Working Papers
in Language Education and Research
http://eliworkingpapers.org/ADVANCED MEDIA ENGLISH: ANINTRODUCTION	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  ISSN 2187-4972	  	  	  Joachim Castellano
Corresponding author:joachim-c@kanda.kuis.ac.jp

To cite this article
Castellano, J. (2013). Advanced Media English: An Introduction.
Working Papers in Language Education and Research, 1 (1), 21-29.

Scroll down for article

Working	  Papers	  in	  Language	  Education	  and	  Research	  Vol.1	  No.1.	  February	  2013,	  21-­‐29	  	  ADVANCED MEDIA ENGLISH: AN INTRODUCTION
Joachim Castellano
Kanda University of International Studies

ABSTRACT
Advanced Media English is an elective course offered to English language
majors at a Japanese university. This project-oriented course combines avariety of technologies including Web 2.0 in order to foster development oflanguage digital literacies. Integrated CALL, PrOCALL and principled task
design informed the creation of the course. This paper provides the theoreticalbackground of the course and outlines the goals of future action-basedresearch.
1. INTRODUCTION

Advanced Media English (AME) is an elective course at Kanda University ofInternational Studies (KUIS) English Language Institute (ELI). Using current events as abasis of exploration, the course aims to develop a variety of literacies beyond paper-based
and other traditional forms. Instead, the course trains students’ reading and production ofdigital texts such as podcasts, videos, and blogs. Moreover the course aims to empower themas informed participants in the new media landscape. The course has been designed andtaught by the author of this paper. Action research has been implemented to monitor course
feedback, especially students’ evaluation of the tasks and perception of their own skill
development. This paper will provide background of the course, outline course basics, anddiscuss the rationale of the action research.	  

21	  Working	  Papers	  in	  Language	  Education	  and	  Research	  Vol.1	  No.1.	  February	  2013,	  21-­‐29	  	  2. BACKGROUND

Prior to teaching at the university in 2009, the author worked as the project lead for
AfterEd.tv, a web-channel funded by the EdLab at Teachers College Columbia University.
The project launched in 2006, just two years after Tim O’Reilly popularized the term Web
2.0 to describe social uses of the Internet often involving media beyond written text (Pegrum,2009). The author, with a staff of video producers, graphic designers, and web developers,
was tasked to report on the future of the education sector by producing web videos. Videos
were published weekly on a custom website.
With the option for ELI teachers to teach elective content-based courses, the authorsought to re-create the atmosphere of a professional newsroom within a classroom. KUIS had
the facilities and technology necessary to support the class and freedom was given to design
an innovative curriculum. It was known from the author’s experience that creating digital
media requires its creators to think creatively and work collaboratively with others. Therefore
this class appeared to offer ample opportunities for students not only to use the target
language, but also to acquire skills relevant to the future economy such as new digital
literacies, creative thinking, and teamwork.

2.1 Literature Review
The potential of multimedia and the Internet has been discussed in the field prior to
the advent of Web 2.0. Warschauer (1996) summarized the history of CALL and theorized
the next phase as Integrative CALL. Within this framework computers, multimedia and theInternet can become tools for meaningful and authentic communication involving all
language skills, often simultaneously, with the goal of becoming more competentcommunicators. Using this approach, AME was designed so that tasks and projects used	  22	  Working	  Papers	  in	  Language	  Education	  and	  Research	  Vol.1	  No.1.	  February	  2013,	  21-­‐29	  	  technology as opportunities for both discussable and productive communication. For example,
in the former case, every week students share links about news, which could be in the form ofvideos, photos, or information graphics (infographics) and talk with each other about them. In
the latter case, students must negotiate with each to accomplish creative group tasks.
While Integrative CALL guided the use of technology and media, Project-oriented
CALL (PrOCALL) informed the choice for a project heavy syllabus. Jeon-Ellis, Debski, &Wigglesworth (2005) defined ProCALL as a “holistic learning approach aimed at employing
modern technology to trigger students' ability to act with words and create social realities inand out of the classroom, and thus to facilitate learning” (p. 121). ProCALL is based on
Vygotskian social constructivist learning principles that Swain (2000) later applied tolanguage learning (ibid). In this context, it was assumed that AME students wereinexperienced with Web 2.0 and media production. Therefore it was thought absolutely
essential to scaffold the development of new skills upon ones they had already known.
Through a ProCALL approach students might learn and acquire skills necessary to complete
projects via “collaborative dialogues” (ibid).
Theoretically, Web 2.0 has been welcomed in the literature as relevant to language
learning. Pegrum (2009) praised the potential for Web 2.0 in this context. He stated that using
these web-based tools not only has the potential to make the classroom even more interactive
and engaging but also might prepare them for the digital skills necessary in today’s
information-based society. “In short: in the Web 2.0 environment, there is a dynamic fusionof media and a rich blend of cultures, languages and, within languages, evolving codes andregisters” (p. 22). Therefore not only does AME offer language learning opportunities, but it
also provides a space for students to acquire digital skills relevant to the students’ future lives
in the 21st century information-based economy.	  

23	  Working	  Papers	  in	  Language	  Education	  and	  Research	  Vol.1	  No.1.	  February	  2013,	  21-­‐29	  	  2.2 Course Description
AME builds on skills students have acquired in the second year Media English course,
required for all KUIS English majors. Typically in Media English classes, current events are
the source of class discussions. Other topics such as newspaper structure, types of articles,and media literacy may have been covered, depending on the previous teachers’ preferences.
Class discussions can take a variety of forms: student-student, teacher-student, debates, small
group discussions. The class projects usually entail student-led presentations, often using
Microsoft PowerPoint.
While continuing to use current events and class discussions, AME adds theexploration and participation in the new media landscape associated with Web 2.0 throughpodcasting, web videos, and blogs. AME focuses on building visual literacies such as how toread photographs and how to communicate visually. Camera-centric skills, such as shotcomposition for still and video, are also covered. Finally students learn computer specificskills such as operating the Mac OS, iMovie, Garageband, Moodle, and using a variety offree web tools such as Google Docs, Visual.ly, Tumblr.
The following are the AME course objectives:•Learn basic journalistic storytelling practices•Learn how to use media production hardware and software to tell a story•

Participate in Web 2.0 communication forums including blogs and social networks•Craft a message according to a specific medium and audience
Students are assessed mainly from coursework both inside and outside of the class.

They are expected to check and complete weekly online homework managed by Moodle. A
significant portion of their grades stem from five intensive media projects: infographics,
photo essay, audio podcast, and two video projects (see Table 1). In the final project, students
select any topic of interest, research it, and publish their reports through a blog or website	  24	  Working	  Papers	  in	  Language	  Education	  and	  Research	  Vol.1	  No.1.	  February	  2013,	  21-­‐29	  	  that integrates all of the previously learned skills from prior projects. All of the projects,
except for the first one, creating a personal infographic, are collaborative.

Table 1.
Outline of Course Projects
ProjectTask

Learning Objective

TypeInfographic

Create an infographic about Visual logic and expression

Individual

yourself
Photo Essay

Tell a visually based story

Sequencing through still images, Groupvisual literacy

Audio

Tell a story from your life

Narrative oral storytelling skills

Pair

PodcastSuperhero

Create an advertisement of a DevelopVideo

new superhero solving a social illustrationissue

8 shot video

movie

skills,skills, Pair
Fosterinternational social awareness

Create a visual story using Familiarization
movingediting

imageswithcinematic Group

without grammar

dialogue
Final Project

Combine on all previously Repeat previously learned skills, Grouplearned skills and report on any develop web production blogging
topic of interest	  websites

25	  Working	  Papers	  in	  Language	  Education	  and	  Research	  Vol.1	  No.1.	  February	  2013,	  21-­‐29	  	  2.3 Task Design
All AME coursework was designed to thoughtfully incorporate technology. Tondrowand Vallance (2004) provided a checklist in which using CALL might enhance language
learning tasks. They suggested that a technologically-based task:•makes possible activities that could not be done as easily, if at all, in the print
based-realm•

allows the integration of (digital) media•

allows students and teachers greater flexibility in terms of when and wherelearning occurs•

allows access to a wide-range of information•

allows for a focus on both the products and processes of learning•

allows didactic material to be stored and recycled•encourages discussion and consultation•

provides a channel for feedback and assessment•

does not involve the unnecessary duplication of previously produced material•saves time, over time (p. 105)

This checklist was helpful in establishing a set pattern within each project unit. First,
as a homework assignment on Moodle, students watch an introduction video of a professional
explaining his or her craft. They comment on the video so that they are primed for a classdiscussion. Next, students listen to a short lecture on the unit’s topic, which is then followed
by student-to-student discussion activities. The lecture features professional examples andkey works, such as iconic photographs, famous videos, etc. Since the author is an American,
works of cultural importance are highlighted.	  

26	  Working	  Papers	  in	  Language	  Education	  and	  Research	  Vol.1	  No.1.	  February	  2013,	  21-­‐29	  	  The next stage of the unit involves project work. Students are introduced to the projectthat they will create next. They are shown student examples from previous classes. Then they
are given a brief tutorial about how to use the technology necessary for accomplishing theproject. After that class time is provided for students to complete the project. Students arefree to discuss and collaborate with group members. Students are also encouraged to ask forhelp when they encounter a problem or have a question. The teacher also critiques drafts ofthe project, so that students refine their work on an ongoing process.
In the last stage of the project unit students share their completed work. They upload
digital versions to Moodle. In class, their work is presented and displayed. For homework
students are required to give feedback to each other’s projects. They receive critical feedback
from the teacher. In the next class, students vote on the best projects and the teacher also
selects his own favorites. The teacher discusses best examples and common problems fromthe project. Finally the teacher uploads the best work to a public blog, so that a worldwide
audience can appreciate their work.

3. DISCUSSION

Because AME is an experimental course, and there are few models of similarlyintegrated courses that weave multiple Web 2.0 tools in the literature, the author thought itvital to undertake an action research project in which student performance and feedback is
constantly monitored and used to improve the course. It is concerned that the course might be
too difficult for students to grasp. Perhaps there is too much time allotted for project work. Or
it is worried that this class does not meet the expectations of students.
Task assessments and surveys are vital to make adjustments. Assessments for bothform and content are conducted after each project. They judge both design and language	  27	  Working	  Papers	  in	  Language	  Education	  and	  Research	  Vol.1	  No.1.	  February	  2013,	  21-­‐29	  	  aspects. From these assessments, it can be determined if a project was too difficult forstudents. A pre and post survey has been created to measure students’ feedback on the course
as well as their perception of skill development. Results of the action research will be sharedin a future publication.

4. CONCLUSION

The primary goal of AME is for students to use the target language to become
digitally literate and capable participants in the new media landscape. Since the adjustments
to the course will be necessary to ensure the realization of course goals, action research has
been chosen as the most appropriate paradigm. Action research was thought to be mostappropriate because changes must be with theoretical consistency and the “circumstances
require flexibility, the involvement of the people in the research, or change must take placequickly or holistically” (O’Brien, 2001). It is also hoped that the course provides ideas andexamples to CALL practitioners interested in creatively combining a variety of technologies
and Web 2.0 tools based on the principles of Integrative CALL and PrOCALL.

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Kanda University of International Studies Research Institute ofLanguage Studies & Language Education for the research through funding and support. I am
particularly thankful for the opportunity to introduce this course at GloCALL 2011 in Manila,
where my parents were also able to learn about this course.	  

28	  Working	  Papers	  in	  Language	  Education	  and	  Research	  Vol.1	  No.1.	  February	  2013,	  21-­‐29	  	  6. REFERENCES

Jeon-Ellis, G., Debski, R., & Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Oral interaction around computers in
the project-oriented classroom. Language, Learning, and Technology, 9(3), 121-145.
O'Brien, R. (2001). Um exame da abordagem metodológica da pesquisa ação [An Overview
of the Methodological Approach of Action Research]. In Roberto Richardson (Ed.),
Teoria e Prática da Pesquisa Ação [Theory and Practice of Action Research]. JoãoPessoa, Brazil: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. (English version) Available:
http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html (Accessed 20/1/2002)
Pegrum, M. (2009). Communicative networking & linguistic mashups on web 2.0. In M.
Thomas (Ed.) Handbook of research on web 2.0 and second language learning (pp.
20 - 41). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Tondrow, P. & Vallance, M. (2004). Using IT in the Language Classroom. Tokyo: Longman.
Warschauer M. (1996) "Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction". In Fotos S.
(ed.). Multimedia language teaching, Tokyo: Logos International: 3-20.	  

29