Piloting coding & gaming in the classroom...

To program or not to program? That's the question!

It is crucial to enhance students with one of the key skills of the XXI century: programming. Just like we teach reading or writing, programming should be included in every teacher’s agenda. 

As Mark Zuckerberg has already stated "In 15 years we'll be teaching programming just like reading and writing...and wondering why we didn't do it sooner." It is fundamental to incorporate principles of coding in our lessons as another skill to be developed. By starting from a young age, students will have developed the necessary strategies to succeed in the XXI century. 

Every student should have the opportunity to learn computer science since it helps foster problem-solving skills, logic and creativity. Steve Jobs claimed that “Everybody in the country should learn how to program a computer... because it teaches you how to think”. There is no need to be an expert or to start big in order to program, the only need is to be willing to accept challenges! 

  

Evidence of Reflection Class III

Finally, I delivered a second class to put all the concepts in bilingual education together, my reflections....

It has been an effective lesson as I could notice students’ active involvement and desire to speak. Most of them raised their hands and asked their own questions as the video we watched offered ideas and inquiries as well as fun. During the lesson there was a slight change in the sequence of plan. The language focus was carried out before expected as a couple of students noticed that the sentences they were given to read had “two verbs, one in the present and the other like in the past” (student’ sic). The previous day we worked on the changes a fictional city suffered and students described the way it looked in the past and the way it is nowadays. So, when the lesson began I reminded students of the two cities and asked them the following question: “In your opinion, what has happened? (making reference to a space left between the two pictures). Later, every time a student shared a “human action” I asked him/her if it was performed in the past and if we stopped doing it or if we continued doing it. Finally, I elicited from students the fact that there are actions that we did in the past but still have an effect in the present. Students participated actively because they felt they discovered how to use and frame this new item of language.

As far as formative assessment to monitor learners’ progress is concerned, several aspects were considered so as to engage students in an active participation and productive language skills. Each student was given the time to read the slips of paper, match them and think of the consequences individually. I have two students who feel threatened when they have to speak in front of the class, so they generally write what they are planning to say before exposing themselves and their ideas. Besides, different interaction patterns were used so that students could think on their own but also enrich their beliefs with their partners’ ideas in order to build up the information together. For example, after watching the video, students were given some minutes to think of some questions individually. After that, they discussed their thoughts in small groups and finally they shared their ideas as a whole class. They thought individually, they discussed in small groups and finally they shared to the classroom. In the end, traffic lights were used so that students evaluated their own understanding of the topic. Through this self-evaluation technique I could gather information regarding the student’s feelings in relation to the language item. Most of them agreed that the content was not difficult but that they needed more time and activities to process it since they felt like “yellow”. Only two students demanded a new explanation because they couldn’t grasp the idea of the lesson and other seven students gave “green light” to the lesson because they felt confident enough to use present perfect to talk about human impact on the environment.

Having participated in this course offered me a range of new possibilities to explore in the bilingual classroom. Even though I have been teaching for 10 years I always find I have got new things to learn. I have been using learning targets and success criteria for a few years and this course has strengthened the idea that they are crucial for students’ betterment since they clearly show them what they are expected to do, say and how to reach the desire outcome. This year I have also started working with the four C’s and they provide my lessons with a variety of tasks and skills which make them more meaningful. I have slightly developed my understanding of the triptych, I found the use of it interesting and hard at the same time as I had never heard of it before. I generally have a functional language routine at the beginning of the lessons and sometimes it is not related to the tasks of the day or it relates back to the previous day’s activities. Yet, if I think of it as the language for, it might be useful as I give students the chance to use an item of language accurately which is contextualised. I still think I need to continue being trained as there are things I could not grasp in these three months and which are crucial such as language through. As I have not sufficiently developed my ability to implement language through in my lesson plan, I consider I need to investigate more about it. Having read about essential questions and the revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy, I realise I both are useful to plan my lessons so I consider I need to keep them  at hand to make sure I include activities that cater for these cognitive demands.

Evidence of Reflection Class II

When I participated in the course of Teaching Bilingual Education I delivered a lesson taking into consideration the theory analysed in class. Here I share my reflection on that lesson.

I consider that the lesson was effective in terms of students understanding of content. The most significant aspect which helped students understand the information better was the activation of prior knowledge. As Petty (2006) claims, “to make progress in ‘understanding’ means linking to prior knowledge”. Because there were so many instances in which students worked on content, it was easier for them to comprehend how to use it in the main tasks. First of all, the video gave them an idea on the topic and offered them more information about water. Then, the use of pictures and labels triggered students’ knowledge of vocabulary which was known or stored somewhere in their minds. Together, they worked out the lexical items they needed for the lesson. Besides, they had to think of the links of those concepts to the topic in question. After all these interventions, students were ready to tackle the texts without difficulties and to use the data included to understand maps, which also gave them more information to build their own conclusions and hypotheses. I think that the lesson run smoothly because there had been enough activation of prior knowledge and scaffolding so that students could work out the text autonomously. Mehisto, Frigols & Marsh (2008) consider that we need to anchor the information into our prior knowledge in order to move it into our long-term memory so that it can be recalled at a later time.

However, I think that time constrains have been an issue in this first lesson I was observed. I was so concerned about giving students opportunities to access prior knowledge that there were many questions students asked and time was not enough. Then I had to rush through language, so content and language focus had not been properly balanced. This understanding is essential to me as a practitioner because I think that next lesson needs to have fewer activities, but more effective ones so that there is no need to activate knowledge with three different tasks and there is more time to dedicate to the comprehension and production of language. Because I was not yet confident about the lesson format I couldn’t handle timing properly. I will now need to organize the activities coherently, bearing in mind time sequences so that I can work on both content and language simultaneously, since content and language acquisition go “hand in hand”. (Mehisto, Frigols & Marsh). This could be important to students because it could have a better impact on their learning of both content and language progressively and systematically, in a meaningful way.

Another aspect I would like to improve for the next lesson is the kind of questions I ask students during the lesson. I noticed that most of the questions I pose are questions that guide, questions that lead and, in a smaller degree, questions that hook. Yet, I did not include enough essential questions, which are open-ended, thought provoking and intellectually engaging (Mc Tighe & Wiggins). Acquiring this skill is significant for me as a practitioner since essential questions aim at stimulating thought, provoking inquiry, sparking more questions, thus, demanding for higher order thinking skills. Because I am not yet confident about this topic, I will need to plan thoroughly the type of questions that might be asked to trigger students understanding.

Language Competence at my school

Task 2: Language Competence

The acquisition of English as a foreign language at Newlands School starts at the age of three in kindergarten. Students use the functions of the language as a daily, systematic and organized process, establishing their first encounter with English through songs, games and drama; activities which favour the exposure and exploration. Once students start junior school, they keep learning the language through communicative tasks which are based on meaningful content, contextualized in projects. This fosters the development of the linguistic competence which is required to sit for their first international exam in 6^th form: KET, Key English Test – Cambridge ESOL. When they start senior school students deepen their learning of the language through the study of curricular content in subjects such as environmental management, literature, history. The knowledge acquired allow students to sit for PET (Preliminary English Test), FCE (First Certificate in English) and CAE (Certificate in Advanced English) administered by Cambridge ESOL as well as the diplomas of academic achievement: IGCSE (International General Certificate of Secondary Education); ICE (International Certificate of Education) and AICE (Advanced International Certificate of Education) administered by CIE (Cambridge International Exams) 

In the case of primary school, students’ performance is graded in the report card using four levels: outstanding and satisfactory are given to students who successfully achieve the contents; whereas in needs of improvement and below standard are used with learners who cannot reach the expected performance in the different areas of the language. Report cards show students’ level regarding general knowledge, spoken and written performance, thinking, investigation and communicative skills, behavior among other concepts.  Besides, students are evaluated on the effort they make to achieve those goals, which is described in three categories.

Furthermore, daily achievement is graded bearing in mind a learning intention, and a rubric which expresses the success criteria for each task. These learning intentions or objectives are related to the development of communicative functions of the language such as expressing ideas in the past, making predictions/plans about the future, talking about experiences, giving opinions/suggestions/advice among others. Marks are shared with students daily, and, in some cases, they grade themselves according to their own perception of their performance offered in class.

Taking into consideration the global scale of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001), I consider that some of my students possess the strategies described in B1 level even though they sit for KET, which represents A2 level. I notice that they:

Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics, which are familiar, or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.

Yet, I think that it is important to point out that some other students in my group are at a lower level (A2) as they master some of the strategies described in A2 as well as a few of the ones mentioned in B1.

Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.

To conclude, I think my students’ performance varies from basic to an independent user of the language, depending on the aspect in question as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the learner.

Considering my linguistic competence level, I think that that I fall into the category of effective operational proficiency, C1. This category claims that I can understand demanding texts and recognize the implicit meaning, that I can express myself fluently and accurately using a wide range of language for social and academic, and professional purposes, and that I can produce clear, well-structured texts respecting organizational patters, connectors and cohesive devices.  However, I consider I can handle some of the skills describe in the C2 level too. For example I can differentiate finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations

All in all, the CERF is a framework to classify linguistic competence in the foreign language which has proven useful for the design of school programs. As it is claimed, the CERF “[…] was designed to provide a transparent, coherent and comprehensive basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses and curriculum guidelines, the design of teaching and learning materials, and the assessment of foreign language proficiency.” Nonetheless, it should not be taken as fixed description of our students’ level or our yearly plan since variations may occur and competences may be mixed resulting in a new category. As it is mentioned in CERF, it  […] does not offer ready-made solutions but must always be adapted to the requirements of particular contexts.

References:

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp. Retrieved April 19^th 2014.

Task 1: Interview & CLIL

I am participating in a course for bilingual teachers and I would like to share some reflections.

Task 1: Inteview & CLIL

Transforming practice after theory

Four students in my educational context were interviewed with the purpose of analysing the challenges they face by learning content through an additional language and the elements/instances they would pick out as supporting their learning. The students interviewed belong to a bilingual school located in the southern area of Buenos Aires. Two of them are in 5^th form primary school; and the other two are in 3^rd year, secondary school. The four students have attended the same bilingual school since kindergarten and they have a standard level of English, both spoken and written.

To begin with, students were asked about the topics learnt the previous year in order to see whether they gave more importance to content or language, or both. Primary school students mentioned mainly grammatical items of the language. However, secondary school students remembered topics dealt with in different subjects such as literature, environmental management and history. This might give evidence on the fact that the main focus of the lessons in primary school last year was grammar. Therefore, they were asked whether they studied any particular content which might be related to Spanish in order to trigger their memory and they mentioned the knights, Manuel Belgrano and May Revolution.

In relation to the difficulties they find when they have to study content in the foreign language, the four students coincided in that using the correct words is hard and expressing the ideas in English takes them longer than in their Spanish lessons. This might be because the language demanded by the content may not properly highlighted in the lessons, as it is suggested by Coyle (2010). Students stated that when they have to study content it is easier if they work with a partner preparing posters, filling in a shared document, using books or the computers. Finally, they claimed that when there is something that they can’t understand they use the material available to work out meaning, they ask their partners or, as a last resource, they ask the teacher.

Having read The CLIL Tool Kit: Transforming theory into practice, and analysed the answers obtained in the in the interview I realise that it is important to consider the four components of CLIL when planning a project, content, communication, cognition and culture, so as to achieve a successful and meaningful performance. I have significantly improved my understanding of the learning of the different types of language which is demanded by the content (language of, for and through). Additionally, I have learned the theoretical reason behind a task that I have included in my project and which links classrooms throughout the world. As Coyle (2010) puts it “CLIL integrates language learning and content learning at cognitive and cultural levels appropriate to the learning. It is this interaction which results in new learning scenarios which are different from regular language or content lessons”

References

Coyle, D et al. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. UK: CUP.