Discovering Life Beyond Powerpoint

Strategies to Enhance Teaching & Learningin Higher Education
Professor Douglas Bellv School of Education and English v
v University of Nottingham Ningbo China v

E-mail: douglas.bell@nottingham.edu.cn

Overview
v Why this topic?
v ‘Traditional’ approaches to teaching in HE
v The MA TESOL at UNNC- a rich experimental groundv My move towards more interactive teachingv Trying out an alternative input session & activity
v Some conclusions

Why this topic?
v strong personal interest in what constitutes effective
pedagogy, especially in university contexts
v a growing dissatisfaction with ‘traditional’
approaches to teaching in HEv a desire to experiment and to try out different things‘Traditional’ approaches to teaching in HEv ‘the traditional conception of ‘the lecture’…adidactic transmission of material that students
passively receive’ (Mann & Robinson, 2009)v a ‘grossly inefficient way of engaging withacademic knowledge’ (Laurillard, 2002)v ‘the traditional notion of teaching being ‘a formal
talk’… is difficult to get away from (Mann & Robinson, 2009)

Approaches to teaching in HE
7 different conceptions of teaching in HE:
•••••
•
•

Imparting information
Transmitting knowledge
Facilitating learning
Changing students conceptions
Supporting student learning
Negotiating meaning
Encouraging knowledge creation

Quantitative in nature: teacher
seen as central to the learning
process. Emphasis oninstruction.
Qualitative in nature: teacher
seen as a facilitator of learning.
Emphasis on construction.

(Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992 & 2001, cited in Carnell, 2007)

Instruction

Information Transfer

Construction

Information Creation

The ‘traditional’ approach to teaching in HE
Teaching as information transfer:• The teacher is pivotal• Learners are passive recipients of knowledge• Teaching emphasizes cognitive learning and logical thinking• The curriculum is fixed• Learners and teachers roles are distinct• Critical thinking is not encouraged(Carnell & Lodge, 2002; Chalmers & Fuller, 1996; Watkins, 2002)

Instruction

Information Transfer

Construction

Information Creation

Teaching as Information Transfer
Death by Powerpoint?
‘boredom, frustration and disengagement’(Ward, 2003)‘Powerpoint frequently fostered a teaching environment in which tutors did
not connect with their students by making eye contact or engaging inexchanges. Instead, they just talked to the screen, read out material on thescreen and often presented far too much material because it was so easy to doso; the presentations became a barrier between the teacher and the student
and resulted in a learning environment that was ‘so routine, so anodyne, sodull’..’‘The most important teaching factor contributing to student boredom is theuse of Powerpoint slides’(Mann & Robinson, 2009)An ‘alternative’ approach to teaching in HE
Teaching as knowledge construction:• Learners are encouraged to become individual sense-makers• Teaching emphasizes activity and collaboration• Learners and teachers roles share responsibility for teaching andlearning• Knowledge is co-constructed(Carnell & Lodge, 2002; Chalmers & Fuller, 1996; Watkins, 2002)

Instruction

Information Transfer

Construction

Information Creation

The MA TESOL at UNNC: a rich experimental ground• A full-time 1 year Masters degree• Comprised of 6 x 20 credit modules (3 core + 3 elective)
and a 60 credit final dissertation• Mix of domestic and international students• Largely taught face-to-face via ‘traditional’ lectures/seminars supported by a VLE (moodle)• Aimed at both experienced and inexperienced teachers• Good-sized cohort (30+ students)

My move towards more interactive teachingSome Key Questions I Pondered:
Could I find a way of teaching my students which would:- Give them a real purpose for doing some backgroundreading? i.e. they would need to immediately and actively use any
knowledge that they had gained- Have them actually engaging with theoretical issues inpractice? i.e. rather than simply passively learning about theory, theywould get to experience it first hand for themselves- Create ample opportunities for interaction and peer
learning? i.e. allow them to learn from one another- Allow for some genuine critical reflection andintrospection? i.e. really get them thinking about how the MA TESOL
content applies to their own contexts

An Alternative Input Session & Activity…
3 hour Input Session:‘Communicative Language Teaching Applied’

7 Specific Stages:
1.

Get the students thinking about the topic in general2.

Give them an early theoretical model for critical evaluation

3.

Give them some exercises to help link theory with practice4.

Give them a more recent theoretical model for critical evaluation

5.

Have them do some critical comparing and contrasting

6. Give them a learning task which is itself highly communicative (loop input)
7.

Have them reflect on the extent to which this task reflects theproposed theoretical models of CLT

STAGE 1:

Get the students thinking about the topic in general

Some introductory questions to get you thinking…
Think about some of the different activities and techniques
used in teaching English. You can consider these either fromyour experience as a language teacher or as a language
learner.

v Are some activities more communicative than others?
Give examples…

v What makes an activity communicative?
v Can you identify any key principles?
Be prepared to share your thoughts with the class as a whole.

STAGE 2:

Give students an early theoretical model for critical evaluation

Early Thoughts on CLT (Harmer, 1982, p166)
The nature of communication

SPEAKER/WRITER

Wants to say/write something
Has communicative purpose
Selects from language store

LISTENER/READER

Wants to listen to/read something
Interested in communicative purposeProcesses an assortment of language

STAGE 2:

Give students an early theoretical model for critical evaluation

Early Thoughts on CLT (Harmer, 1982, p166)‘Whatever the aim of any technique, only an assessment of what students
are asked to do when it is being used can lead us to categorize it in termsof its communicative merits’ (Harmer, 1982, p165)

For an activity to be truly communicative:
v Students must have a desire to communicate
v There must be a purpose for communicationv Attention will be on the content rather than the formv Teacher will not intervenev Materials will not control or restrict the language

STAGE 2:

Give students an early theoretical model for critical evaluation

Early Thoughts on CLT (Harmer, 1982)
Non-CommunicativeActivities

CommunicativeActivities

No communicativepurpose

A communicativepurpose

No desire to communicate

A desire to communicate

Form not content

Content not form

One language item

Variety of language

Teacher intervention

No Teacher intervention

Materials control

No Materials control‘The job of a syllabus or course designer is surely to work out an efficacious
balance between non-communicative and communicative activities, andthe many possibilities between these extremes….’ (Harmer, 1982, p168)

STAGE 3:

Give students some exercises to help them link theory withpractice

Look at the various ELT activities below. Order them on a cline based onwhether or not you feel they are non-communicative or communicative:

Choral Repetition
Role Play

Memorizing lists of vocabulary
Information Gap in Pairs

Listening to a lecture

Writing a letter to a pen friend

Giving instructions on how to dosomethingTranslating sentences from one language to another
Solving A Problem in Groups
Jazz Chants

Reading a magazine

Interviewing someone

Carrying out a survey

Playing a GameSTAGE 4:

Give students a more recent theoretical model for criticalevaluation

The ‘Principled Communicative Approach’:(Arnold, Dörnyei & Pugliese, 2015; Dörnyei, 2009)v The input should be meaning-focused and personally engaging
v The input should contain an early and explicit focus on declarative knowledge
v There should be controlled practice activities to promote automizationv The controlled practice activities should be as motivating and meaningful
as possiblev There should be a balance struck between meaning-based activities andform-focused activities
v The input should include a focus on formulaic sequencesv Learners should receive extensive exposure to L2 input in order tocater to their implicit learning mechanisms. However, this should be
scaffolded with pre-task activities
v Learners should be given lots of opportunity to participate in genuine L2interaction

Stage 5:

Have students do some critical comparing and contrasting

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…?
As Thornbury (2015, p106) has pointed out, the Principled
Communicative Approach aligns itself with ‘a long tradition ofwhat might be called CLT revisionism’.
While the principles themselves may be ‘sound’, from Thornbury’s
perspective, the claim that this approach is new remains‘somewhat exaggerated’.
Do you agree with Thornbury’s viewpoint? What similarities anddifferences in what is being suggested in the principled approach
can you find with ideas in ELT that have gone before?
Discuss with the person(s) sitting next to you.

Stage 6:

Give students a learning task which is itself highly communicative

You are going to take part in a debate:“This house believes that CLT is not suitable foruse in China and should be banned”
Two groups (the As and the Cs) will argue to support this motion; theremaining two groups (the Bs and the Ds) will argue against it i.e. thatthey believe CLT is suitable for application in Chinese contexts.
Relevant background reading and other useful information for eachgroup can be found in folders A, B, C and D on this week’s Moodle
page.
Groups should work together to prepare their arguments and gather
their supporting evidence. They should also decide the order in which
they will speak (all group members must actively contribute to theactivity and say something).

Stage 7:

Invite students to reflect on the extent to which the task was
faithful to the principles of CLT espoused in the different
models

Critically reflect on the debate that you have just taken part in.
Consider the activity from the perspective of it being an example of
CLT in action:
v To what extent did the task conform to Harmer’s core CLT
principles from 1982?
v To what extent did the task conform to Dörnyei et al’s Principled
Approach to CLT from 2015?
v What (if anything) worked well in the task? What were someadvantages?
v What (if anything) didn’t work so well in the task? What were somedisadvantages?
v Could anything be modified or added to make the task work better?
v Can you see yourself using an activity like this in your own classroom?
Why/Why not?

Some Conclusions
Did the alternative input session and activity work?
What were the benefits?
v It forced participants to read for a purpose (the pre-task
articles), actively engage with relevant content and thenapply itv It forced participants to work together
v It generated lots of genuine group discussionv It seemed to create lots of interest; it was highly motivationalv It made the links between theory and practice explicit
v It made the content more memorable; it arguably resulted indeeper learningv It was enjoyable not only for the students, but also for the teacher

Selected Sources
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversationalframework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge Falmer.
Mann, S. and Robinson, A. (2009). Boredom in the lecture theatre: an investigation
into the contributors, moderators and outcomes of boredom amongst university
students. British Educational Research Journal, 35:2, pp 243-258
Samuelowicz, K. and Bain, J.D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs aboutteaching and learning. Higher Education, 41:3, pp299-325.
Stewart, J. and McCormack, C. (1997). Experiencing and Supporting
Change: from lecture to interactive groupwork. Teaching in Higher
Education, 2:2, pp 167-180.
Tormey, R. and Henchy, D. (2008). Re-imaging the traditional lecture: an action
research approach to teaching student teachers to ‘do’ philosophy. Teaching in
Higher Education, 13:3, pp 303-314.

Any.
snoitques
Professor Douglas BellE-mail: douglas.bell@nottingham.edu.cn