or empowering others and about the five dimensions that impact on student performance (Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd 2009) and that greatest impact on performance is promoting and participating in teacher learning and development. My presentation has clearly had a powerful impact, as two of my colleagues have started working on developing their own sites for German and Spanish. This not only means that we will have similar sites across the European languages, but that my own inquiry and action is already having an impact on students, with whom I am not directly involved. This can only be a positive for the language community at my school. It also has meant me giving time to others, which I am more than happy to do. I realise that in the longer term they will develop knowledge about building Google sites. Our collective knowledge will eventually be greater than mine and I will be able to tap into that resource.

The other aspect of the new site to which I had not perhaps given enough consideration, was the reaction of my students. Whilst it has been overwhelmingly positive, they have offered suggestions and ideas to the layout and usability of the site, which I need to take on board. A simple example is the use of buttons, which I have learned are far easier than drop down boxes on a tablet. Here is ako in action. I am not the expert in website design and my students can and need to play an important part in the role, as they will be the eventual users. I can learn and be led by them.

 

Now what: Analyse the implications from this event to the rest of your Inquiry:

How is this event going to impact on the rest of the inquiry? Firstly, the positive response so far from my students makes me think that we are heading in the right direction. The impact of the new site will not necessarily lead to me discovering whether gamification has a positive effect on student engagement. However, as the majority of activities on the new site are gamified activities, this positive response could already show an effect on engagement with the course. It is of course too early to say with any certainty, but it again matches my initial thoughts and hunch. Will the data that I collect over the next few weeks substantiate this hunch? As I stated in my action plan “without evidence to back them up, hunches remain subjective” (Ministry of Education, n.d.)

References:

Ministry of Education.(n.d.). Data analysis. Retrieved from http://elearning.tki.org.nz/Teaching/Teaching-as-inquiry/Data-analysis#js-tabcontainer-1-tab-2

Otago Polytechnic. (n.d.). Reflective Writing. Retrieved from https://www.op.ac.nz/assets/LearningAdvice/Reflective-writing.pdf

Robinson, V., Hohepa, M. & Lloyd, C. (2009). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (Executive Summary.) Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/60182/Chapter-1-Executive-Summary-redacted-2015.pdf

Week 25: Reflection

This week the students returned to school to get their timetables and we had our first day of classes on Friday. My two tasks for this week were:

• Develop Google site for Y9 and Y10 French with embedded links to Quizlet and other gamified language activities.
• Send out survey to students from last year’s Y10 French classes

 

I have continued to work on my new website for French and have managed to set up pages for the first six weeks of our courses at Year 9 and 10. These pages all included embedded gamified activities. (See the image below)

 

I have begun to realise the enormity of this task and it will have to be ongoing throughout the year.

I presented my new look site at our department meeting and was encouraged by my colleagues’ responses. The feedback was so positive that it resulted in me giving a 30 minute session on building a google site at a subsequent department meeting. This is positive as it already shows that my colleagues are keen to follow my lead and are interested in my inquiry. I am trying to use servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) to bring about change within the department. If I can empower my colleagues (McMinn, 2009) then I need to help them develop their skills. However, I have a new position as Year 9 Dean, which also takes up a huge amount of time and trying to juggle all aspects of the job, my own inquiry and classes is a delicate balancing act. Effective use of time will be the key to success of not only my inquiry, but also to bringing about the change that I am looking for in my department. I will continue to focus time on supporting my colleagues, as I see this as a key part servant leadership. This is also evident in the five dimensions on student outcomes that Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009) examine.

Robinson, Hoehepa, Lloyd (2009): Impact of five leadersip dimension on student outcome

The second part of my plan this week was to send out a google survey to my students from last year. Initially, I asked them to indicate whether they were carrying on with French or whether they had dropped the language. Their response leads to other questions. (see below).  I have sent this out via an email and have already had some responses. I will send out a follow up email at the end of week 2. A quick look at some of the responses indicate that gamified activities were popular. This does not surprise me, as I had reflected on my observations from last year in my initial research into gamification. I therefore think it will provide some useful baseline data for my inquiry.

Year 10 Survey Questions:

NO	Yes
Why had they given up the language?	What was you reason to continue learning a language?
What did they enjoy most about learning French?	What do you enjoy most about learning a language?
What did they enjoy least about learning French?	What do you enjoy least about learning a language?
What advice could they give to the language department to encourage students to keep learning a language?	What advice could they give to the language department to encourage students to keep learning a language?

 

References:

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, Paulist Press, New York, NY.

McMinn, T.F. (2001), “The conceptualization and perception of biblical servant leadership in the southern Baptist convention”, Digital Dissertations, 3007038.

Robinson, V., Hohepa, M. & Lloyd, C. (2009). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (Executive Summary.) Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/60182/Chapter-1-Executive-Summary-redacted-2015.pdf

 

Here is my action plan piece.

The impact of gamification using digital tools in foreign language learning (French)

To what extent does gamification using digital tools impact on engagement in French for Year 9 and 10 students at Wellington College?

In order to be able to address my inquiry question in a meaningful and valid way, it is first essential to define the two key terms within it. Gamification is defined as the applied use of game mechanics in a non-game situation (Deterding et al. 2011). There are many definitions of student engagement, but for the purpose of this inquiry it will be defined as “how involved or interested students appear to be in their learning and how connected they are to their classes.” (Axleson and Flick, 2010). I will also use “enjoyment” as a proxy for engagement because I see this as a word to which students easily relate.

 

I will be focussing this inquiry on my students in Years 9 and 10. My department is constantly seeking ways to increase the number of students in our senior classes and a lack of engagement with their language has been identified as a factor in the decline in students taking a foreign language beyond Year 10. Our experience at Wellington College is a reflection of a nationwide trend. (Ashton 2018). It is school policy that all students in Years 9 & 10 take a language, so it is essential that I endeavour to find ways to increase levels of engagement in these critical years to ensure the viability of our senior programme. My research suggests that gamification in languages using digital tools may well have a positive impact on motivation and engagement, it is therefore important to try to measure that impact both qualitatively and quantitatively. I will also survey students who were in my classes last year as Year 10 students, to gain some baseline data on whether an ad-hoc use of gamified tools had any impact on their engagement. Finally, it will be important to share my findings with my colleagues in the languages department so we can make any changes to our programmes based on the evidence that I gather.

 

At this stage I have a hunch that gamification will have an impact on student engagement but as the Ministry of Education (n.d.) states “without evidence to back them up, hunches remain subjective”. If my research is to be viewed as valid within the school context, then I need to be able provide some form of evidence in order to persuade my colleagues that a change towards an increased use of gamified digital tools is going to be of benefit. Given the relatively short time constraints of this inquiry, it is important to have a precise plan of action, which I outline below.

 

Date	Wellington College Week	Action
28 Jan – 1Feb	1	·         Develop Google site for Y9 and Y10 French with embedded links to Quizlet and other gamified language activities. ·         Send out survey to students from last year’s Y10 French classes	Focus question on what students enjoyed most in class
4 – 8 Feb	2	·         Check that all students have a device that they can use in class. Provide school funded laptops for those who do not have a device. ·         Ensure that all new year 9 and 10 classes are able to access new site and have created accounts on Quizlet. ·         Arrange and discuss class observation with a colleague	Analytics from Quizlet may help as evidence
11–15 Feb	3	·         Actively use gamified digital tools in class ·         Discuss purpose of inquiry with students	Regular use of Quizlet (match game, Live) and Learning App activities.
18 – 22 Feb	4	·         Actively use gamified digital tools in class ·         Qualitative observation by colleague – how does “engagement” change when students are using gamified digital tools?	Body language, gestures, collaboration participation levels
25 Feb – 1 Mar	5	·         Student surveys and interviews with Year 9 and 10 students. (What do they like about language classes so far? What motivates them to learn new vocabulary? Specific questions about Quizlet, Learning Apps.)	Explain purpose of interview and survey. Seek consents where applicable
4-8 Mar	6	Analyse and compare data collected
11-15 Mar	7	Write up findings
18-22 Mar	8	Share findings with classes and colleagues

 

 

In my earlier definition of student engagement the three key words were involved, interested and connected. I will also be using “enjoyment” as a proxy for engagement. It is difficult to be able to quantify “involvement” and “enjoyment” making qualitative data relevant in my research. Babione (2015) endorses the benefits of observation by saying that it provides insight into the complexity of human behaviour. Class observation of the ways students react, their body language and gestures will indicate whether gamified activities impact on my definition of student engagement. Student interviews will also provide information in perhaps more detail to explain why they might find gamification engaging or not. Online anonymous surveys will give students the opportunity to have their say in a non-threatening environment. Coding and categorising of responses provide some triangulating quantitative data. Quantitative data through the use of analytics, the number of “hits” on my new website, may also provide useful information. However, this alone this will not necessarily measure engagement as I will be expecting students to use it actively. However, without ‘hitting’ a site, engagement is not possible. One measure, which might indicate engagement, is to look at timestamps to see if students actively use the site outside of class. Once all the information has been collected and analysed, simple triangulation of the data will allow me to create findings with increased validity.

 

When considering my research and data collection I need to take into consideration ethical principles. The New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE) state a number of guiding principles for research with a basic premise of avoiding harm and doing good. It is vital that I ensure that any students whom I interview, do not feel threatened or anxious in any way. Owen Barden from Liverpool Hope University (2015) sums this up succinctly by identifying six ways researchers can cause harm – disturbance, intrusion, secrecy, self-esteem and resentment. Both NZARE and Barden insist upon openness and I will make sure that I fully explain to my students what I am researching and how I value their input into my research. The aim of the research is to listen to their collective voice in order to improve our courses and thus “doing good” (NZARE). This meets the kaupapa maori principles of ako. How and what can I learn from my students? I also need to be aware of privacy issues and by using an anonymous survey students should not feel threatened to answer honestly. Resentment will also be a factor in particular if students feel I am taking up too much of their time, I need to keep interviews clear and to the point, this will also no doubt lead to better data for my analysis. Finally I need to ensure that my students, when interviewed, know that they can give me honest answers and not what they think they should say. Tthis will lead to genuine and clear feedback.

 

I have briefly touched on the kaupapa maori principle of ako, the importance of the teaching and learning relationship. My students need to know that I also learn from them and that āta and whakawhanaungatanga, the development of relationships that are honest and open, will also be of importance in this research. Likewise I will consider kia piki ake i ngā raruraru o te kainga, I must ensure that no student feels disadvantaged in any way. I can do this by making school funded laptops available in the classroom for any student who does not have a device. I will do this discreetly and with sensitivity so as not to cause a loss of mana with any student. Finally kaupapa, the principle of collective philosophy, I must ensure that my research with the community does not impinge in any way on our aspirations and the purpose of our learning – instilling a love of language and an understanding that languages open doors and break down barriers. Additionally, the research must listen to the students and community and act on what they say.

 

If my hunch is correct and that I find that gamification does have an impact on student engagement then this could have a number of outcomes. Firstly and foremost is the benefit on students, increased levels of engagement in language learning will hopefully also lead to a better learning experience. More engaged students could lead to increased numbers of students wanting to continue with their language beyond Year 10. Clearly, whatever the outcome, I need to share my findings with my colleagues in other languages and potentially to look at ways to incorporate gamification using digital tools in their courses. It would also be important to share my findings with the wider languages community and to see in what other ways we could gamify the language learning experience. However, perhaps most importantly, I should consider further inquiry into whether gamification has an impact on student performance.

 

References:

 

Babione, C. (2015). Practitioner teacher inquiry and research. USA: John Wiley & Sons.

 

Barden, O (2015) Research Ethics; Liverpool Hope University, retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pCfq5QH_v4

 

Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L., Dixon, D. (2011) Gamification: Toward a Definition, CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings, Vancouver, BC, Canada

 

Ministry of Education.(n.d.). Data analysis. Retrieved from http://elearning.tki.org.nz/Teaching/Teaching-as-inquiry/Data-analysis#js-tabcontainer-1-tab-2

 

New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE). (2010). NZARE Ethical Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.nzare.org.nz/portals/306/images/Files/NZARE%20EthicalGuidelines2010.pdf

 

Peters, T. and Irish, J. (n.d.). Introduction to Survey Research Methods. Retrieved from http://hms.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/assets/Sites/Academy/files/CTL%20Resource%20Survey%20Research.doc

 

 

Rick D. Axelson & Arend Flick (2010) Defining Student Engagement, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43:1, 38-43, DOI: 10.1080/00091383.2011.533096

 

Te Kete Ipurangi (n.d.). Data Analysis. Retrieved from http://elearning.tki.org.nz/Teaching/Teaching-as-inquiry/Data-analysis

 

 

[Word count: 1627]

 

On further reflection and after doing some reading I have refined my inquiry topic and am going to focus on gamification in languages to increase student engagement.

First draft of research essay for Mindlab

Inquiry Question: To what extent does gamification in a second language classroom increase student engagement?

Wellington College is a large boys secondary school of 1800 students. Currently all students learn a language in Years 9 & 10 and can choose from Te Reo Maori, French, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin) and Japanese. In Year 10, a student can opt to change their language option to German or to take it as a second foreign language. As a teacher of French, German and Spanish, there is a significant drop in numbers choosing to take a European language beyond Year 10. In 2018 from a cohort of 68 students taking French, only 16 will be continuing into Year 11 in 2019. This huge drop in numbers reflects a national trend, which shows an overall decline in foreign language learning in New Zealand and puts language learning in New Zealand in Y11-13 at its lowest level since the 1930’s (Ashton 2018). There are numerous reasons why students choose to drop their language. A survey of my Y10 students in 2018 showed that a limited number of options is a key factor as other ‘more attractive’ subjects are in competition with languages. This factor is beyond our control, but we (the Language Department) need to address issues of boredom, purpose and engagement, which were all cited by students as reasons for not continuing. In recent years, there has been a real emphasis within the school community on BYOD. This has lead to increased frustration with students using devices for gaming in class; to counter this there is clearly a need for more effective use of digital technologies within the classroom.

Gamification is most of defined as the applied use of game mechanics in a non-game application Figueroa (2015), deterding et al. (2011) but Finnish researchers Huatori and Hamari (2012) have a slightly different definition. For them it is “a process of providing affordances for gameful experiences which support the customers’ overall value creation”. In the first definition emphasis is on the system design  and the process whereas the latter focuses more on the usage of the gamified system and its effects on the user. Game based learning, where the game is used both to enhance and to enable learning, and gamification have the potential to improve the use of BYOD and student engagement in language learning. For Huatori and Hamari (2015),it is this engagement with an activity that is at the core of their definition. It would therefore be useful to look into the extent that gamification and game based learning can have on engagement in foreign language learning. It is already widely used in business and marketing and is increasingly being used within the education context. Gamification in education is not something new, Bowman (1982) and Malone (1980) looked into how best to apply aspects of video gaming into a classroom context to increase motivation and engagement. More recently, Dominguez et al. (2013) state that gaming is currently the most powerful entertainment industry in economic terms.  Simple observation of 13-15 year old Wellington College students would show the influence that gaming has on young people. Why not look at ways to harness this in the language .

Numerous researchers have already noted that the main benefit of gamification  is an increase in motivation and engagement with users. Brown (1994) extols the importance of motivation as a necessary factor that learners need in foreign language acquisition. If gamification motivates as Muntean (2011) theorises, then will ‘gamifying’ the learning experience of my students have a significant impact on engagement? Some of the key motivational aspects of gamification, that most researchers agree on, are the importance of immediate feedback, the extrinsic reward system of badges, medals and levels, and healthy competition through leaderboards and scores.  In language learning Ybarra and Green (2003) state that technology plays an integral part in providing learners with a valuable language experience, as well as contributing positively to the development of personality factors like self-esteem, risk-taking and motivation. Figueroa  (2015) sees motivation as the key element in linking gamification of digital technologies and language learning. My own observations of students in my class who use game based tools like Kahoot and Quizlet Live, also suggest this. It is therefore safe to assume that gamification and game based learning using digital tools would have a positive impact on student engagement in language learning. However, it cannot be assumed that increased student engagement and motivation leads to improved learning outcomes. Indeed, some research suggests that there are some potential pitfalls of gamification.

Whilst Muntean (2011) clearly states that gamification is beneficial to education because it makes it fun and engaging, Dominguez et al. (2013) offers a differing view. There is little empirical research into the educational benefits of gamification and whilst motivation and engagement is clearly an advantage, their research shows that there is no evidence of any improved cognitive impact. In their study comparing a gamified experience with more traditional exercises, there was no difference in levels of performance. The research also showed that the gamified experience also had a negative impact on some students in terms of motivation, as some did not enjoy seeing performance comparisons through leaderboards. It is also suggested that the work by teachers needed to create and provide a meaningful and effective gamified experience for learners is significant, in order for it to be motivating. It is clear therefore that a balance is needed and it is important to remember that education is not a “one size fits all” system. Furthermore Dominguez et al’s. (2013) research was with a group of university students working on ICT as a topic. The educational impact on a group of 13-15 year old secondary students learning languages might be very different. I am of the opinion that the use of gamified tools like Quizlet for the mundane task of learning key vocabulary in languages does have an impact. However for my inquiry, I will continue to focus on student engagement, but a study on the cognitive impact of gamification on secondary students in language learning should also be undertaken in the future.

There are many language learning tools available online today and perhaps the biggest is Duolingo. This gamified learning experience allows you to learn a wide array of different languages. It offers personalised profiles, immediate feedback, leaderboards and rewards through medals and badges. Users can compete against other users and can challenge their friends. Users collect daily points and are notified if they have not completed their daily points challenge. Pilar Munday (2016) undertook research into the case for using Duolingo as part of the classroom experience. Notwithstanding the methodology debate in language learning, the research aims to look at the impact that Duolingo has on college students; Duolingo follows very much the grammar-translation method which is seen as old-fashioned and is in sharp contrast to the communicative approach currently in favour in NZ secondary schools. Munday’s research proved once again that students found the app easy to use,  engaging and preferred to use it for homework to more traditional book based exercises. It also showed that Duolingo was more effective and appealing for A1 (beginner) students than B2 (advanced) students. There were also disadvantages, some questioned the accuracy of some of the translations, others the meaningfulness – this reflects my own experience when learning Spanish using this game. When am I likely to say “my cat speaks good English”?

Munday concludes by saying that students enjoyed the gamification aspects of Duolingo and that the algorithms behind the tool, which provide the learner with constant repetition and practice make it very effective. Munday however is also keen to point out that as a language learning tool, it only really supplements what is happening in the classroom, it does not replace it. This viewpoint is echoed by Golonka, Bowles, Frank, Richardson and Freynik (2014) who insist that technology cannot be a replacement for good teaching and that the use of technology is a learning enhancement, but pedagogical goals must always come first. Figueroa  (2015) writing on using gamification to enhance second language learning concludes by stating “by combining Gamification along with some of the new technology trends and second language approaches and strategies, the second language learner becoming motivated is a strong possibility.”

From my research, there is a clear case for gamification and game based learning using digital tools as a means to increase student motivation and engagement in foreign language classes. This clearly meets the needs of the language learning community at Wellington College, who cite a lack of motivation and engagement as a reason for giving up a language. Completing further inquiry into the extent which gamification in language learning has on student engagement will allow our department to reflect on our current practice and to make appropriate changes to our courses. Whilst there may not be any particular impact on performance, improved engagement may lead to a ‘perceived improvement’ and this will only add benefit in a subject that is seen by many as difficult. For the purpose of this inquiry I will focus on the use of existing gamified experiences such as Quizlet our online course Active Learn and also on my own digital activities / games created using Learning Apps and H5P which replace more traditional book exercises. The longer term objective of this inquiry will be to see whether an increase in student engagement in our Year 9 and 10 classes through a more gamified experience will lead to an increase in students taking languages in senior classes. As the 8^th curriculum area, it is important that we, language teachers, do all that we can to break this downward trend in language learning in New Zealand.

 

References:

Ashton K., (January 2018). Exploring teacher views of multi-level language classes in New Zealand secondary schools: Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 69.

Bowman, R. F. (1982). A Pac-Man theory of motivation. Tactical implications for classroom instruction. Educational Technology, 22(9), 14–17.

Domínguez A., Saenz-de-Navarrete J, de-Marcos L., Fernández-Sanz L., Pagés C., Martínez-Herráiz J.J. (2013) i Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes, Computers & Education Volume 63, Pages 380-392

Figueroa, J. (2015). Using Gamification to Enhance Second Language Learning In: Digital Education Review, 21, 32-54. [Accessed: 14/12/2018] http://greav.ub.edu/der

Ewa M. Golonka , Anita R. Bowles , Victor M. Frank , Dorna L. Richardson & Suzanne Freynik (2014) Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and their effectiveness, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27:1, 70-105, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2012.700315

Huotari, K. and Hamari, J. (2012) ‘Defining gamification’, Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference on – MindTrek ’12, p. 17. doi: 10.1145/2393132.239313

Malone,T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? Heuristics for designing instructional computer games. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSMALL symposium and the first SIGPC symposium on Small systems – SIGSMALL ’80 (pp. 162–169). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.

Munday, P. (2016). The case for using DUOLINGO as part of the language classroom experience. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 19 (1), 83-101. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ried.19.1.14581

Muntean C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification Proc. 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL.

Ybarra, R., & Green T. (2003). Using technology to help ESL/EFL students develop language skills.   The Internet TESL Journal, 9 (3). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Ybarra-Technology  Exploring teacher views of multi-level language classes in New Zealand