Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF ARMENIA MINI-STUDY ON TECHNOLOGICAL TOOLS Course: CALL Instructor: Irshat Madyarov Students: Hripsime Shabunts Gayane Shabunts Autumn.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF ARMENIA MINI-STUDY ON TECHNOLOGICAL TOOLS Course: CALL Instructor: Irshat Madyarov Students: Hripsime Shabunts Gayane Shabunts Autumn."— Presentation transcript:

1 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF ARMENIA MINI-STUDY ON TECHNOLOGICAL TOOLS Course: CALL Instructor: Irshat Madyarov Students: Hripsime Shabunts Gayane Shabunts Autumn 2010

2 Technological tools Glogster Voki Zimmer Twins Wallwisher Sketchcast Fotobabble

3 Mini-study questions 1. How user-friendly is each technology for the learners? 2. How effective is each tool for EFL learning and teaching?

4 Methods Participants Name of the participant AgeEL level Computer/ technology literacy Technologies used Time slots Taron Harutyunyan 17 Advanced elementary elementary1.Sketchcast30min Varazdat Avagyan 28 Advanced elementary advanced1.Sketchcast 20min Lilit Harutyunyan 19 Low intermediate elementary 1.VOKI 2.Zimmer twins 3. Wallwisher 1.30h Ani Mirzoyan21Intermediatelow intermediate1.Glogster 2.VOKI 3.Fotobabble 1h

5 Methods Data collection: Observation Semi-structured interview (with recordings) The collected data is qualitative

6 Feedback Feedback of the observers (teachers) The type of feedback depended on the technological tool:  Jing project  Immediate feedback  Consultancy with the teacher-observers

7 Sketchcast Number of participants:2 Taron & Varazdat The problems and difficulties with this technological tool were connected with the simultaneous tasks: speak & draw. The best solution for this problem could be let the students just draw any thing like and express THEIR OWN IDEA about that drawing. (In our case the picture was a specific object, and the student found the information about it, and had to learn it.)

8 Glogster Number of participants:1 Ani The main advantage mentioned by the participant was that she could include both video and audio files in her project. Another good point mentioned by her was that the others (her friends) do not have to create an account to be able to see her Glog. She mentioned that the bad side of this tool is that it is not so much interactive (as compared to Wallwisher, where others could comment, and share ideas). A sample of Wallwisher was introduced to this participants for her to be able to draw comparisons among them.

9 Zimmer Twins Number of participants: 1 Lilit The good side of this tools, as mentioned by the participant was that it develop creativity. However, this creativity should be limited, as the number of actions, settings, sound, etc., are limited. It is also good in sense it allows to write the text as long as she wished. She pointed this, cause she disliked this shortcoming in VOKI (where she had to limit her speech to 90 seconds) The limitation of this tool, as mentioned by the participant is that it does not have sound.

10 Wallwisher Number of participants: 1 Lilit The participant mentioned that this tool was perhaps the best one among the three that she used (Voki, ZimmerTwins, Wallwisher). She could share as much information as she wanted. The only thing that was considereed to be missing was the opportunity to add videos and audios just on her wall, as compared to Glogster. A sample of Glogster was introduced to her to be able to draw parallels between them.

11 Fotobabble Number of participants: 1 Ani – I liked this tool very much. I have always wanted to send photos to my friends abroad, and I had to write the description of the pic, or I just skipped it. So, I think this is the best solution for it. They can hear me and also can see the pic. The bad point of this tool, as noted by the participant, is that only one pic can be illustrated at one time. Voicethread was suggested to her as a better tool, as she wanted to include more photos.

12 Voki Number of participants: 2 Ani & Lilit The participants mentioned that the good thing about this tool was that it allowed to choose a character or to create our own. They could type the text, here the pronunciation, and make improvements on their own pronunciation. The time slot is very short. Problems with technology may sometimes be demotivating.

13 RESULTS The usefulness of the tools from teacher’s perspective TechnologyVokiZ-TwinsF-BabbleS-CastW-WisherGlogster Skills Listening Writing Reading Speaking/ pronunciation Grammar++++++

14 RESULTS The discussion of the mini-study questions: 1. How user-friendly is each technology for the learners? 2. How effective is each tool for EFL learning? The evaluation of each tool is out of 5points. The answers are based on the semi-structured interview with the learners (the average of the answers). TechnologyVokiZ-TwinsF-BabbleS-CastW-WisherGlogster Questions Q Q

15 RESULTS NOTE: All the four students shared with each other the product of the technological tool they used. The overall evaluation of the students(participants) was that Fotobabble is perhaps the best choice from the point of view of both questions. However each of the tools had advantages and limitations. The choice of the tool should be based on the purpose of EFL teaching/learning.

16 LIMITATIONS Time limitation Small number of participants Not detailed and thorough explanation of the preferences for the tools Technological problems Not sufficient level of computer/technology literacy

17 Thank You for Your Attention


Download ppt "AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF ARMENIA MINI-STUDY ON TECHNOLOGICAL TOOLS Course: CALL Instructor: Irshat Madyarov Students: Hripsime Shabunts Gayane Shabunts Autumn."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google