Risks and Benefits of Using Open Technologies for Teaching

#LTTO, Online Instruction, Online Teaching Practices, VLE, VLEs 1comments

Risks and Benefits of Using Open Technologies for Teaching

Potential issues of using open technologies for teaching

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Sunday, July 11, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 185

What are open technologies for teaching? These sort of technologies are “often referred to as Web 2.0 or social media” (University of New South Wales, n.d.). They are of free use, but not necessarily linked to educational processes per se. “Open access technologies are usually designed around specific functions or tasks” (University of New South Wales, n.d.), which are somehow limiting for the users but also limited in what they can produce.

Are open access technologies that bad? Nope! In the absence of institutionally supported technologies, such as an LMS, they are excellent and provide the instructor with some key benefits. If an educator wants to use Web 2.0 tools in a course, it means that students may already be familiarized with it and have never considered their use of learning purposes. These technologies require very little training, and oftentimes tutorials are available to help new users get ready to use them. Additionally, they are free and constantly upgraded, provide collaboration features and some sort of privacy settings (University of New South Wales, n.d.). What any instructor needs is to really know the Web 2.0 tool to provide some sort of technical support to learners since questions may arise.

What are the drawbacks of open educational resources for instruction? No doubt that the very first problem to face is technological issues. “Some students may have trouble using some OERs [Open Educational Resources] if they have a slow or erratic Internet connection. Other OERs may require software that students don’t have and that they may not be able to afford” (University of Maryland University College, 2015). Additionally, when instructors start using Web 2.0 tools, they may find out that these tools are not compatible with or cannot be embedded onto their institution’s LMS; consequently, “no formal record” of grades can be kept, having the teachers to manually include marks on the school’s system (University of New South Wales, n.d.). Some of these open access technologies do not protect students’ privacy, and that can be a headache for both teachers and learners. The UMUC Library points out that intellectually property is another issue to consider when using OERs since “all content put online must be checked to ensure that it doesn’t violate copyright law” (University of Maryland University College, 2015). Having stated this, instructors must be guarding learners so they do not get into plagiarism trouble.

Educators wanting to use open access technologies to speed up pupils’ learning process need to consider both their advantages and disadvantages. In some cases, the fact that they are not compatible or embeddable onto an LMS does not mean they cannot be used, but they will require adjustments to be integrated into their summative assessment. Privacy is an issue, and it must be carefully thought over by teachers. Web 2.0 tools’ privacy settings must be explored plentifully to guarantee that learners will not be exposed to threats coming from other users of the Web, especially if students are underage. OERs are great tools, especially when a learning institution does not have any learning management system (LMS) nor any content management system (CMS); educators just need to be careful and sure of which open access technologies are going to be used, their pros and cons, and the reasons to use them.

University of Maryland University College. (2015, March 15). Open Educational Resources. Retrieved from UMUC Library: http://libguides.umuc.edu/oer

University of New South Wales. (n.d.). Open and Institutionally Supported Technologies. Retrieved from Learning to Teach Online MOOC.: https://d396qusza40orc.cloudfront.net/ltto/pdf/LTTO_M2%
20Open%20or%20LMS.pdf

Risks and Benefits of Using Open Technologies for Teaching by Jonathan Acuña

Sunday, July 12, 2015

What is Digital Literacy?: Its Real Meaning and Implications

#LTTO, Online Instruction, Online Teaching Practices, VLE, VLEs 0 comments

What is Digital Literacy?: Its Real Meaning and Implications

Developing an Effective Online Teaching Strategy

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Saturday, July 10, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 184

What is digital literacy? Unanimously, this kind of literacy is defined as “the ability to use digital technology, communication tools or networks to locate, evaluate, use and create information” (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2008). In the very same line of thought, the University of New South Wales (n.d.) delineates digital literacy as “the technical and critical analysis abilities required to find, evaluate, create and disseminate information using different digital technologies.” And Visser (2012) encircles digital literacy as “the ability to use information and communication technologies to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information, requiring both cognitive and technical skills.” In conclusion, digital literacy, -based on what the experts believe-, implies digital technology, communication tools, the finding, evaluation, creation, usage, and dissemination of information, along with cognitive and technical skills.

At first glance, this looks like a good definition of what digital literacy is, but what about this, “The ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers?” (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2008). Isn’t this a very important angle to consider when talking about digital literacy? And what if we included the individual’s ability to work on a digital environment? Digital literacy also implies “a person’s ability to perform tasks effectively in a digital environment... Literacy includes the ability to read and interpret media, to reproduce data and images through digital manipulation, and to evaluate and apply new knowledge gained from digital environments” (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2008). Now this sound like a more round-up definition for digital literacy that is inclusive of the individual who is ready to learn from digital ambiences.

But what is being lost from perspective in any of the definitions cited above is what all this means for a digitally literate individual. Is this the same for an instructor as well for a learner? Visser (2012) goes beyond this now elaborated definition and outlines what a digitally literate person is by stating that this very individual:

1. Possesses the variety of skills – technical and cognitive – required to find, understand, evaluate, create, and communicate digital information in a wide variety of formats;

2. Is able to use diverse technologies appropriately and effectively to retrieve information, interpret results, and judge the quality of that information;

3. Understands the relationship between technology, life-long learning, personal privacy, and stewardship of information;

4. Uses these skills and the appropriate technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, colleagues, family, and on occasion, the general public; and

5. Uses these skills to actively participate in civic society and contribute to a vibrant, informed, and engaged community.

(Visser, 2012)

How does all this relate to teachers and students as digitally literate individuals? Well, digitally literate instructors and learners need to somehow embody what Visser (2012) states, but how? Here you have my proposal:

The Digitally Literate Instructor & Learner by Jonathan Acuña

To sum up, digital literacy is not just digital technology, communication tools, the finding, evaluation, creation, usage, and dissemination of information, along with cognitive and technical skills. It is much more when learners and instructors are involved. Each of one of them has very specific roles and abilities to develop to make good use of virtual learning environments to teach or to acquire skills and work-related competencies.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (2008, October 15). What is Digital Literacy? Retrieved from University Library: http://www.library.illinois.edu/diglit/definition.html

University of New South Wales. (n.d.). Learning to Teach Online MOOC. Retrieved from Coursera.Org: https://class.coursera.org/ltto-002

Visser, M. (2012, September 14). What is Digital Literacy? Retrieved from ALA Connect: http://connect.ala.org/files/94226/what%20is%20digilit%20%282%29.pdf

What is Digital Literacy? by Jonathan Acuña

Saturday, July 11, 2015

What Had Prevented or Slowed My Engagement in Online Teaching

#LTTO, Online Instruction, Online Teaching Practices, VLE, VLEs 0 comments

What Had Prevented or Slowed My Engagement in Online Teaching

Factors that got in the way of my adopting an online teaching practice

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Saturday, July 10, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 183

In hindsight, my former professional teaching life faced some impediments to become a bit more technology-oriented. As I reflect on my school days in the 70s, I still have some vivid remembrances of some of my teachers. As stated by Bentué-Alonso (2015, July 10), “when I was a schoolboy in my country the education was not facing the challenges of today. Even in that poor relevant learning model, I appreciated the best when a teacher took his role seriously and tried to teach so good as he could, playing with all the resources he got in front of him.” But if we 21^st Century instructors want to take our role seriously, we must try to teach as well as we can with the technological resources we have at our hands.

At the beginning of my teaching life, access to technology was a serious mishap in ELT. Not only did I face limitations “in [my] regular access to reliable or appropriate technology” (UNSW, n.d.), but also my students faced restraints in regards to computers. At this moment in history, at least in my EFL and higher education teaching scenarios in Costa Rica, these are no problems anymore. Our learners do have more access to technology that can help them construct their knowledge, skills, and competencies.

Access to the Internet was a big issue some ten years ago around Costa Rica. I still remember when I asked my students to download their homework projects from the university platform, and many of them claimed that they had no means to do so, needless to mention their complaints that they lacked a PC at home to develop the assignments. But now we do not fight this disadvantage anymore. Costa Ricans live in a country where 33.5% of the population have access to the Web and 67% out of this 33.5% do have access to the Internet via smartphones (Cuen, 2014, March 14). The vast majority of university students have access to the Internet and use it on a regular basis. This is not an impediment anymore to move one’s class to the worldwide web.

One of the obstacles I have personally faced with my language trainees is their inability to use technology. Just because 21st Century learners have a smartphone and regularly use social media, this does not mean that they are effective users of technology to help them learn. As a professor of mine, Dr. Deborah Healey (University of Oregon), once told us, we teachers are the ones who have to train pupils how to manage the pieces of technology we want them to use in their learning process to achieve learning goals. To do this, the instructors need to have training or self-trained themselves before the actual utilization of a technology piece in a course.

Isolation is one of those problems that can be easily fixed by an educator, so it should not be a real problem in online learning scenarios. Online instructors must have a control of the three basic presences in VLEs: instructor social presence, teaching presence, and student cognitive presence. If these three basic online presences are present, my role as instructor is to provide students with a channel to synchronously or asynchronously be in touch with me by means of virtual student attention hours or by means of email messages that will be answered in less than 24 hrs. The learners need to comprehend that they are not isolated, and instructors must not give room to isolation, either.

Information overload is another matter of contention to be aware of. At the beginning students’ usual complaint was, “Where do I get the information to work on my assignment?” And that was indeed a very good query coming from learners! After analyzing PBL strategies and seeing how WebQuests were created, we the instructional course designers of our own courses need to provide them with what is the minimum required information. From that point on, students can go on their own and search for more suitable information for their research or project purposes. Yes, the Internet is inhabited by tons and tons of information, but the first pieces need to be provided by the instructor. As soon as we understand this issue with information overload, it should not be a problem anymore.

To conclude, the “key restrictions, limitations or considerations” (UNSW, n.d.) proposed in the Learning to Teach Online MOOC at Coursera.Org are quite in force even today. Depending where our teaching is taking place, the key points are very valid for educators as well for learners. Many instructors have already started their journey towards online teaching, and though limitations will arise, go ahead and face the challenges that need to be overcome to become an online instructor.

Bentué-Alonso, X. (2015, July 10). Re: Why is online teaching important to you, and what are the benefits? [Online Forum Comment] Retrieved on 2015, July 10 from the Learning to Teach Online MOOC at Coursera.Org at https://class.coursera.org/ltto-002/forum/thread?thread_id=271

Cuen, D. (2014, March 14). ¿Es Costa Rica un paraíso en internet? Retrieved on 2015, July 10 from the BBC Mundo webpage at http://www.bbc.com/mundo/blogs/2014/03/140314blogunmundofeliz_cr_web

UNSW. (n.d.). Why is online teaching important? Learning to Teach Online. Retrieved on 2015, Thursday 9 from https://d396qusza40orc.cloudfront.net/ltto/pdf/LTTO_M1_Importance.pdf

What Had Prevented or Slowed My Engagement in Online Teaching by Jonathan Acuña

Saturday, July 11, 2015

The Importance of Online Teaching: My Personal Journey

#LTTO, Online Instruction, Online Teaching Practices, VLE, VLEs 0 comments

The Importance of Online Teaching: My Personal Journey

Why is Online Teaching Important to me? and What are the benefits?

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Friday, July 10, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 182

When confronted with the question, “Why is online teaching important to me?,” I must admit that the answer is linked to the summative assessment used at the university where I currently work. Rigid evaluation is one of those things that my teaching experience tells me that it is wrong, especially when in the equation surface and deep learning are involved. The hybrid courses that I currently have at Universidad Latina in Costa Rica have helped me better visualize the importance online or blended learning has for me to assist pupils in the construction of their knowledge and for them to evidence the fact that learning can be deep and long-lasting.

Back in the first quarter of 2010 and after being a student for the Webskills course through the Distant Learning program held by the University of Oregon, I started toying with the idea of virtualizing some of the courses I was teaching at Universidad Latina at that time, something I managed to do empirically. My empiricism gave me some first-hand knowledge and foundation to begin with some sort of blended learning with my language performers. Not only did I start using blogs to take my whole teaching online, something that took me a couple of years, but also I ended up creating an LMS for my reading skills students, where we were able to share and publish their projects and reading accomplishments.

Later on, in 2013 I got the chance to participate in the Laureate Faculty Development where I was given the opportunity to get enrolled in an associate degree in Hybrid, Online and Blended Learning. It was until that time that my online teaching empiricism became the ground foundations for my studies with online practices through Laureate International Universities, the international consortium that owns the university where I teach ELT and owners of the Laureate Faculty Development. The training I was provided, my former empirical knowledge, and the projects that were needed and carried out in real virtual classrooms allowed me to transition from the F2F classroom to the online classroom in platforms such as Moodle and Blackboard.

During the 7 modules I went through along 2013 and 2014, I was able to put the pieces together to start some real blended learning experiences for my students at that time at Universidad Latina and, consequently, move away from the rigid assessment used in my F2F courses. I was then trained how to more effectively use the LMS, which should be called a CMS instead, that the university uses, Moodle. But I was also provided with training in Blackboard to round up my understanding of LMSs. Learner engagement and feedback were part of another module that allowed me to keep up with the work my language trainees had to do in Moodle. Instructional design was also a must in the program to be able to convert F2F activities into blended or fully online ones that students could do at their own pace. The online practicum was a nice way to try out everything one has been trained on and see how one’s learners reacted to our guidance, social presence, and their cognitive interaction with the subject-matter to be studied. It was a blast!

Though I had started my online teaching journey with a sole intention to use that knowledge with my university courses, I found myself accepting a different position in the curricular development unit for the binational center where I also work and launching an EFL blended program. This was my chance to get to practice my ideas regarding online learning and the knowledge I had constructed along my 7-module training in hybrid, online and blended learning. The EFL program has proven to be successful so far, and in my home country, we have the only true blended language program across Costa Rica.

Though the binational center’s blended EFL program is on its way, my online teaching nowadays does not end there. Laureate Faculty Development hired me as an online instructor for their platform associate degree programs. I know deal a lot with hybrid online learning and higher education practices that can also be transferred to the VLE scene. Having students across the globe is now giving me a real sense of what is to “increase flexibility of time” to study at one’s pace, “increase flexibility of location” since my students and colleagues can be in any continent, “the sharing of information” to unify faculty teaching practices across the Laureate Universities network, and “the fostering of digital information literacy” to integrate faculty members teaching various subjects in different fields.

Understanding our 21^st century students, we teaching professional have numerous digital learners sitting in class. It is our duty as faculty members to cope with their learning needs and their need to get and have access to information in no time. For these 21^st century students, communication and collaboration are key elements in their way of building skills that will eventually become competencies for their current or future jobs. “Reasons for moving into online education differ amongst teachers. Some regard it as a natural progression to their current teaching practice, some are reluctant to change and feel pressured into it by their institution, while others are interested in online education but don’t know how to get started” (UNSW, n.d.). Anyway, reasons must help us identify our guiding star to find our niche in the 21^st Century education global scene and to provide learners with true deep-learning experiences to help them develop competencies for their current or future jobs.

UNSW. (n.d.). Why is online teaching important? Learning to Teach Online. Retrieved on 2015, Thursday 9 from https://d396qusza40orc.cloudfront.net/ltto/pdf/LTTO_M1_Importance.pdf

Why is Online Teaching Important? by Jonathan Acuña

Friday, July 10, 2015

A Website Evaluation Rubric

Assessment, Education Technologies, Rubrics, Teaching With Technology, Technological Assessment 0 comments

A Website Evaluation Rubric

A rather helpful exercise for teachers

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 181

How often do we recommend a website to a colleague or student to visit and practice class content on it? This could be usual or not that often depending on your teaching environment. But what has happened to me a couple times is that my partners report that the content of the webpage I thought was good was not that extraordinary and that it included lots of mistakes and that pictures were not exactly convenient. Though, -I must confess-, it never occurred to me to sit down and write a kind of website evaluation rubric, it was in a technology course dealing with virtual environments with Prof. Fressy Aguilar at Universidad Latina in Costa Rica that all participants were requested to create such rubric to help ourselves to differentiate good sites from those that are not exactly that accurate.

In order to produce a website evaluation rubric, Prof. Aguilar provided us with three guides to assess the content of material for educational purposes. On the one hand course participants had to review A Framework for Evaluating the Quality of Multimedia Learning Resources (Leacock & Nesbit, 2007), and on the other hand, we were also provided with Evaluation and Selection of Learning Resources: A Guide (Prince Edward Island Department of Education, 2008) and Evaluating, Selecting and Acquiring Learning Resources: A Guide (ERAC Educational Resource Acquisition Consortium, 2008). These three documents are fully connected to the evaluation of resources for education, but not exclusively linked to evaluating the content of webpages. These guides lead you through the evaluation of resources in all fields, from written ones to electronically produced ones.

What seems to be the problem with these guides? None! However, these guides are not necessarily attached to the evaluation of websites where educators can download material for their language learners, content students, and so on. These sites actually deal with all sorts of materials that may include flashcards to PDF documents that can be downloaded from the web as ready-made handouts for pupils. So when instructors encounter these kinds of guides produced by individuals or by companies that help teachers to get a better understanding of how to evaluate educational resources in general terms, it is unavoidable to start thinking that perhaps the production of one’s rubrics to assess webpage content is a necessity.

How can these website evaluation rubrics be produced? To start with, it is mandatory to have clearly in one’s mind what it is that one is looking for in a website: handouts?, flashcards?, online interactive practices?, lesson plans to deal with a given topic?, etc. Having these things precisely identified, one can start creating an evaluation rubric with the criteria one considers the most relevant for what is needed. It is up to the rubric creator to use an analytic or holistic one. Whatever suits one best is ideal.

There is no such thing as the perfect rubric, but the more it can be elaborated and precise, the better. Criteria need to be fully detailed and highly wrought; this thorough elaboration of descriptors can help the rubric user to really find fulfilling results when it comes to look for the perfect website to obtain material for one’s class or lesson. It is indeed fundamental that teachers review the quality of material that is downloaded from “educational” webpages. That is, it is no just to see the layout of the website, but also the content that is shared to verify that is accurate and suitable for one’s needs.

Sample Website Evaluation Rubric

Website Evaluation Rubric by Jonathan Acuña

Sample Website Evaluation Rubric Tryout with TES

References

ERAC Educational Resource Acquisition Consortium. (2008). Evaluating, Selecting and Acquiring Learning Resources: A Guide. ERAC.

Leacock, T., & Nesbit, J. (2007). A Framework for Evaluating the Quality of Multimedia Learning Resources. Educational Technology & Society, (2)(10), 44.59.

Prince Edward Island Department of Education. (2008). Evaluation and Selection of Learning Resources: A Guide. Charlottetown: Prince Edward Island.

Website Evaluation Rubric by Jonathan Acuña

Thursday, July 09, 2015

Is it So Difficult to Increase the TL in Classroom Interactions?

Teacher Development, Teaching, Teaching Practices, Teaching Styles 0 comments

Is it So Difficult to Increase the TL in Classroom Interactions?

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 180

“With the rise of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and a growing emphasis on oral communication skills, the role of student talk in the language classroom has become more important than ever” (Hilliard, 2014). This can be seen across the globe in ELT settings where language instructors are reluctant to use the target language (TL) as the means of instruction in the classroom, and Costa Rica is not the exception from this futile teacher practice. Knop (n.d.), in an article published by Emory University, stresses the importance the TL has in the cognitive development of students who are learning a foreign language. “Excessive TTT [Teacher Talking Time] limits the amount of STT (student talking time). If the teacher talks for half the time in a 60 minute lesson with 15 students, each student gets only 2 minutes to speak” (Darn, 2007). Then, the rhetorical question stays in the air; is it so difficult to increase the TL in classroom interactions?

Knop (n.d.) proposes a series of steps to increase the use of TL use in the classroom; what are her language practice proposals? Knop’s proposal –though not necessarily connected to the English Teaching per se- focuses its attention on the promotion of student interaction in class along with having learners use the TL; Knop’s ideas are: a) language ladders, b) day’s lesson plan on board, c) informal pair & S2S interactions, d) Gouin series, e) amount of “teacher talk,” f) authentic and appropriate input, and g) class participation in the TL. For Knop (n.d.), these classroom practices can encrease the amount of student talk, but this will not “happen overnight;” these “strategies need to be tried out and implemented in a progressive manner over a period of time” (Knop, n.d.) to really witness some language use change in classroom settings.

Hilliard (2014), similarly to Knop (n.d.), puts it simply, language teachers have to “start each class with a speaking activity,” something that is quite close to what Knop labels as language ladders. A language ladder is a “set of commonly used classroom expressions focused on classroom function.” And as Hilliard’s (2014) proposal regarding a speaking activity, Knop (n.d.) suggests using a great array of speaking activities that can set the mood for the class to start speaking, on the one hand by St2T interactions (i.e. seeking information, expressing confusion, making excuses, asking persmission, making small talk, exchanging greetings and leave-takings, giving directions, praising and encouraging, and disciplining), and on the other hand, St2St interactions (expressing likes & dislikes, expressing agreement and disagreement, giving compliments, inviting someone, and accepting and refusing and invitation). All of these suggested language ladders can be labeled as possible ways to test learner’s descriptors in the ACTFL guidelines (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2012) or even traced within the can-do table proposed by ETS for the TOEIC test (Educational Testing Services, 2000).

Not only Knop (n.d.) but also Hilliard (2014) have similar suggestions regarding TL use in the classroom. Hilliard (2014) proposes to “let students do the work for you.” In this line of thought, it is possible to group Knop’s nomenclatures for the steps to follow for teacher’s lesson plans and her taxonomy for “informal pair” interactions (Knop, n.d.). Instead of fostering excessive teacher talk, Knops wants to have language students make use of the language during class interactions. “Another way of helping students understand and use the target language is to put an outline of the lesson plan” on the board, says Knop (n.d.). For this very reason, Knop adduces that it is necessary to use the lesson plan on the board at the start of class, during class, and at the end of class (n.d.). The use of the outline of the instructor’s plan can help language students to review material before major tests and quizzes; it can give language trainees a sense of transition from topic to topic and of closure towards the end of the lesson; and it can provide students with a sense of accomplishment.

“TTT often means that the teacher is giving the students information that they could be finding out for themselves, such as grammar rules, the meanings of vocabulary items and corrections” (Darn, 2007). Bearing in mind Hilliard’s (2014) idea of having learners do the instructor’s work is to follow Knop’s (n.d.) suggestions for “informal pairs” interactions. Knop (n.d.) pigeonholes ten different types of language activities in her taxonomy aiming at having students do the talking themselves: a) warm-ups, b) study of new verbs, c) learning of a dialogue, d) vocabulary study, e) grammar work, f) dictations, g) naming, h) expressing references, i) describing and j) sharing information. All these kinds of activities are great paths to guide learners towards the use of the TL language in the classroom rather than just listening to the teacher talk. As suggested by Darn (2007), “a large amount of TTT results in long stretches of time in teacher-to-class (T/class) mode and a monotonous pace. Student under-involvement inevitably leads to loss of concentration and reduced learning.” Knop’s (n.d.) thesis combined with Hilliard’s (2014) proposal can indeed produce another kind of class interaction in which student talk prevails.

Though the term Gouin Series Method is not a new term in language learning, it derives its name from its inventor, François Gouin, a French Latin teacher. The approach advocated by Gouin is “to have ‘themes’ such as The Plant and to have students memorize sentences in sequence relating to the theme” (Martin, 2009). For Knop (n.d.), Gouin Series are “organized in a logical sequence and students are usually directed to say the sentences while acting them out.” As pointed out by the author herself, Gouin Series do use “several meaning reinforcers” (Knop, n.d.), allowing students to review language and use it fully attached to meaning and use. Gouin Series will “appeal to various senses” and will “help teach appropriate behavior in a cultural activity” (Knop, n.d.). At a cognitive level, language students are motivated to be using the “three-dimensional grammar framework” endorsed by Larsen-Freeman (n.d.), where students not only exercise how a stucture is constructed, but how it is used properly within a social context and what it means for the native speakers when such a structure is built and used to convey meaning. By means of the “three-dimensional grammar framework,” which must be borne in mind by language instructors at all times, students can discover cultural information about the language, which is only encased in exercises where a critical, mental chronology of events can be sequenced. And aside from the cultural component attributed to Gouin Series, language instructors can also “engage students in active practice of the sentences and actions” (Knop, n.d.), connected in form, meaning, and use.

Hilliard (2014) recommends implementing “more authentic, communicative classroom activities.” However, though Gouin Series are a good first attempt to provoke communication in the classroom, they do not necessarily yield the expected outcome at all times. “Anything from pair work and group work, to discussions and debates, to task-based activities and games can be utilized within a CLT framework” (Hilliard, 2014). But all these intances mentioned here must be nurtured by the provision of authentic “input” in classroom interaction (Knop, n.d.). “Considering to the concept of authentic language input, Gilmore (2007) defined authentic language input as the language carrying a real message which is created by a real speaker or writer for a real audience” (Bahrani & Soltani, 2012). So how can authentic input be provided to students so they can get to use the language in class?

“Bearing in mind the nature of the communicative classroom, teachers should perhaps be aware of the quality of their TTT and how it is used rather than trying to reduce it to a bare minimum” (Darn, 2007). But still, are we providing input that is varied, authentic, and appropriate? If we are not meeting the standards set by Bahrani & Soltani (2012), we are bound to be providing inauthentic input, bound to be directing classroom activities inappropriately, or bound to exert some more control over the input that we are giving (Knop, n.d.). Authentic input/material can be imported into the classroom from various sources, and it can help studends develop the target language if used properly; otherwise, we will be responsible for its failure.

Knop’s (n.d.) unique most significant addition to the use of the TL in the classroom is not linked to authenticity in the input, but the surpassing importance of keeping track of students’ participation. “A record participation is important since in-class performance is considered an integral part of a student’s grade” (Knop, n.d.). By doing so, the instructor can know –even as backwash- where his/her attention is focused when practicing the TL in the classroom. “An ‘oral participation grade’ might be given out to students, based on the summary of point or grades earned for the frequency of their contributions and their use of the TL” (Knop, n.d.). This can be indeed used as a way to make language trainees aware of their active role or chosen passivity in the classroom. In other words, learners have to be aware of the implications of activity or inactivity in class and how it may affect their performance grade and, why not, language development, learning, and acquisition.

As neatly stated by Knop (n.d.), the increase TL use in class will not happen overnight. “Strategies need to be tried out and implemented in a progressive manner over a period of time” (Knop, n.d.). Pesce (n.d.) subscribes “to the theory that in the case of beginners, the ratio of TTT vs. STT should be 50-50, and this percentage should progressively change till you achieve a 30% TTT vs. 70% STT.” But Pesce (n.d.) points out, as suggested by Knop (n.d.), that the teacher needs to identify what really works for his/her class, but class attention, talk, and participation must be fixed upon the learner. Once these three elements are fixed on the student, the strategies proposed here can help educators increase the use of the target language in all classroom interactions.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012. Alexandria, VA, USA: ACTFL.ORG.

Bahrani, T., & Soltani, R. (2012, February 2). An Overview on How to Utilize Authentic Language Input for Language Teaching. (P. M. S. Thirumalai, Ed.) LANGUAGE IN INDIA, 12, 800-807. Retrieved June 20, 2015

Darn, S. (2007, August 15). Teaching English. Retrieved June 20, 2015, from BBC British Broadcasting Corporation: http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/teacher-talking-time

Educational Testing Services. (2000). TOEIC Can-Do Guide. New Jersey, New Jersey, USA: The Chauncey Group.

Hilliard, A. (2014, February). TESOL Connections. Retrieved June 20, 2015, from TESOL Connections: http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolc/issues/2014-02-01/3.html

Knop, C. (n.d.). Language Center. Retrieved June 17, 2015, from Emory College of Arts and Science: http://languagecenter.emory.edu/home/documents/constanceknop.pdf

Larsen-Freeman, D. (n.d.). Institut für Anglistik. Retrieved June 20, 2015, from Universität Innsbruck: http://www.uibk.ac.at/anglistik/staff/freeman/course-documents/tesfl_-_teaching_grammar.pdf

Martin, J. (2009, February 18). The Language Nest. Retrieved June 20, 2015, from The Language Nest: http://languagenest.blogspot.com/2009/02/designing-gouin-series.html

Pesce, C. (n.d.). Busy Teacher. Retrieved June 20, 2015, from Busy Teacher: http://busyteacher.org/13959-how-to-increase-student-talking-time-7-techniques.html