Rationale
What is a vidcast?
Let’s start with what it’s not. It is not a video podcast which “emphasizes the delivery of information through speech and audio … vidcasts place greater importance on the visual component: powerful images, setting, context, cues, and representation gestures (Green, Inan, & Maushak, 2014, p. 298).”
Below you will find a video titled, “What is a podcast?”. The same idea of personal-on-demand broadcasting applies to a vidcast, only it goes one step further and provides visual representation of the audio to which you are listening.
Let’s start with what it’s not. It is not a video podcast which “emphasizes the delivery of information through speech and audio … vidcasts place greater importance on the visual component: powerful images, setting, context, cues, and representation gestures (Green, Inan, & Maushak, 2014, p. 298).”
Below you will find a video titled, “What is a podcast?”. The same idea of personal-on-demand broadcasting applies to a vidcast, only it goes one step further and provides visual representation of the audio to which you are listening.
Why chose to create vidcasts and incorporate the use of Google Docs and Edmodo?
Canto, Jauregi, and van den Bergh (2013) did a comparative study of the language acquisition of students in a traditional classroom setting to those who participated in synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) through video-web communications. They found that students who participated in SCMC demonstrated greater improvement in their oral proficiency then those in a traditional setting. Students with a lower level of proficiency initially, demonstrated the greatest growth of L2 ability at the end of the study and therefore experienced the greatest gains (p. 114 - 115).
Unfortunately, due to the international context of the project, the time difference will not allow the students the opportunity to participate in synchronous activities, therefore the spontaneity of an authentic conversation will be difficult to achieve. However, the results in favour of networked interactions support the development of this project, and provide hope for struggling students. Student perception and attitude towards the use of CMC play an important role in language acquisition. If they were engaged and participated in authentic dialog, whether it was synchronous or asynchronous, they experienced a growth in L2 (p.113).
In favour of asynchronous platforms, Lee (2009) argued that ACMC (Google Docs and Blogger specifically) provided students with more time to reflect during the writing process and the students enhanced their pronunciation and speaking ability through the creation of podcasts.
One of the benefits of using Google Docs is that students can share a document regardless of their location. Thus opening up the opportunity for students to view, contribute and add feedback to their peers work, whether they share a classroom with them or if they live overseas. There are two types of corrective feedback that the students will be focusing on, grammatical and non-grammatical errors. Grammatical errors look at sentence level accuracy (Goldstein, 2004, p. 65) but should not include spelling (Truscot, 2007, p. 258). Goldstein and Truscott would agree that non- grammatical errors look at content, clarity, rhetoric, purpose, audience, organization and development.
In Sotillo (2009) research study, they demonstrated that a focus on form (grammatical errors) allows the instructor to assess and give negative feedback (p. 88). Language-related episodes (LREs) happen when the learners’ focus shifts from content or a meaning-focused tasks (non-grammatical errors) to the negotiation of a linguistic form (grammatical error). This develops the cognitive process of noticing, a key element of L2 acquisition (p. 89). LREs consist of three steps, the trigger (self-correction or indicator of non-understanding), negative feedback, and learner response (uptake/no uptake) (p. 95). Explicit negative feedback is “error correction, metalinguistic explanations, and explanations of form” (p. 91, 95). The evidence demonstrated that written communication led to greater opportunity for learners to focus on form (p. 100) and providing immediate feedback has the potential to prevent fossilized errors (p. 102). Successful learner uptake of negative feedback represented 75% of all uptake found in text-based chats in contrast to only 45% in voice chats (p. 103). The use of scaffolding made it possible for the language learner to build on prior knowledge and could eventually allow learners to internalize new information (p. 104). Learners in computer-mediated communication environments had the time to notice linguistic forms, self-correct, and ask for feedback in order to correct mistakes in L2 (p. 105).
Sun (2012) evaluated the perceived effect of extensive speaking practice via voice blogs (asynchronous computer-mediated communication – ACMC) and the improvement of learners’ speaking performance. (p. 496). Just as Kim (2014) observed, when authentic language transpires, accuracy and form take a backseat to meaning and fluency (p. 500 - 501). However, with clear expectations of learner objectives, students will be conscious of the need to maintain a focus on form while at the same time participating in authentic L2 conversations.
The layout of this project is heavily based on the research of Green, Inan and Maushak (2014) and their study of the use of vidcasts in an English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom. Green et al. promoted the use of Web 2.0 tools as transformative for students’ learning. It allowed the student to create a tangible authentic product that represented their ideas and abilities, and could be instantaneously shared with an authentic audience anywhere around the world. Students could utilize “blogs, avatars, social bookmarking, animations, videos, and photographic series (p. 298)” in various combinations as an expression of creative freedom in order to showcase their learning.
Leadership roles and group configuration
Green et al. first question focused on the process, “How does the process of constructing a group vidcast influence student use of academic language and content? (p. 301)”, and they came up with three emergent themes, “a) working together, b) perception of ability, and c) language planning (p. 309)”.
Group configuration is extremely important and thus it is wise to consider Green et al. recommendation for a rotation of assigned roles and responsibilities (p. 317). The teacher could create groups with equally distribute skills sets, and through cooperation and discussion the students could allocate a group leader that would support the smooth rotation of roles and responsibilities. However, as personal experience has demonstrated, not all groups will be able to self-regulate and there may be times when the teacher will need to step in and allocate roles and responsibilities.
Green et al. found that student perceptions of their own abilities and those of their classmates played a role in the formation of group dynamics (p. 311). Furthermore, because of the use of Web 2.0 technology, students with behaviour issues had the opportunity to redefine their social status when they were able to identify an authentic reason to be involved, such as the presence of an external audience, L2 language proficiency or their own skill and ability with technology (p. 311 - 312, 318). From the evidence present under the Findings section, children with behaviour issues still required teacher support with social skills, such as communication and interpersonal skills when working in a group (p. 304 – 317).
Canto et al. (2013) also discovered that not only is there an increase in language proficiency of students using computer-mediated communication verses those who do not, amongst those students who do, it was the struggling students with a low level of proficiency in L2 who experienced the greatest gains (p. 114 - 115). This is extremely encouraging when taking into consideration the diverse needs of our students. The research shows that students who require external support to help them self-regulate are enticed by Web 2.0 technology because of the full scope of the authenticity of the process, product and audience (Green et al. 2013).
Another important point to consider is the child who choses not to speak out of fear of criticism and negative interaction with other group members (p. 306). Green et al. did not offer any suggestions, but based on personal experience, this will be an issue at some point and a method to deal with it will need to be explored. Perhaps the teacher could step in and attempt to influence the student’s perception of their abilities and those of their peers. In fact, Green et al. noted that student confidence and motivation increased due to three contributing factor. Increase in perceived linguistic ability, realization of misperceptions of other students’ abilities, and the struggle during the writing and production process to work harder (p. 310 – 311).
Like many second language teachers, we could not be happier to step back, watch and listen to our students using L2 as the mode of communication for planning and project development. However, as explained by one of student participants, due to time constrains and the lack of proficiency in L2, it was more efficient to plan and discuss in L1 (p. 312). However, this is not to be confused with the production of scripts and storyboards, as those were written in L2 in order to facilitate the production of vidcasts in L2 (p. 315). This will be discussed further in the section that follows.
How an authentic audience and revision play into L2 acquisition
Green et al. second question focused on the product, “In what ways does the production of student generated vidcasts demonstrate student growth and understanding of academic language and content?” and two themes emerged, “language of production and products of student thinking” (p. 313).
As discussed above, the language of planning was not the same as the language of production. The students chose to use their L1 in order to plan, but soon realized that in order to facilitate efficiency they needed to produce storyboards and scripts in L2 (p. 315). In the Canadian classroom the majority of the students speak English as their first language and it is the chosen mode of communication for planning. However, as suggested by Green et al., there must be clear communication from the teacher about the required language of production (p. 313).
If students are going to choose to use L2 and feel comfortable doing so, they need to be able to revise and edit their work. Vidcasts allow students to visually see and hear their mistakes, “mispronounced words, lengthy pauses, and jumbled sentences (p. 313)”. Due to the reality of an authentic audience, students do not want to produce a product of language that shows them as incompetent. Therefore revision is key to the buy-in process of using L2 (p. 313). Lee (2009) also argued that student motivation and quality of work increased when they were aware that they were publishing for an audience.
The cultural component
According to Kim (2015), topics and issues with cultural connections need to be incorporated in order to develop a students’ level of implicit and explicit knowledge. Topics that create debate and intrigue will push the students beyond the simple exchange of information and ideas to more complex opinion based dialogs. The evidence shows that in order to build explicit knowledge, utterances of incorrect sentences need to occur so that formative assessment and peer feedback will make clear the specific grammar rules that need to be made explicit (p. 343 – 345).
Culture is a big component of this project as it incorporates students from two countries on different sides of the world. The Canadian students need to increase their level of explicit knowledge of Spanish and they will be able to do this by comparing and speaking about culture with their Catalan counterparts. The children on both sides of the water will learn about culture through review of student writing, discussions and vidcasts about social justice issues.
Canto, Jauregi, and van den Bergh (2013) did a comparative study of the language acquisition of students in a traditional classroom setting to those who participated in synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) through video-web communications. They found that students who participated in SCMC demonstrated greater improvement in their oral proficiency then those in a traditional setting. Students with a lower level of proficiency initially, demonstrated the greatest growth of L2 ability at the end of the study and therefore experienced the greatest gains (p. 114 - 115).
Unfortunately, due to the international context of the project, the time difference will not allow the students the opportunity to participate in synchronous activities, therefore the spontaneity of an authentic conversation will be difficult to achieve. However, the results in favour of networked interactions support the development of this project, and provide hope for struggling students. Student perception and attitude towards the use of CMC play an important role in language acquisition. If they were engaged and participated in authentic dialog, whether it was synchronous or asynchronous, they experienced a growth in L2 (p.113).
In favour of asynchronous platforms, Lee (2009) argued that ACMC (Google Docs and Blogger specifically) provided students with more time to reflect during the writing process and the students enhanced their pronunciation and speaking ability through the creation of podcasts.
One of the benefits of using Google Docs is that students can share a document regardless of their location. Thus opening up the opportunity for students to view, contribute and add feedback to their peers work, whether they share a classroom with them or if they live overseas. There are two types of corrective feedback that the students will be focusing on, grammatical and non-grammatical errors. Grammatical errors look at sentence level accuracy (Goldstein, 2004, p. 65) but should not include spelling (Truscot, 2007, p. 258). Goldstein and Truscott would agree that non- grammatical errors look at content, clarity, rhetoric, purpose, audience, organization and development.
In Sotillo (2009) research study, they demonstrated that a focus on form (grammatical errors) allows the instructor to assess and give negative feedback (p. 88). Language-related episodes (LREs) happen when the learners’ focus shifts from content or a meaning-focused tasks (non-grammatical errors) to the negotiation of a linguistic form (grammatical error). This develops the cognitive process of noticing, a key element of L2 acquisition (p. 89). LREs consist of three steps, the trigger (self-correction or indicator of non-understanding), negative feedback, and learner response (uptake/no uptake) (p. 95). Explicit negative feedback is “error correction, metalinguistic explanations, and explanations of form” (p. 91, 95). The evidence demonstrated that written communication led to greater opportunity for learners to focus on form (p. 100) and providing immediate feedback has the potential to prevent fossilized errors (p. 102). Successful learner uptake of negative feedback represented 75% of all uptake found in text-based chats in contrast to only 45% in voice chats (p. 103). The use of scaffolding made it possible for the language learner to build on prior knowledge and could eventually allow learners to internalize new information (p. 104). Learners in computer-mediated communication environments had the time to notice linguistic forms, self-correct, and ask for feedback in order to correct mistakes in L2 (p. 105).
Sun (2012) evaluated the perceived effect of extensive speaking practice via voice blogs (asynchronous computer-mediated communication – ACMC) and the improvement of learners’ speaking performance. (p. 496). Just as Kim (2014) observed, when authentic language transpires, accuracy and form take a backseat to meaning and fluency (p. 500 - 501). However, with clear expectations of learner objectives, students will be conscious of the need to maintain a focus on form while at the same time participating in authentic L2 conversations.
The layout of this project is heavily based on the research of Green, Inan and Maushak (2014) and their study of the use of vidcasts in an English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom. Green et al. promoted the use of Web 2.0 tools as transformative for students’ learning. It allowed the student to create a tangible authentic product that represented their ideas and abilities, and could be instantaneously shared with an authentic audience anywhere around the world. Students could utilize “blogs, avatars, social bookmarking, animations, videos, and photographic series (p. 298)” in various combinations as an expression of creative freedom in order to showcase their learning.
Leadership roles and group configuration
Green et al. first question focused on the process, “How does the process of constructing a group vidcast influence student use of academic language and content? (p. 301)”, and they came up with three emergent themes, “a) working together, b) perception of ability, and c) language planning (p. 309)”.
Group configuration is extremely important and thus it is wise to consider Green et al. recommendation for a rotation of assigned roles and responsibilities (p. 317). The teacher could create groups with equally distribute skills sets, and through cooperation and discussion the students could allocate a group leader that would support the smooth rotation of roles and responsibilities. However, as personal experience has demonstrated, not all groups will be able to self-regulate and there may be times when the teacher will need to step in and allocate roles and responsibilities.
Green et al. found that student perceptions of their own abilities and those of their classmates played a role in the formation of group dynamics (p. 311). Furthermore, because of the use of Web 2.0 technology, students with behaviour issues had the opportunity to redefine their social status when they were able to identify an authentic reason to be involved, such as the presence of an external audience, L2 language proficiency or their own skill and ability with technology (p. 311 - 312, 318). From the evidence present under the Findings section, children with behaviour issues still required teacher support with social skills, such as communication and interpersonal skills when working in a group (p. 304 – 317).
Canto et al. (2013) also discovered that not only is there an increase in language proficiency of students using computer-mediated communication verses those who do not, amongst those students who do, it was the struggling students with a low level of proficiency in L2 who experienced the greatest gains (p. 114 - 115). This is extremely encouraging when taking into consideration the diverse needs of our students. The research shows that students who require external support to help them self-regulate are enticed by Web 2.0 technology because of the full scope of the authenticity of the process, product and audience (Green et al. 2013).
Another important point to consider is the child who choses not to speak out of fear of criticism and negative interaction with other group members (p. 306). Green et al. did not offer any suggestions, but based on personal experience, this will be an issue at some point and a method to deal with it will need to be explored. Perhaps the teacher could step in and attempt to influence the student’s perception of their abilities and those of their peers. In fact, Green et al. noted that student confidence and motivation increased due to three contributing factor. Increase in perceived linguistic ability, realization of misperceptions of other students’ abilities, and the struggle during the writing and production process to work harder (p. 310 – 311).
Like many second language teachers, we could not be happier to step back, watch and listen to our students using L2 as the mode of communication for planning and project development. However, as explained by one of student participants, due to time constrains and the lack of proficiency in L2, it was more efficient to plan and discuss in L1 (p. 312). However, this is not to be confused with the production of scripts and storyboards, as those were written in L2 in order to facilitate the production of vidcasts in L2 (p. 315). This will be discussed further in the section that follows.
How an authentic audience and revision play into L2 acquisition
Green et al. second question focused on the product, “In what ways does the production of student generated vidcasts demonstrate student growth and understanding of academic language and content?” and two themes emerged, “language of production and products of student thinking” (p. 313).
As discussed above, the language of planning was not the same as the language of production. The students chose to use their L1 in order to plan, but soon realized that in order to facilitate efficiency they needed to produce storyboards and scripts in L2 (p. 315). In the Canadian classroom the majority of the students speak English as their first language and it is the chosen mode of communication for planning. However, as suggested by Green et al., there must be clear communication from the teacher about the required language of production (p. 313).
If students are going to choose to use L2 and feel comfortable doing so, they need to be able to revise and edit their work. Vidcasts allow students to visually see and hear their mistakes, “mispronounced words, lengthy pauses, and jumbled sentences (p. 313)”. Due to the reality of an authentic audience, students do not want to produce a product of language that shows them as incompetent. Therefore revision is key to the buy-in process of using L2 (p. 313). Lee (2009) also argued that student motivation and quality of work increased when they were aware that they were publishing for an audience.
The cultural component
According to Kim (2015), topics and issues with cultural connections need to be incorporated in order to develop a students’ level of implicit and explicit knowledge. Topics that create debate and intrigue will push the students beyond the simple exchange of information and ideas to more complex opinion based dialogs. The evidence shows that in order to build explicit knowledge, utterances of incorrect sentences need to occur so that formative assessment and peer feedback will make clear the specific grammar rules that need to be made explicit (p. 343 – 345).
Culture is a big component of this project as it incorporates students from two countries on different sides of the world. The Canadian students need to increase their level of explicit knowledge of Spanish and they will be able to do this by comparing and speaking about culture with their Catalan counterparts. The children on both sides of the water will learn about culture through review of student writing, discussions and vidcasts about social justice issues.