E-Learning Individual Work - Queenie Low

Two theories or paradigms of learning are enacted in the lesson plan, namely Constructivism and Cognitivism.

Constructivism

According to Piaget, constructivism sees learning as an active, constructive process of knowledge. Each person has a different interpretation and construction, whereby learners continuously construct them through social negotiation.

In the post-activity, students work in pairs to listen to three audio recordings of reading aloud passages, after which they discuss and give an overall grade to each recording. They then post their grade of each reading and give a reason for justification of the grade they have given using the criteria on the checklist. By doing so, students are interpreting and justifying reading skills, building knowledge with each other through cooperative learning.

Cognitivism

Based on Chomsky, cognitivism sees people as rational beings that require active participation in order to learn, and whose actions are a consequence of thinking. Cognitivism uses the metaphor of the mind as computer: information comes in, is being processed, and leads to certain outcomes.

In the main activity 1, teacher explicitly teaches reading features (information comes in). Then, students work in pairs to listen and provide feedback to their peer’s reading aloud through a checklist (information processed). Next, in main activity 2, teacher picks out 6 students to read lines with different expressions. The rest of the class will then use the IFS gadget to answer questions based on their classmates’ reading aloud (information processed). Following that, teacher gets some students to explain their answers (information processed). Finally, teacher reinforces that the tone of speeches must match the given description of how the speech is meant to be expressed (learning outcomes).

Strengths

Firstly, it is evident that the lesson plan involves language leaning tasks, whereby teachers and learners work together towards the achievement of desirable and measurable outcomes, as opposed to language learning activities, which are individual, quiet work implemented only to keep learners busy (Towndrow, 2007).

In this way, students are given opportunities to make meanings through negotiation, modification and construction. They are actively involved in decision-making and justification processes with their peers, and in the midst of it, provide arguments and reach consensus.

Secondly, in terms of learning support, there is a mix of explicit and less explicit assistance throughout the lesson. With explicit teaching, assistance provided to learners is usually fixed, predetermined and procedural in nature (Towndrow, 2007). In the lesson, teacher provides explicit teaching of reading features, which is beneficial for this target group of students, who are of medium ability and mainly from Mandarin speaking families. They can then use this explicit knowledge as prior knowledge, to further build knowledge about the concepts to be learnt.

Towndrow (2007) also states that in contrast, less explicit assistance is more flexible and could be provided when teachers are monitoring students’ work or responding to it on an individual basis. In the lesson, teacher uses eliciting and guiding strategies. For instance, in the pre-activity, after watching the video, teacher asks questions to elicit responses from students about the lesson objectives, as well as their prior knowledge and experiences with reading. The whole-class activity which uses the IFS also allows teacher to elicit explanations from students to justify their answers.

Thirdly, the lesson is value added by a great deal of ICT, such as videos, IFS board, e-portal recording system, as well as e-portal forum. According to Towndrow (2007), media and tool use helps to add variety, interaction, flexibility and individuality to students’ learning.

For instance, the tuning-in video is an effective tool in capturing students’ interest in the lesson, as it is entertaining and serves as a platform to get students talking about the lesson to be learnt. Using the IFS board also provides teacher with real-time feedback, and gives students opportunities for interaction in the classroom.

The e-portal recording system enables students to be actively involved, as they are required to accomplish a hands-on activity of recording their own voices. Based on Towndrow (2007), allowing students to work independently with technology exercises their creativity for the benefit of a potentially wide audience. This individual work is thus a meaningful formative assessment as students use their learnt knowledge and experiences to grade and evaluate their own reading. After the deadline, teacher also accesses students’ recordings on the e-portal and gives specific and individualised feedback, which serves as an evaluation of learning outcomes.

As for the e-portal forum, it allows teacher and students to view the forum in real time on-the-spot during the lesson. This serves to add an element of interaction among teachers and student. Posting on the forum, instead of writing on paper, also means digitization, which provides a more ecological way of storing, compiling, editing and distributing documents for learning and communicative purposes (Towndrow, 2007).

Lastly, it is clear that the lesson is student-centred. It emphasises the active role of students in learning and attempts to give them control over what and how they learn (Towndrow, 2007). Towndrow (2007) also states four dimensions of student-centred instruction – climate, content, process and outcome, of which three are evident in the lesson.

There is a positive and harmonious environment for learning in the classroom, where peers evaluate each other’s work and teacher asks relevant questions to motivate and spur thinking. In the process of learning, students collaborate with each other to make meanings, thus leading to an outcome whereby students become more independent and work autonomously in their own learning, as seen in the independent formative assessment.

Weaknesses

As mentioned in the above strengths, one of the dimensions of student-centred instruction, content, is not present. In the lesson, students do not have the autonomy to choose their own resources to work with. Audio recordings and reading passages are provided solely by teacher. This might diminish students’ interest in the lesson and affect the quality of their evaluation and postings on the e-forum.

Finally, Chapelle & Jamieson (2008) states that one of the tips for CALL is to select appropriate texts as models. However, in the lesson, teacher could have possibly used an inappropriate resource in the main activity 1, which is the recorded audio script of a couple’s arguing relationship. Students might not be able to relate to the content of the recorded conversation, and thus lose interest, or are unable to read using similar expressions. To add on, this listening activity might also be redundant, as it pre-empts students on how to read the script.