Technical ReportPDF Available

Language Teacher Trainer Guide on Digital Competences: Practical instructions and advice on how to organize digital competence training for language teachers

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This guide provides practical instructions and advice on how to organize digital competence training for language teachers. The recommendations included in the guide are derived from research and experience of developing and organizing a series of training events for language teachers by the authors of the guide. This guide is developed primarily for teacher trainers who work in language education. The guide can also be useful for language teachers who wish to develop their digital competence and better employ digital technologies in their teaching practice. The current guide is the capstone of a series of training events that involve presentations on the latest trends, new ideas and innovative teaching techniques. The training events provide opportunities for peer-to-peer interaction and involve a series of workshops and teaching experiences in which practical proposals are demonstrated, as well as new technological and methodological developments in the field of second/foreign language. This trainer guide is composed of three parts. Part A presents an overview of training methodologies for language learning in face-to-face, online, and blended formats. Part B includes a framework model for teacher training developed based on the experience from two series of webinars. Part C incorporates a collection of 15 teacher training modules, fully described and available as OERs. The language teacher training experience and research summarized in this guide were undertaken in the frame of the project: Digital Competences for Language Teachers (DC4LT https://www.dc4lt.eu/). This project has received funding from the European Union’s Erasmus Plus programme, grant agreement 2018-1-NO01-KA203-038837.
Content may be subject to copyright.
LANGUAGE TEACHER TRAINER GUIDE ON DIGITAL COMPETENCES PAGE 1 O F 60
Authors:
Mikhail Fominykh, Elis Kakoulli-Constantinou, Anna Nicolaou,
Maria Perifanou, Antigoni Parmaxi, Maria Victoria Soule,
Elizaveta Shikhova, Tord Mjøsund Talmo, and Daria Zhukova
DC4LT Consortium | December 2021
Language Teacher Trainer
Guide on Digital
competences
Practical instructions and advice on how to organize
digital competence training for language teachers
programme, grant agreement 2018-1
-KA203-038837.
Updated: January 2022
LANGUAGE TEACHER TRAINER GUIDE ON DIGITAL COMPETENCES PAGE 2 O F 60
Report
Lang uage Teach er T rainer Guid e on Dig ital C ompeten ces:
Practical instructions and advice on how to organize digital competence training for language teachers
Authors
Editors: Maria Victoria Soule, Maria Perifanou, and Mikhail Fominykh
Part A: Training methodologies for language learning: Elis Kakoulli-Constantinou, Anna Nicolaou, Maria Perifanou,
An tigoni Parm axi, Maria V ictoria Soule, Eliz aveta Shikhova, an d Daria Z hukov a
Part B: A m odel fo r lang uage teacher training on digital competences: Mikhail Fominykh and Maria Perifano u
Part C: Language teach er training sessions on digital competences: Mikhail Fominykh, Elis Kakoulli-Constantinou,
An na Nicol aou, Maria Perifano u, Ant igoni Parmax i, Maria Victoria Soule, E lizaveta Shikhova, Tord Mjøsund Talmo,
and Daria Zh ukova
Editions
First edition: December 2021
Second edition: January 2022
License
The report is published by DC4LT consortium with a CC-BY-SA-4 .0 licen se.
Cite as
Fominykh M., Kakoulli-Constantino u E., Nicolaou A., Perifanou M., Parmaxi A., So ule M.V, Shikhova E., Talmo
T.M., and Zhukova D.: Language Teach er Trainer Guide on Digital Competen ces: Pract ical ins tructi ons and advice
on how to organize digital competence training for language teachers (2022). DC4LT Consortium.
https://www.dc4lt.eu/
DC4LT Consortium | December 2021
LANGUAGE TEACHER TRAINER GUIDE ON DIGITAL COMPETENCES PAGE 3 O F 60
Summary
This guide provides practical instructions and advice on how to organize digital competence training for language
teachers. The recommend ations included in the guide are derived fro m res earch and experience of developing and
organizing a series of training events for language teachers by the authors of the guide.
This guide is developed primarily for teacher trainers who work in language education. The guide can also be useful
for language teachers who wish to d evelop their digital competence an d better employ digital technologies in their
teach ing practice.
The current guide is the capstone of a series of training events that involve presentations on the latest trends, new
ideas and innovative teaching techniques. The training events provide opportunities for peer-to-p eer int eraction and
involve a series of workshops and teaching experiences in which practical proposals are demonstrated, as well as new
technological and met hodol og ical d evelopment s in t he fiel d of seco nd /foreig n l anguag e.
This trainer guide is composed of three parts. Part A presents an overview of training methodologies for language
learning in face-to-face, online, and blended formats. Part B includes a framework mod el for teacher training
dev elop ed based on th e experi ence fro m two s eries o f web inars. Part C i ncorp orates a col lectio n of 15 t eacher t raining
modules, fully described and available as OERs.
Th e lang uage t eacher train ing experi ence and research s ummariz ed in th is gui de were und ertaken in t he frame of the
pro ject: Digital Competences for Language Teachers (DC4LT https://www.dc4lt.eu/). This project has received
funding from the European Union’s Erasmus Plus programme, g rant agreemen t 2018-1-NO01-KA203-038837.
LANGUAGE TEACHER TRAINER GUIDE ON DIGITAL COMPETENCES PAGE 4 O F 60
Table of Contents
SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 3
PART A: TRAINING METHODOLOGIES FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING .................................. 6
A.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................6
A.2. Review of learning theories..........................................................................................................................8
Ecological theory.........................................................................................................................................8
Constructionism ..........................................................................................................................................9
Social constructivism...................................................................................................................................9
Connectivism.............................................................................................................................................10
A.3. Review of teaching methodologies and practices .................................................................................. 11
Task-based learning ...................................................................................................................................11
Question-based learning............................................................................................................................12
Game-based learning.................................................................................................................................13
Inquiry-based learning ...............................................................................................................................15
Eclecticism.................................................................................................................................................15
The lexical approach..................................................................................................................................17
Content-b as e d language learning ..............................................................................................................17
Project-based language learning ................................................................................................................18
Problem-based language learning..............................................................................................................18
A.4. Review of training methods and techniques ........................................................................................... 19
Short Lecture .............................................................................................................................................19
Sharing experiences ...................................................................................................................................19
Demo.........................................................................................................................................................20
Collaborative work in small groups...........................................................................................................20
Presen tations .............................................................................................................................................20
Case study..................................................................................................................................................20
Simulation..................................................................................................................................................21
Group discussions .....................................................................................................................................22
Reflective journals .....................................................................................................................................22
Further reading ..........................................................................................................................................22
Micro-t e a ch i ng ...........................................................................................................................................22
Role play ....................................................................................................................................................23
PART B: A MODEL FOR LANGUAGE TEACHER TRAINING ON DIGITAL COMPETENCES ... 25
B.1 About the model ...........................................................................................................................................25
Purpose......................................................................................................................................................25
Background ...............................................................................................................................................25
Mod es of d elivery ......................................................................................................................................25
Target aud ience .........................................................................................................................................25
Learning o bjectives....................................................................................................................................25
Topics to cover..........................................................................................................................................26
B.2 Session template...........................................................................................................................................27
Autho r .......................................................................................................................................................27
Summary....................................................................................................................................................27
Learning o bjectives....................................................................................................................................27
Target aud ience .........................................................................................................................................27
Training techniques ...................................................................................................................................28
Too ls..........................................................................................................................................................28
Pre-activities ..............................................................................................................................................28
Recommended reading..............................................................................................................................28
Schedule for online learning implementation ...........................................................................................28
LANGUAGE TEACHER TRAINER GUIDE ON DIGITAL COMPETENCES PAGE 5 OF 60
Implementation of the synchronous session ............................................................................................28
Th eoreti cal background.............................................................................................................................28
References .................................................................................................................................................28
PART C. LANGUAGE TEACHER TRAINING SESSIONS ON DIGITAL COMPETENCES.......... 29
About the series ...................................................................................................................................................29
Target aud ience .........................................................................................................................................29
Overview of individual sessions ................................................................................................................29
DC4LT language teacher training sessions as an online co urse ...............................................................29
Online community for language teacher training on digital competences ...............................................30
Session 1. Introduction to Digital Competences for Language Teachers ..................................................30
Session 2. Digital Competence Assessment Survey and Job Market...........................................................30
Session 3. Digital Competence Assessment Framework for Language Teachers..................................... 31
Session 4. Teachers Training Models and Teaching Methodologies in CALL .........................................33
Session 5. Collaborative Learning Tools for Enhancing Language Learning ...........................................36
Session 6. Virtual Exchange: Developing Critical Digital Literacies ..........................................................38
Session 7. Webquests 2.0 Activities for language learning............................................................................40
Session 8. OERs in Language Education: From Theory to Practice ..........................................................43
Session 9. Open Education Practices in CALL ..............................................................................................45
Session 10. Technology Overview for Language Teachers ...........................................................................47
Session 11. Response Tools for the Language Classroom.............................................................................49
Session 12. Cloud Technologies in Language Learning and Google Workspace for Education ............ 51
Session 13. Developing Digital Narrative for Quest-Based Learning .........................................................53
Session 14. Immersive Technologies for Language Learning......................................................................55
Session 15. Interactive Videos for Language Teaching.................................................................................57
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 6 OF 60
PART A: Training methodologies for
language learning
In this part we explored various learning theories and methods that could be suitable for language teaching in online
and blended formats. We aimed at making the overview relevant for as long as possible after its completion. This part
begins with (i) an introduction to contemporary theories of learning. It is then followed by (ii) a literature review of
di fferent learni ng theories and (iii) learning methodologies that can guide the design and implementation of training
workshops addressed to language teachers, and it concludes with (iv) an overview of various training
methods/techniques that can be used for the design and delivery of the training activities of DC4LT. The approach
followed for the development of the DC4LT training guide is depicted in Figure 1. The review was performed in a
trad itional, narrative mann er an d its ult imate objecti ve was to d elineate an array of learning theories, methodologies
and training techniques to enable us to select the ones that are most suitable for the planned online or face-to-face
training workshops for language teachers.
Figure 1 . The approach adopted for designing the DC4LT training methodology.
Nowadays, the view about the way people acquire knowledge has changed, as theories of learning and research
progress through the years. Contemporary theories of learning extend their roots into the past, and many questions
that research aims to answer today are not new, since they were first the subject of philosophy and later on of
psychology (Schunk, 2012). In recent years the developments brought by the advancement of technology have had a
great influence on all aspects of o ur everyday life, includ ing ed ucation, and have unavoidably affected the way
knowledge is acquired. This has had an impact on training methodologies that can be used for language learning and
also training methodologies th at can be utilized for language teacher training, amongst other things.
Looking back at psychology in the first half of the 20th century, behavioristic theories of learning prevailed, which
viewed learn in g “as a change in th e rate, frequen cy of occurrence, or form of behavior o r response, wh ich occurs
primarily as a function of environmental factors” (Schunk, 2012, p.21). Behaviorism regarded learning as model and
stimuli based, and pattern d rilling, rep etition and immediate correction of error were the majo r characteristics of
learning processes. Behaviorism was criticized mainly b ecause the concept o f learning it sup ported violated the
human right to self-det ermin ation and self -expression” (Roberts, 1998, p. 14). Later on, cognitive theories of learning
emerg ed as a resp onse t o behaviorism. Cognitivism viewed learning “as an internal mental phenomenon inferred from
what people say and do. A central theme is the mental processing of information: Its construction, acquisition,
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 7 OF 60
organization, coding, rehearsal, storage in memory, and retrieval or non retrieval from memory” (Schunk, 2012, p. 22).
Cognitivism recognized that with instruction alone learning cannot be achieved ; nevertheless, it was criticized for
“considering the essen ce of human action to reside in its alleged source in mental processes at the expense of the
social surroundings of the action” (Arponen, 2013, p. 3). In more recent years, research concentrated more on the
learn er an d h ow kno wledge is const ructed rather than acquired ; th is is referred t o as con struct ivism, in fluenced m ainly
by the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky. Constructivism “does not propound that learning principles exist and are to
be discovered and tested, but rather that learners create their own learning” (Schunk, 2012, p. 230). Constructivist
theories of learning brought major changes in the learning and teaching processes with learners becoming actively
involved in the learning procedure.
All thes e develop ment s in res earch o n learn ing had a maj or in fluence o n th e meth odologies used in t eacher ed ucation.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the “craft model” of professional development evolved, according to which the
expert figure, the master, trained the potential teachers by showing them what to do, which they later had to imitate
(W allace, 1991; Maggio li, 2012) . Th is model of teacher t raini ng was influenced by th e behaviorist ic theories of l earning,
and was later rejected, since it was based on pure imitation. The craft model was replaced by th e “applied science
model” for professional development, which is considered to be the traditional model for teacher development.
According to this model, teachers are trained drawing from the findings of emp irical science; in o ther w ord s, they are
requested to apply the scientific knowledge obtained from research in their p ractice (Wallace, 1991). The major
criticism o f the applied science model was the difficulty of b ridging the gap between science and practice, which,
according to Burns and Richards (2009), still constitutes a problem. A more modern model for teacher training was
the “reflective mo del” for pro fessional development, initiated firstly by Schö n (1983). This model placed great
emphasis on the value of reflection. According to W allace (1991), th e kn owledge that the trainee receives interacts
wi th p revious experi ential kn ow ledge, an d throug h p ractice an d refl ectio n pro fess ional co mpeten ce is ach ieved.
With the prevalence of learning theories such as const ructivi sm an d so cial co nst ructivi sm, s ociocult ural pers pectives
on teach er train ing develo ped. A ccording to th ese p erspectiv es of p rofessional d evelopment, “p rofessi on al kno wledge
(coded through theories and procedures), personal knowledge (tacit and explicit), and community knowledge
(embed ded in t he day-to day practices of the community as “ways of doing”) converge to help community members
develop (Maggioli, 2012, p. 12). This view of teacher training favored the development of Communities o f Practice as
one of the most influential teacher development means today.
Lastly, it is important to mention that due to the ever-increas ing d iffusi on o f techn ologies in teach er-t rain ing prog rams
there is a growing interest in exploring the area of lang uage teach ers’ t raining i n Co mputer Assis ted Lang uage Learning
(CALL) known as CALL Teachers Education (CTE). This is a well-defin ed sector, w hich proposes interesting and
useful language teachers’ training models like the “CTE model” (Torsani, 2016) adopted by Reind ers (2009).
According to this model, CALL education is largely dependent on the context in which both the pedagogical and
institutional infrastructure occur. In other words, the first consists of the body of processes that support learning (e.g.,
community of practice), while the other consists of the factors (e.g., availability of technical support), which facilitate
and support the learning of technology (Torsani, 2016). Generally, CTE is not aiming at training language teachers on
how to use certain tools, but instead focuses on showing them how to choose specific tools on the basis of preset
pedagogical and linguistic principles. The most important objective of CTE is to make clear to the language teachers
community how important is the successful integration of technologies into language teaching, while adopting the
most appropriate teaching methodologies.
References
Arponen, V. P. J. (2013). The extent of cognitivism. History of the Human Sciences, 26(5), 321. DOI:
10.1177/0952695113500778
Burns, A., & Richards, J. C. (2009). Introduction. Second Language Teacher Education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards
(Eds.), The Cambridge Gu ide to S eco nd Language Teac her Education (p p. 18 ). New York: Cambri dge Uni versit y Press.
Maggioli, G. D. (2012). Teaching Language Teachers: Scaffolding Professional Learning. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
Reinders, H. (2009). Techno logy and second language teach er education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The
Camb ridg e guid e to s econ d lan guage t eacher ed ucatio n (p p. 2 30238). N ew York, NY : Cambri dg e Univ ersity Press .
Roberts, J. (1998). Lan guage Teacher Educ ation. London: Arnold.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith.
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 8 OF 60
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Le arnin g Theo ries: An Educatio nal Perspec tive (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Wallace, M. J. (1991) . Training Foreign Language Teachers: A reflective approac h. Camb ridge: Camb ridge Un iversi ty Press .
To rsani , S. ( 2016) . CALL teacher ed ucati on: Lan guage t eachers an d technology in tegrat ion. CALL T eacher E ducation:
Language Teachers and Technology Integration (pp. 1214) . Sense Publ ishers. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6300-477-0.
A.2. Review of learning theories
The review of the following learning theories (see Figure 2) informed the design of training on digital competence for
lan guage t eachers. E ach one o f t he theories is being described in the following section.
Ecological theory
Lang uage ecolo gy is i nformed by bi olo gical t heori es acco rding to which ecology is “the total science of the organism’s
relations to the surrounding environment, to which we can count in a wider sense all ‘conditions of existence’”
(H aeckel, 18 66, p . 286, cited in St effens en & Kram sch, 201 7). An ecologi cal appro ach places emp hasis o n the d ynamic
relations between elements in an environment (Steffensen & Kramsch, 2017). In a learning context, “an ecological
approach aims to look at the learning process, the actions and activities of teachers and learners, the multilayered
nature of interaction and language use, in all their complexity and as a network of interdependencies among all the
elements in the setting, not only at the social level, but also at the physical and symbolic level” (van Lier, 2010, p. 3).
Th e ecological theory draws from Gibson’s theory of affordances (1977). An affordance is an action possibility formed
by the relationship between an agent and its environment. van Lier (2010) explains that “affordances are relationships
of possibility, that is, they make action, interaction and joint projects possible (p. 4). In technologically mediated
environments, this is substantially important. As Warschauer mentions (1998, p. 760, cited in Belz, 2003), in order to
“fully understand the interrelationship between tech nol ogy and lang uage learning , research ers have to inv estig ate the
broader ecological context that affects language learning and use in today’s society, both inside and outside the
clas sroo m”. The mai n characteri stics o f ecolo gy as del ineat ed by v an Lier (2006, p. 18-19) are: relationships, context,
pat terns, emergence, qual ity, value, crit ical, variab ility, di versit y, and activit y.
References
Belz , J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of in tercultural competen ce in telecollaboration.
Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 42-66.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. Hilldale, USA, 1(2), 67-82.
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 9 OF 60
Steffensen, S. V., & Kramsch, C. (2017). The ecology of second language acquisition and socialization. Lan guage
Socialization, 1-16.
Van Lier, L. (2006). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective (Vol. 3). Sprin ger Science &
Business Media.
Van Lier, L. (2010). The ecolo gy of l anguag e learni ng: Pract ice to theory, t heo ry to pract ice. P r o c e dia-Soc ial and Behavioral
Sciences, 3, 2-6.
Warsch auer, M. (1998). Research ing techn olo gy i n TE SOL: Det ermini st, in strum ent al, an d critical approaches. Tesol
Quarterly, 32(4), 757-761.
Constructionism
The learning theory of Constructionism (Papert, 1980, 1991, 1993), was defined as: “Including, but going beyond,
wh at Piaget wo uld call ‘ constructi vism.’ The word with t he v exp resses t he t heory t hat knowledge is buil t b y the l earner,
no t supplied by th e teacher. Th e word with the n expresses the further idea that this happens especially felicitously
when the learner is engaged in the construction of something external or at least shareable. . . a sand castl e, a machine,
a computer program, a book.” (Papert, 1991, p. 1). Based on Papert’s framework, Resnick (1996) proposes ‘distributed
constructionism’, as the design and construction of meaningful artifacts by more than one person. The use of
computer networks to facilitate interactions between people and knowledge construction plays a pivotal role in
distributed constructionism. Rüschoff and Ritter (2004, p. 219) point out that “Construction of knowledge and
in format ion pro cessing are reg arded as key act ivities in language learning”. Furthermore, since the integration of new
media into language learning is a necessary step to ensure the acquisition of the kind of language skills and
com peten cies n eeded for livin g and w orki ng in th e knowledg e soci ety, Rüs choff (2001) suggests the implementation
of Constructionism as the appropriate paradigm for language learning. Recent studies (Parmaxi, & Zaphiris, 2015;
Parmaxi et al, 2016) h ave ad opt ed this p aradigm for lang uage learnin g p ractices. I n particular, these stud ies pro pose
the use of social technologies for collaborative construction of shareable artifacts. According to Parmaxi and Zaphiris
social technologies include “social network sites such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google+; social software,
such as blogs and wikis; and digital artifacts sharing platforms, such as Dropbox, Evernote and Google Drive” (2015,
p. 34).
References
Papert, S. (1980) Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. Nueva York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. & Harel, I. (1991) Situating Constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism. Norwood,
N.J.: Ablex, 1-11.
Papert, S. (1993) The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. Nueva York: Basic Books.
Parmaxi, A. & Zaphiris, P. (2015). Developing a framework for social technologies in learning via design-based
research. E ducati onal Med ia I nternat ional, 52 (1) , 33-46.
Parmaxi, A., Zaphiris, P. & Ioannou, A. (2016) Enacting artifact-based activities for social technologies in language
learning using a design-based research approach, Computers in Human Behavior 63, 556-567.
Resnick, M . (19 96). Dis trib uted con structionism. In D.C. E delso n & E. A. Dom esh ek (Eds.) Pro ceedings of t he 1996
International Conference on Learning Sciences, pp. 280-284
Rüschoff, B. & Ritter, M. (2001) Technology-Enhanced Language Learning: Construction of Knowledge and
Temp late-Based Learning in the Foreign Language Classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14 (3), 219-23.
schoff, B. (2004) Language. In H. Adelsherger, B. Collis & J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.) Handbook on Information
Technologies for Education and Training. Berlin: Springer, pp. 523-539.
Social constructivism
One of the most influential theories of learning today is social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978). Accord ing t o so cial
constructivism, individuals create or construct knowledge through the interaction of their past experiences and what
th ey alread y know an d t he id eas, experi ences and activi ties wit h which t hey come in con tact, in other w ords t heir so cial
surroundings. According to social constructivism, learning is the product of social interaction, and students’
engagement in collaboration and problem-solving situations. Knowledge is actively con structed and not passively
received , and the teacher is a guid e and co-explorer of knowledge instead of a knowledge provider. Social
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 10 OF 60
con structivism has influenced ed ucation in all levels and in various subjects includ in g teacher education (Beck &
Kos nik, 2006; Smith, 2001; Richardson, 1997). Adams ( 2006) identifies certa in p rinciples by w hich so cial co nstructivist
learning environments might be designed.
1. There is a focus on learning instead of performance.
2. Learn ers are view ed as active co-constructors of meaning and knowledge.
3. Teach erpupil relationships are built upon the idea of guidance not instruction.
4. Learners are engaged in meaningful and purposeful tasks.
5. As sess ment is an active p roces s of reveali ng t he k now ledg e con structed.
In language learning social constructivism is applied through collaboration and cooperation for the completion of
projects through group work. Students should be provided with opportunities for meaningful social interaction and
problem-solving in the language classroom so that their critical thinking is activated. Through critical thinking each
learner formulates their own meaning, and this helps in the internalization of knowledge.
References
Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities. Education 3-13, 34(3), 243257. DOI:
10.1080/03004270600898893
Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2006). Innovations in Teacher Education: A S ocial Constructivist Approac h. New Y ork: State
Univers ity o f New Yo rk.
Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist Teaching and Teacher Education: Theory and Practice. In V. Richardson (Ed.),
Con stru ctivist Teacher Edu cation: Bu ilding a Wo rld of Ne w Under standin gs. (pp. 314). London: Falmer Press.
Smith, J. (2001). Modeling the social construction of knowledge in ELT teacher education. ELT Journal, 55(3), 221
227.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambri dg e, MA : Harvard Universit y Press.
Connectivism
Connectivism (Siemens, 2005) is a theory of learning which stresses the influence of technology and networking in
the discovery of kno wledge. Like social con structivism, co nnectivism does not view the process of learning as an
in divi duali stic pro cess. Con nect ivism rat her suppo rts that kn owledge resi des in net works . More s pecifi cally, acco rding
to Foroughi (2015), for connectivism learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources,
and it may reside in non-human appliances (e. g., virtual worlds and augmented reality contexts). One of the principles
of connectivism is how higher order thinking skills are activated when individuals filter the information th at is available
online and focus on the information that is reliable or sustainable (Kropf, 2013). In connectivist approaches the ability
to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts and the ability to maintain these connections are important.
In the context of language learning, connectivism is realized through the formulation of Communities of Practice
through the use of LMSs (Learning Management Systems) or social media and engagement in online discussions and
exchange of information. According to Senior (2010), connectivist approaches in language learning and teaching
contexts can be applied through the establishment of rapport between the teacher and students, maintenance of high
levels of student involvement and engagement, encouragement of cooperation and collaboration, fostering of
collegiality and maintenance of sense of community in virtual learning environments through social presence.
References
Foroughi, A. (2015). The Theory of Connectivism: Can It Explain and Guide Learning in the Digital Age? H i gher
Edu cation Theo ry and Pr actice, 15(5), 1126. h t tp :/ /t.www.na-busin ess press .com/JHETP/Foro ughiA_Web15_5_. pd f
Kro pf, D. C. ( 2013) . Connect ivism: 21st Cen tury’s new learning theo ry. European Jo urnal of O pen, Distance an d E-Learning,
16(2), 1324. https://eric.ed .gov/ ?id=EJ1017519
Senior, R. (2010). Con nectivity: A Framework fo r Un derstanding Effective Language Teaching in Face-to-f a ce and
Online Learning Communities. RELC Journal 41(2) 137147.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Inter natio nal Jo ur nal o f In str uctiona l T ec hnology
and Dis tance Learning, 1, 18. http: // www .it dl.org/Journal/ Jan_05/article01.ht m
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 11 OF 60
A.3. Review of teaching methodologies and practices
Th e review o f th e foll owing teachi ng meth odo logies an d practi ces (s ee Figure 3) which in formed the des ign of training
on digital competence for language teachers. Each one of the methodologies is being described in the following
sections.
Figure 3. Review of teaching methodologies and practices which informed the design of training on digital
com peten ce for lang uage teach ers.
Task-based learning
Task-based learning has been described as the methodology that uses goal-oriented activities in which learners use
language to achieve real outcomes (W illis, 1996). For Willis, a task is any goal-o rient ed acti vity i n wh ich l earners use
language to achieve a real outcome. This approach to language teaching and learning falls under the umbrella of social
constructivism and connectivism when tasks are collaborative and involve learners working together to construct
knowledge and form networks. Learning can be further enforced when reflection occurs. Prosser and Trigwell (1999)
and Rams den (20 03) s tress ed t he si gnificance o f reflection based on deep thinking and learning; this is achieved when
reflection is based on learners’ meaningful engagement with the task and when learners relate the task to their own
experience. I n the context of task-based learning, learn ers may use whatever target lan guage resources they have in
order to be engaged in tasks such as solving a problem, doing a puzzle, playing a game, or sharing and comparing
experiences. In any case, tasks have an iden tifiable outcome, and a goal to be achieved and language learners use
language to exchange meanings for a real purpose.
In 1996 Willis proposed a framework for task-based learning. Acco rding to this framework, teaching needs to start
with a pre-task, which will serve as an introduction to the topic and the task. Then learners need to proceed to the
actual task which they have to plan and report. Eventually, when the task is completed, focus on form should follow,
wh ere the l anguage us ed in the tas k is bein g an alyzed and practi ced.
References
Prosser, M., & Trigw ell, K. (1999). Un derstan ding Learn ing and Te aching: The Ex perience in Higher Edu catio n. Buckingham:
SRHE an d Op en Un iversity Press .
Ramsden, P. ( 2003). Learn ing to Teac h in Hi gher Education ( 2nd ed .). New Yo rk: Ro utledgeFalm er.
Willis, J. (1996) . A Framework fo r Task-Bas ed Learn ing. Essex: Pearson Longman.
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 12 OF 60
Question-based learning
Question-based training can be seen in the prolonging of inquiry-based learn in g (Ped aste, M. et.al. (2015). Wh ere
inquiry-based training mainly relies on students defining and asking the questions themselves, or with an initial case
pro vided b y the lecturer, question-based training, or questioning, relies heavily on the lecturer's ability to ask the
questions that makes students able to understand, repeat or deduce their own answers and meanings. The technique
is thus in the heart of all classroom teaching, and essential in order to create classroom dialogue.
There are several reasons for asking questions in the classroom:
to figure out what students know
to stimulate learning by making students think in a specific way
to aid repetition and recalling knowledge learnt
to chall enge t he st udents in thei r set w ays.
It seems like an easy tas k to ask quest ion s in order to increas e d ialo gue with stud ents and b etween peers, but t here is
more to question-based training than that. Mainly we ask questions to 1) provide the teachers with information about
our students’ understanding or 2) to raise issues that students need to think about. Like all good classroom practi ces,
also questioning is built on different principles. One needs to know a variety of ways to ask questions, and when and
why these are being put forth.
Applyin g technology, and especially resp onse systems, in the questio n-based training, allows for even more variety.
According to Einum (2019) the shift lately from specially designed hardware response tools, available for in-class
usage since the 1980ies, to personal devices, i.e. mobile phones, tablets and computers, also presented a shift of focus
“[…] from the tools themselves to ways in which they could be applied, e.g., how to integrate them into existing
practices and how to ask good questions...” (Einum, 2019, p. 250).
One of the modern and new ways of applying responsive questions is true peer response questioning: “Change of
methodology, from classic to peer instruction, increases the argumentation time by 91 %. Most of this time is used to
present explanations related to curricula.” (Nielsen, K.J. et.al., 2014). Applying a meth odology where you can use
students' answers will improve the value of both the question and the response: “Additionally, iLike provides
opportunities that more conservative response tools do not to actually make the students reflect, think about concepts
in learning and expand their understanding of the curricula taught.” (Thorseth, T.M. et.al, 2015).
This can enhance motivation and engagement from the students (Heaslip, G. et. al., 2014). The interesting challenge,
that also raises the need for reexamining question-based instruction in language training, is the fact that there has been
an exaggerated focus on the tools themselves in stead of the methodology behind and questions asked (Beatty, I.D.
et.al., 2006).
Th us, it is neces sary to focus on th e way teach ers ask ques tions, what types of answers they want from the group and
how to use the responses on questions asked to further enhance the learning process for the students. Additionally,
question-based instruction will enhance students' own ability to ask questions, both to the teacher and their peers.
This will provide students with both the opportunity to ask good questions about things of their interest, about
understanding and elaborating the curriculum and in the future enabling them to design good research questions of
their own.
References
Beatty, I. D., Leonard, W. J., Gerace, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006b). Question driven instruction: Teaching science
(w ell) w ith an aud ience res pons e syst em. In Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases, pp. 96115.
IGI Glo bal. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59140-947-2.ch007
Einum, E. (2019). Discursive lecturing: an agile and student-centred teaching approach with response technology.
Jou rnal of Educatio nal Change , 20(2), p p. 249281. DOI: 10.1007/s10833-019-09341-7
Heaslip G., Dono van, P. & Cullen, J. G. (2014). Student response systems and learner en gagement in large classes.
Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), pp. 11-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.006
Nielsen, K. J. et.al. (2014): How the Initial Thinking Period Affects Student Argumentation During Peer Instruction:
Stud ent s' Ex perien ces Vers us Ob servations. Studies in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2014.915300
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L.A., deJong, T., van Riesen, S.A.N., Kamp, E.T., Manoli, C.C., Zacharia, Z.C.
&Tsourlidakid, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learn ing: Defin it ions and t he in quiry cycle. E ducational Researc h Review,
2015 Pages 47-61. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 13 OF 60
Thorseth, T. M.; Mellingter, M. (2015): Response technology used to build self-regulated learn ers. Proceedings from
Inted2015. htt ps: //library.iated .org/view/THORSETH2015RES
Game-based learning
In game-based learning, a learning tas k is red esigned to make it more en gaging, meaningful, and more effective for
learners. Reports show that 99% of boys and 94% of girls play video games (Lenhart et al., 2008) that has shifted
researchers’ and educators’ persp ective on the use of d igital games fo r education. Different genres o f games can be
used, to name just a few massively multiplayer online, sandbox, role-playing, simulation and sports, puzzlers and
action -adventure.
Careful balan ce must be observed in the design process of games for educational use between the learning outcomes
and the play (Plass, Perlin, & Nordlinger, 2010). If the focus is too much on the learning objectives the game is at risk
of being experien ced more like another exercise fro m a textbo ok rather than like an accrual game. W hereas, if the
gam e does not facili tate learni ng an d it can ’t b e measured that’s not an educational game.
Game-based learning can be used to:
Learning New Knowledge and Skills
Practicing and Reinforcing Existing Knowledge and Skills
Developing Learning and Innovation Skills
Ad vantag es of usin g Game-based learning are as follows:
1. Motivation al aspects (K apur, 2008; Kapur & Kinzer, 2009; Kapur & Bielaczyc, 2012; Plass et al., 2010; Plass
et al., 2015; Steinkuehler & Squire, 2014).
2. Co gnitiv e aspect s (A ndersen , 2012; A zeved o, Cromley, M oo s, Green e, & 16 J. Plas s, B. Homer, R. Mayer,
and C. K inzer Winters, 2011; Domagk, Schw artz & Plass, 2010; K oedinger, 2001; Mayer, 2009, 2014; Plass,
Chun, Mayer, & Leutner, 2003; Plas s, O’ Keefe, et al., 2013).
3. Affective aspects (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Konradt, Filip, & Hoffmann, 2003; Plass & K aplan, 2016).
4. Socio-cult ural asp ects ( Squire, 2006).
Having listed all the advantages, it is important now to understand the limitations of th e game-based le arni ng ap proach.
Starting with t he gam es th emselves: what games can you use in g ame-based learning?
Commerci al games are th e first to come to mind . Th ese are the g ames created for entert ainm ent p urpo ses. From the
methodological point of view, educators will encounter such issues as the need to adapt the game content to their
teachin g, worst case scenario th ey will have to adapt their teaching to fit the game content, i.e. design ing learning
acti vities b ased on the g ame con tent (Rankin et al. 2006, Scholz 2016, Peterso n 2012a).
Problems with security, confidentiality and possible complaints that educators might get from the parents in relation
to the usage of commercial games in the classroom is another issue. It is worthy to consider the fact that most
educators are not gamers and are not going to be familiar with the gameplay, meaning when implementing game-
based learning you have to consider the amount of time you are going to spend on teacher training. Technical issues
in clude fi rst and foremos t adequate t echni cal/t echnological kn owled ge, b ut als o po werful com puters are required to
run th ese gam es. Sp eaking o f law, commercial g ames are co pyrigh t pro tected .
So-cal led ‘seri ous g ames’ a re usually des ign ed to solve a particular problem in a particular organization, meaning they
do not possess the full functionality of OER, they might not fit other educational contexts. Another issue could arise
with the use of mobile games: some of them are made for android and some for IOSit’s relatively impossible to
guarant ee that all the s tudent s w ill have t he same o perat ing sys tems on their p hones. Onlin e tools & apps li ke Duolingo,
Lingo Deer etc., focus on developing a specific skill and lack th e systematic ap proach (Pegrum 2014, St anley 2013,
Sykes & Reinhardt 2012) .
One of the examples of Game-based learning approaches is quest-based learnin g. Quest-Based Learning is a
transformative, 21st-cen tury typ e of learni ng t hat i ntegrates educat ional p rinciples and g ame des ign int o a d ialogue. It
is designed to focus on deep exploration of content through design thinking and play. It relies on virtual reality to
pro duce an immers ive experience t hat g reatly con trib utes t o learn ers’ m otivati on for learn ing .
References
And ersen, E. ( 2012, May). Optimizing adaptivity in educatio nal games. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the
Fou ndations of Digital Games (pp. 279281). ACM.
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 14 OF 60
Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., & Winters, F. I. (2011). Adaptive content and process
scaffolding: A key to facilitating students’ self-regulated learning with hyp ermedia. Psychological Test and Assessment
Modeling, 53(1), 106140.
Domagk, S., Schwartz, R., & Plass, J. L. (2010). Interactivity in multimedia learning: An integrated model. Computers
in Human Behav ior, 26(5), 10241033. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.003
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action
repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19(3), 313332.
Kapur, M. (2008). Prod uctive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379424.
Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Desi gni ng fo r pro ductive failure. Jou rnal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 4583.
Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Col laborati ve Learni ng, 4(1), 2146.
Koedinger, K. R. (2001, December). Cognitive tutors as modeling tools and instructional models. In S mar t m ac hines in
education (pp. 145167). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Konradt, U., Filip, R., & Hoffmann, S. (2003). Flo w experience an d p ositi ve affect d uring h ypermedia learning. Br i tish
Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 309327.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedi a learn ing (2nd ed. ). New Yo rk, NY : Camb ridge Uni versit y Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Computer games for learning: An evidence-base d approach. Cambri d ge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Estrella, G. (2014). Benefits of emotional d esign in multimedia instruction. Learning and Instruction, 33,
1218.
Pegrum, M. (2014). M obile learn ing: Langu ages, lite racies, and c ulture s. Lond on, UK : Palgrave M acmillan.
Peterson, M. (2012a). Language learner interaction in a massively multiplayer online role-playing 517 games. In H.
Rein ders (Ed .), Digital games in langu age le arning an d teachin g (pp. 7092).
Plass, J. L., & Kaplan, U. (2016). Emotional design in digital med ia for learning . I n S. T etteg ah & M. Gartmei er (Eds.),
Emotions, technology, design, and learning (pp. 131161). New Yo rk, NY: E lsevier.
Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with
multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 221243.
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. E ducational Psyc hologist, 50(4),
258283.
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Kinzer, C. K., Chang, Y. K., Frye, J., Kaczetow, W ., Perlin, K. (2013). Metrics in simulations
and games for learning. In A. Drachen, M.S. El-Nasr, & A. Canossa (Eds.), Game analytic s (p p. 697729). N ew Y ork,
NY : Sprin ger.
Plass, J. L., Perlin, K., & Nordlinger, J. (2010). The Games for Learning Institute: Research on design patterns for
effective educat ion al gam es. Paper presented at the Game Developers Conference, San Francisco, CA, March 913.
Rankin, Y., Gold, R., & Gooch, B. (2006). 3D role-playing game as language learning tools. Eurographic s, 25(3), 16.
Scholz, K. (2016). Online digital game-based language learning environments: Opportunities for second language
development. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Waterloo.
Squire, K. ( 2006) . From cont ent t o con text : Vid eog ames as desi gned experi ence. Educ ational Re searc her, 35(8), 1929.
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X035008019
Stanley, G. (2013). Language learning with technology: Ideas for integrating technology in the classroom. Ca mbri dge , UK : Cam bridge
Univers ity Pres s.
Steinkuehler, C., & Squire, K. (2014). Videogames an d learni ng. In R. Saw yer (E d.), The Cambridge handbook o f the learning
sciences (pp. 377394). N ew Yo rk, N Y: Cambri dge Uni versit y Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139519526.023
Sykes , J., & Reinh ard t, J. (2012). Lan guage at pl ay: Digi tal games i n sec ond and f orei gn lan guage teaching an d learn ing. N ew York,
NY: Pearson.
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 15 OF 60
Inquiry-based learning
Inquiry-b ased learning is p rimaril y a pedago gical meth od , devel oped d uring t he di scovery learn ing movem ent o f the
1960s as a response to traditional forms of instruction (Bruner, 1961) and its philosophy is rooted in constructivist
learning theories. In fact, Inquiry-based learning is an effective instructional strategy that can be in the form of a
problem or task for triggering student engagement (Hwang, Chiu, & Chen, 2015). It enables students to be more
reflective, self-regulated investigators who are capable of justifying their own learning processes and viewing inquiry
pro cesses as a way to kn ow the w orld (Wind sch itl, 20 00). Savery ( 2006) descri bes i nquiry-b ased learning as “a stud ent-
centered, active learning ap proach focused on question ing, critical thinking, and problem solving. Inquiry-based
learning activities begin with a question followed by investigating solutions, creating new knowledge as information is
gat hered and und erstoo d, di scus sing d iscoveries and experien ces, an d reflect ing on n ew-found kno wledge” (p. 16) .
In inquiry-based learning students take the role of s cien tists or research ers and are positioned as masters of certain
science on authentic inquiry activities. The activities that are included in this learning are formulating questions,
des igning informative investigations, analyzing patterns, drawing inference, accessing evidence in respondin g to the
questions, formulating explanations from evidence, connecting explanations to knowledge and communicating and
justifying claims and explanation. Moreover, there are 5 steps in conducting inquiry-bas ed learning (Mayer, 2004) :
En gagement w ith a sci enti fic quest ion, ev ent or p henomena co nnected with their curren t know led ge, though
at odds with their own ideas which motivates them to learn more.
Exploration of ideas through hands-on experiences, formulating and testing hypotheses, problem solving
and explaining observations.
Analysis and interpretation of data, idea synthesis, model building and clarification of concepts and
explanations with scien tific knowledg e sources (in cludi ng teach ers)
Extension of new understanding and abilities and application of learning to new situations (transfer)
Review an d A sses sment o f what t hey hav e learned and how t hey hav e learned it (met acogn iti on ).
Literature presen ts a variety of inquiry-based learning models and frameworks. A recent one is the inquiry-b a sed
learning framework proposed by Pedaste et al. (2015) which broadly reflects a contemporary view of inquiry-b ased
learning. It is d erived from a s ystem atic review of inquiry-based learni ng framew orks fo und in t he educati on al research
lit erature (review o f 60 research pap ers) and is an at temp t to cover many di fferent impl ementations of in quiry-b ased
learning. It consists of five general phases (0rientation, conceptualization, investigatio n, conclusion , discussion) and
nine sub-phases for inquiry-bas ed learni ng an d it co uld b e applied wid ely in design ing inqui ry cycles in the con text of
both virtual and real-world environments.
To sum up , the value of inquiry-based learning approaches has long been recognized in education and they still
continue to intrigue the interest of educators as they support an interactive, student-driven proces s, wh ere kno wledge
is constructed rather than transmitted.
References
Bruner, J. S. (1961). “ The act of discovery”. Harvard Educational Review 31 ( 1): 2132.
Hwang, G. J., Chiu, L. Y., & Chen, C. H. (2015). A contextual game-based learning approach to improving students
inquiry-based learning performance in social studies courses. Computers and Education, 81, 1325. DOI:
10.1016/j.compedu.2014.09.006
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases
of inquiry-b ased learn ing: Def init ions and t he in quiry cycle. Educ ation al research re view, 14, 47-61.
Mayer, R. E. ( 2004) . Sho uld T here Be a T hree-Stri kes Rule A gain st Pure Dis covery Learn ing ? American Psycho logist,
Vol 59( 1), Jan 2004, 14-19. A ccessed at https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2004-10043-002.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Problem-Based Learnin g, 1 (1), 9-20.
Windschitl, M. (2000). Supporting the development of science inquiry skills with special classes of software.
Ed ucation al Tech nology Research & Dev elop ment, 48(2 ), 81-95.
Eclecticism
Choosing an appropriate method for one’s teaching practice in the current abundance of methods, approaches and
techniques is one of the most pressing issues for those working in the field of language teaching.
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 16 OF 60
Ecl ecticis m is a lab el giv en to an ed ucator’ s use of techniques and activities from various language teaching approaches
and methodologies. The educator determines what methodology or approach to use depending on the learning
ob jecti ves of th e less on, the languag e prof iciency level of t he learn ers, their motivation and the ratio of classroom size.
Most of the textbooks currently in use have a mixture of methodologies and approaches (Raschevskaya, 2017).
Eclecticism in education should not be viewed as a destructive force, it is rather obvious that no si ng le met hodology
could meet all teaching and learning needs, and they all have some weaknesses and some strengths. This method can
even be con sid ered d emocrat ic (Taron e & Y ule, 1989) sin ce it prov ides an op po rtunity t o th e educat or fo r selection,
and it has a great potential of tailoring the provided resources to their specific teaching situation.
Therefore, rather than depending on a single set of procedures, eclecticism made it possible to adapt one’s approach
using this flexibility to the benefit of learners (Çiçek, 2015; Kumar, 2013), implementing the information in a real
con text in p roper time (Li , 2012), whi le at th e s ame tim e b eing g uided by a n umber o f 'macro strat egies' (I scan, 20 17).
Irwandi Irwandi proposes five strategies for applying eclectic methods: providing meaningful learning activities,
finding eclectic features in various language teaching methods, applying contextual learning, giving various
assignments, and providing differentiated feedback (Irwandi Irwandi, 2020).
Ex tens ive research has been conducted on the use of the eclectic method in the classroom: Siddiqui (2012) has found
th at betw een th e direct , com mun icative and ecl ectic ap proaches educat ors tend t o choos e the latt er because it pro vides
flexibility and freedom; Ubeid (2013) demonstrated how reading skills and vocabulary knowledge of the students can
be imp roved throug h t he usage o f the s elective stud ying method; Rekha ( 2014) , d escrib ed h ow the us e of the ecl ectic
metho d h ad d eveloped learners ’ read ing , lis tening co mprehension, pronunciation skills; Suleman and Hussain (2016),
sp ecified how acad emic ach ievemen ts o f En glish learn ers h ad b een in creased d ue to the us e o f the ecl ectic approach.
Despite all the above mentioned , there exist certain disadvantages to the eclectic approach . It is easy to imagin e a
situation when each educator chooses a method that suits them that can potentially lead to confusion. It is especially
relevant to the universities with a big number of educators. Think about the learners switching from one educat or to
ano t h er, s w i t c h ing t h e m et h o dol o gie s at t h e s a m e t ime. I t s ch a o t ic ( M em iş & E r d em, 2013) .
References
Çiçek, Y. (2015) . Method Problem i n Foreig n Lan guage T eaching. Inter nation al Journal of Languages' Education and Teaching,
UDES 2015, 2774-2787.
Irwandi, Irwandi. (2020). Implementing Eclectic Method for ELT through Distance Learning during the Covid-19
Pandemic. Educatio. 15. 31-43. DOI: 10.29408/edc.v15i2.2799.
Iscan, A. (2017). The Use of Eclectic Method in Teaching Turkish to Foreign Students. Jo urnal of Education and Pr actice,
Vol. 8. p p. 149-153.
Kum ar ( 2013). Th e E clectic Metho d- Theory and Its Application to the Learning of English, International Journal of
Scientific and Research Publ ications, 3(6), 1-4.
Li, W enjing. (20 12). An Eclect ic Method o f Coll ege English Teaching. Jo urnal of Langu age Teaching and Re search. 3. DOI:
10.4304/jltr.3.1.166-171.
Memiş, M. R. & Erdem, M. D. (2013). Methods used in foreign lan guage teaching, their us age characteristics and
criticisms. Tu rkish Studies, 8 (9), 297-318.
Raschevskaya, Elena/Ращевская Елена Петров на (2017). Eclectic approach to teaching grammar in Russian as a
foreign language course/Эклектический подход к преподаванию грамматики в курсе русского языка как
иностранного. Universum: филология и искусствоведение, (2 (36)), 51-55.
Rekh a ( 2014). E ffect o f E clectic M etho d o n Read ing Ability amo ng Primary Sch ool Dyslex ic Chi ldren . GHG Journal
of Six th Tho ugh, 1 ( 1), 13-16
Sid diqui, M . M. (2 012). A Comparative Study o f D irect, Com municativ e and Eclectic Ap pro aches in Teach ing ESL.
LITSEARCH, 2 (1), 8-12
Suleman Q., Hussain I., (2016). Effects of Eclectic Learning Approach on Students' Academic Achievement and
Reten tio n in En glish at El ementary Level. Jour nal o f Educ ation and P ractic e, 7(16).
Tarone, E., Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the language learner: Approaches to identifying and meeting the needs of second language learners.
Oxfo rd: Ox ford University Press. 153pp
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 17 OF 60
Ubeid , A. (20 13). T he Effect o f Ecl ectic Teach ing Strat egies Util izi ng Briti sh Poetry in Develo ping St uden ts ' Reading
Proficiencies in English Language. Paper presented in The European Conference on Education.
The lexical approach
The concept of the Lexical Approach is based on the idea of lexical chunks and collocations, which are sometimes
included in the term. It has been argued that fluency does not depend so much on the grammar skills as on the quick
access to their repertoire of lexical chunks (Ilyas, 2013), giving lexis the central role in meaning-making. However,
lexis and grammar are very closely related, and grammar through this approach can be studied in patterns (Chan
Beltrán, 2016).
The Lexical approach has been connect ed wi th “ not icing”. Not icing is a comp lex p rocess , as des cribed by Bats tone
(1996): it involves identifying simultaneously the form, meaning and use in order to understand the underlying rule.
Noticing alone is not enough (Thornbury, 1997; Lewis, 2000) and it serves as a first step in the process of synthesizing
th e lexical in formati on, then comes retrieval an d creati ve use.
To further develop the learner's vocabulary competence through the ways of the Lexical approach, collocation
dictionaries, concordance programs, chunk-for-chunk translation activities, and corpus-based activities can be used
(Sewbihon-Getie, 2021).
References
Chacón Beltrán, R. (2016). The Lexical Approach in grammar checking. How can students improve their writing?.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32754.09925.
Batstone, R. (1996). Key Concepts in ELT: Noticing. ELT Jou rnal 50(3), 273.
Ilyas, O. A. (2013). Incorporating the Lexical Approach into the Task-based. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.43361.
Lewis, M. (2000). Language in the lexical approach. In Teaching C ollo cation: Fur ther De velopments in the Lex ical A pproach,
Michael Lewis (ed. ), 126-154. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Sewbihon-Getie, A . (2021). Th e Effectivenes s o f Usin g the Lexical A pproach to Developing Ethiopian EFL Learners’
Vo cabulary Com peten ce. HOW Journal, 28(1), 69-93. DOI: 10.19183/how.28.1.586
Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: tasks that promote 'noticing'. ELT Journal 51(4), 326-334.
Content-based language learning
Content-based language learning refers to an approach to second language teaching in which the focus is on the
content or information that students will acquire, rather than on the language its elf. Us ing meani ngful cont ent as the
basis of lessons provides students with the opportunity to come in contact with a larger, more diverse, academic
vocabulary and registers than is the case of regular classes (Lightbown, 2014; Rukmini, 2017).
Another major advantage that integration of subject matter in the language classroom can give is the development of
con tent li teracy sk ills , wh ich can help stud ents access and und erstand more co mpl ex text s an d b e a gatew ay to deep er
learning (Zhong & Tan & Peng, 2019; Genç, 2021). Rich language expos ure, authentic language input are good
hummus for the student-cen tered l earning enviro nment, s ince th e learning about the t op ic and the d iscus si on is in the
target language (Sorani & Tamponi, 1992; Aprianto, 2020).
Content-based language learning has also been connected to the development of students’ critical thinking skills, by
introducing them to various perspectives on a topic and analyzing multiple sources (Fahad, 2016; Karim, & Rahman,
2016).
References
Aprianto, Dedi. (2020). To What Extent Does YouTube Contents-Based Language Learning Promote an English
Proficiency?. Journal of English Language Teaching and Literature (JELTL). 3. 108-126. DOI: 10.47080/jeltl.v3i2.994.
Chang, Peichin & Tsai, Chin-Chung & Chen, Pin-ju. (2019). Organization Strategies in EFL Expository Ess ays in a
Content-Based Language Learning Course. Th e Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 29. DOI: 10.1007/s40299-019-
00464-2.
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 18 OF 60
Fah ad , Ah med . ( 2016). Us ing C onte nt-Based Language Instruction Models in College ESL Classrooms. Ohio TESOL
Journal. 14-15. Focus on Content-Based Language Teach in g - Oxford Key Concepts for the Language Classroom.
Patsy M . Lig htbow n. Oxford University Press , 2014.
Gen ç, Züb eyde. (2021) . Con tent -Bas ed Lan guage Teachi ng. DOI : 10.1007/978-3-030-79143-8_5.
Karim, Abdul & Rahman, Mohammad. (2016). Revisiting the Content-Based Instruction in Language Teaching in
relatio n with CLIL: Implementation and Outcome. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature.
5. 254-264. DOI: 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.7p.254.
Rukmini, S. (2017). Con tent-based language learning and communicative approach to English language teaching for
technology and management courses: Integration and implications. IUP Journal of English Studies. 12. 84-88.
Sorani, D., & Tamponi, A. (1992). A Cognitive Approach to Content-Based Instruction. In English Teaching Forum
30 (2): 6-9.
Zhong, Yong & Tan, Honghui & Peng, Yi. (2019). Curriculum 2.0 and student content-based language pedagogy.
Syst em. 84 . DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2019.06.001.
Project-based language learning
Project-based learning is a teaching method in which students gain knowledge and skills by working for a prolonged
period of time towards exploring and responding to an engaging and complicated question or problem. Project-based
learning pedagogy comprises a set of key elements: a challenging problem or question, sustained inquiry, authenticity,
st udent vo ice and ch oice, reflection, critique and revision, and public project (Larmer & Mergendoller, 2012; Larmer,
Merg endoller, & B oss , 2015 ). Pro ject-based learning can be applied in digital language teaching by using a variety of
digital tools for exploration, collaborative work, prod uction and sharing of a public digital artifact.
References
Larmer, J., & Mergen doller, J. R. ( 2012) . Th e main co urse, no t des sert: Ho w are studen ts reachi ng 21 st cen tury go als
wi th 21 st cen tury pro jects . Buc k Institute for Educ ation.
Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Boss, S. (2015). Setti ng the standard for proje ct base d learn ing. A SCD.
Problem-based language learning
Problem-based learning (PBL) is a type of student-centered educatio nal approach where students learn a top ic via
their experience in solving open-ended pro blems. In PB L, elemen ts o f act ive, in teractive, and coll aborati ve learning
are incorporated to allow teachers to observe their students’ learning process (Donnelly, 2006). PBL is a student-
driven process that uses a bottom-up approach to bring the students from a problem to the theory (Abdullah et al.,
2019). Sevilla-Pavon (2017) proposes the following steps for the process: (1) a problem is introduced to the students,
(2) students find and analyze information from different sources, (3) students come to the problem and try to solve it
by applying the autonomously acquired knowledge. In order to solve a problem, students work collaboratively using
multiple tools. In online and blended learning environments, Web 2.0 tools can be employed to enhance teamwork,
independent learning, communication skills, problem-solving skills, interdisciplinary learning, information-mining
skills (Tan, 2003) .
References
Abdullah, J., MohdIsa, W. & Samsudin, M. (2019). Virtual reality to improve group work skill and selfdirected
learning in problembased learning narratives . Virtual Reality, 23, 461-471. DOI: 10.1007/s10055-019-00381-1
Donnelly, R. (2006). Blended problembased learning for teacher education: lessons learnt. Learning, Media and
Technology, 31 (2) , 93-116. DOI: 10.1080/17439880600756621
Sevilla-Pavón, A. (2017). Implementing Technology-Supported Problem-Based Learning in a Context of English for
Specific Purposes. In L. Torres Zúñiga and T. Schmidt (Eds.) New M ethodo lo gical Appro aches to Fo reign Teaching ( p p. 1 67-
186). Cambrid ge: Camb rid ge Scholars Publishing.
Tan, O.S. ( 2003). Problem-Based Learning Innovation: Using Problems to Power Learning in the 21st Century. Si ngapur: Gale.
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 19 OF 60
A.4. Review of training methods and techniques
In this part, we outline different training methods and techniques that can be used for teacher training, targeting
language teachers and their d igital competences (see Figure 4). The review focuses on recent learning theories and
contemporary teaching approaches that align with the field of Computer-assisted language learning (CALL). The
review also expands on a narrative review of learning theories and teaching methodologies (Parmaxi et al. 2021, DOI:
10.1007/978-3-030-77889-7_9) that can be used for designing training activities in online or blended format for
lan guage t eachers.
Short Lecture
One of the most common methods that are valued in training programs is lectures (Safari, Yazdanpanah, Ghafarian,
& Yaz danpan ah, 2006). A lecture is a t radition al teach ing meth od w hich can b e useful i n certai n circumst ances. For
example, when one needs to present conceptual knowledge and large amounts of information (Charlton, 2006) to big
gro ups of l earners. How ever, d ue to t he dis advan tages o f lectures that lie in the inactiveness of learners and one-way
communication (Nowroozi, Mohsenizadeh, Jafari, & Ebrahimzadeh, 2011), they have been challenged for their
effectiveness as a training method . Since lectures are one of the least en gaging training techn iques, in the planned
workshops, short lectures will only be used to introduce the topic to the participants and to set the scene for the
worksho p’s activities.
References
Charlton, B. G. (2006). Lectures are such an effective teaching method because they exploit evolved human
psychology to improve learning.
Nowroozi, H. M., Mohsenizadeh, S. M., Jafari, S. H., & Ebrahimzadeh, S. (2011). The effect of teaching using a
blend of collaborative and mastery of learning models, on learning of vital signs: An experiment on nursing and
operation room students of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences.
Safari, M., Y azdan panah, B., Ghafarian, H. R., & Yazdanpanah, S. (2006). Comparing the effect of lecture and
discussion methods on Students learning and satisfaction. Iranian journal of medic al edu cati on , 6(1), 59-64.
Sharing experiences
Another common method that is valued in training programs is sharing experiences. This method can be understood
as a s ocial activi ty in which t he particip ants share t heir p erso nal experien ces to learn of each other. The most common
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 20 OF 60
way to share an experience is through discussions. Technologies have made it possible to share experiences through
other means such as in collaborative writing, forums, or social platforms.
References
Neutszky-Wulff, C., Rosthøj, S., Harker-Schuch, I., Chuang, V. J., Bregnhøj, H., Henriksen, C. B., & May, M. (2016).
A p edagog ical d esign p attern framew ork fo r sharing ex periences and enhan cing com mun ities o f practi ce wit hi n o nline
and blended learning. Tids skriftet Læring Og Me dier (LOM), 9(16). DOI: 10.7146/lom.v9i16.24414
Demo
A demonstration is a quite common way to start a lecture, a project, a workshop or a laboratory work. A demonstration
indicates that the lecturer/presenter introduces a new element for the group, in order to show how it is used, which
features are involved or similar. The demonstration is intended to enable the students to use what is demonstrated in
the rest of their work for that period. Often demonstrations are reduced to being common in practical and/or
esthetique subjects, but one can, as Matt McLain (2021) do, argue that demonstration might be a signature pedagogy
also in other subjects.
References
McLain, M. (2021). Developing perspectives o n “the d emonstrat ion” as a sign ature p edag og y in d esign and t echnology
education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 31, 3-26 DOI: 10.1007/s10798-019-09545-1
Collaborative work in small groups
The socio -co nstructivist an d cult ural pers pecti ves cons ider t hat l earnin g is a res ult of th e i nteract ion betw een p eople
and the environment. This social process grounds collaborative work (Herrera-Pavo, 2021) . Collaborative w o rk has a
great potential as a training method. This method involves uniting participants into small groups for completing a task
together (Hübs cher, 2010). I n her guide for d esign and delivery of professional development through collaborative
wo rk, Lee (2010) proposes seven principles that can be applied when working in small groups in training programs.
These principles include: (1) Establishing a shared vision, (2) Creating a community, (3) Capitalizing on similarities
and di fferences , (4) Build ing on expertise, (5) Es tablishing collaborative relation ships, (6) Developing and maintaining
professional networks, and (7) Linking collaboration to learning.
References
Herrera-Pavo, M.A. (2021). Collaborative learning for virtual higher education. Learning, Culture and S ocial Interaction,
28. DOI: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100437
bscher, R. (2010). Assigning Students to Groups Using General and Context-Specific C riteria. IEEE Transactions
on Learning Technologies, vol. 3, no . 3, pp. 178-189, July-Sept. 2010, DOI : 10.1109/TLT.2010.17.
Lee, M.H. (2010). 7 Principles of Highly Collaborative PD. Science an d Childre n, 47 (9) : 28-31.
Presentations
Presen tation s are widely used in training programs now adays. If delivered effectively, presen tations con stitute a
successful tool for the communication of information to the trainees. In order to be effective, presentations should
be clear an d well-organized, having a clear outline at the beginning. The presenter needs to inspire the audience, and
th ere s houl d be a bal ance betw een th e speak er talking and the audience interacting. The content of the presentation
must be motivating and allow the audience to relate to it. Another important parameter is the enrichment of the
presentation with practical applications, so that it is easier for the audience to understand and relate to the information
presented (Tanika, V utova, Yamauch i & Tan aka, 2016) .
References
Tanioka, T., K. Vutova, M. Yamauchi, Tanaka, T. (2016). Training Students using presentations at meetings in the
fiel d of p hys ics, en gin eering and techno logies. J. Elec trotechnic a and Ele ctronica, 51(5-6), 309-314.
Case study
Case study is a method that helps the students to develop language skills by solving a real-life problem or by studying
existing best practices of solving it. This method is an example of Task-Based Learnin g.
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 21 OF 60
The practical nature of the case study method may boost students’ interest in the topic and, therefore, positively
impact their motivation to learn. The method is suitable for the audience that has some prior subject knowledge, as
well as a certain level of language skills, and can benefit from the applied nature of the method. Case study is a low-
cost teaching method that allows training numerous students at the same time. It gives learners the opportunity to
work with authentic materials in the same way that th ey would d o it in real life.
References
Brat tseva E. F., K ovalev P. ( 2015) . Th e power o f case stud y method in dev eloping academic skills in teaching Business
English. Liberal Arts in Russia. 4(3).
Sampath D., Zalipour A. (2009). Practical Approaches to the Teaching of Business English. P roceedin gs of the 2nd
International Conference of Teaching and Learning. I NTI Un iversity Coll ege, Malays ia.
Strel chon ok A ., Lud viga I. (2013 ). The use o f case s tudi es in th e Busin ess Eng lis h language t eaching. CB U Inter national
Conference Proceedings 1:144
Simulation
Computer simulations have long taken a firm place among learning technologies. According to Landriscina (2013),
simulations are computer programs aiming at modeling complex systems’ behaviors. They allow a learner to explore
a syst em in a con trol led w ay to bet ter und erst and how i ts co mponents interact, an d how altern ate decisions can affect
desired outcomes. Instructional strategies employ simulation as a tool that can facilitate the progression of students’
men tal mo dels and is p articul arly effecti ve w hen l earnin g go als requi re a con ceptual chang e (Buckl ey, 2 012).
In languag e learnin g, simulation is often intertwined with cultural context and role playing. Michelson & Petit (2017)
use th e term global simul atio n t o describe p edag og ical scen ario s, wh ere learners t ake roles o f ficti tious ch aracters and
interact with each other in a simulated, yet realistic en viro nm ent. Acco rding to Mich elson & Petit ( 2017), t hi s approach
brings social and cultural situatedness of language choices based on identity and sociocultural contexts.
Computer simulations are often a key elemen t in digital games. Such simulation games present p layers with realistic
simulations of diverse real-world activities such as those encountered in sports, business or everyday life (Peterson
2021). Research find ing s indicat e that s imul ation games s upport lan guage develo pment in second lan guage acquis ition,
and benefit vocabulary learning with repetitive exposure to language input and real-world problem-based scenarios
(Peterson, 2021).
Torre et al. (2016) explore the use of simulation in CALL teacher training, arguing that simulation supports
experimental training (rather than awareness-rising) and allows practice with comp lex and realistic situations.
Simulat ion s are often implemen ted usi ng 3D graph ics with v arious d egrees o f immersion , deliv ered on des ktop screens
and virtual reality devices. The us ers of such immersive simulations often react to the virtual experience in the same
way as to the same situation in a real world. This feature of immersive simulation allows, for example, to train pre-
service teachers or in-service teachers to cope w ith embarrassing problem situations d uring class, as described by
(Yan g et al. 2021).
References
Landriscina, F. (2013). S imul ation and l earning. Springer.
Buckley, B. C. (2012a). Model-based learning. In N. Seel (Ed.), En cyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 23002303).
New Y ork: Springer.
Michelson, K., & Petit, E. (2017). Becoming social actors: Designing a global simulation curriculum for situated
language and culture learning. In S. Dubreil & S. Thorne (Eds.), En gaging the world: So cial pe dagogies and lan guage l earning
(pp . 138167). Boston, MA: Cengage.
Peterson, M. (2021). Digital simulation games in CALL: a research review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-24.
DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2021.1954954
Torre, I., Torsani, S., & Mercurio, M. (2016). Simulation-Based CALL Teacher T raini ng, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-
319-45153-4_86
Yang, E., Kim, C., & Ryu, J. (2021). Work-inProgress-Effects of Interactive Conversation On In-Service Teacher
Experience in Classroom Simulation for Teacher Training. Paper presented at the 2021 7th International Conference
of t he I mmersive Learn ing Research N etwo rk (iLRN). DOI: 10.23919/iLRN52045.2021.9459359
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 22 OF 60
Group discussions
Group discussion as a method of learning implies multiple communicative activities among a teacher and students, or
among students. It enhances s tudents’ speaking and/or writing skills, as well as critical thinkin g and problem-solving.
The discussion may be based on a written text or a particular idea, problem or topic. Participants are actively involved
in brainstorming, idea exchange, and reflection on their own ideas.
The method of group discussion may be used both in synchronous learning in face-to-face or b lend ed mod e, and in
asynchronous learning via Instant Messaging or Social Networks (Zainal, 2011).
References
Zainal A. (2011). The use of Instant Messaging (IM) in Group discussion in Language Learning Environment. 2nd
International Conference on Education & Educational Psychology ICEEPSY 2011. I stanbul, Turkey.
Syafyahya L., Yades E. (2021) Small Group Discussion and Discovery Learning in Indonesian Course Learning.
Proceedings of the 3rd In ternational Conference on E ducational Development and Quality Assurance (ICED-QA
2020). Advan ces in S ocial S cience, Edu cation and H umanities Res earch, v olume 506.
Hariz aj M. ( 2015). Discussion as an Active Learning in EFL. Eur opean Sc ientifi c Jo urnal. 11(16).
Reflective journals
Reflectiv e practi ce is “t he develo pmen t of in sight an d practice th rough criti cal att ention to p ractical val ues, theo ries,
principles, assumptions and the relationship between theory and practice which inform everyday actions” (Bolton &
Deld erfield , 2018, p. xx iii) . Referring to t he impo rtance of reflectio n, Pros ser and Trigwell (1999 ) and Ramsden ( 2003)
st ressed the sign ifican ce of prom oting deep thinking and learnin g w hile reflectin g. A ccordi ng to Prosser and Trigwell
(1999), there are deep and surface approaches to learning; a deep approach to learning involves understanding ideas
and seeking meanings. Learners adopt this approach to learning when they are motivated and interested in the task
th ey are en gaged , when they rel ate th e task to t heir o wn exp erience, wh en they carry out the t ask us ing th eir awareness,
when they can combine the parts of the task to form a whole, when they are capable of forming hypotheses, etc.
Gen erally, t he autho rs suggest ed t hat deep learning o ccurs where th ere is mean ing an d und erstanding . Ramsden ( 2003)
agreed that deep thinking and learning occur when there is a focus on meaning, and when learners relate what they
learn t o wh at th ey alread y kn ow and their everyd ay l ife.
Reflective journal writing can create cognitive aw areness in considering previous actions and builds confidence by
placing value on trainees’ opinions, views and thoughts. Reflective journals can serve as self-assessment tools and can
constitute an opportunity with the trainees to have a dialogue with themselves through which development occurs
(Lind roth, 2015) .
References
Bolton, G. & Delderfield, R. (2018). Reflec tive Practice: W riting and Professional Development. London: Sage.
Lindroth, J. T. (2015). Reflective Journals: A Review of Literature. Update, 34(1), 6672. DOI:
10.1177/8755123314548046
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education.
Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Ramsden, P. ( 2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2n d ed.) . New Yo rk: Ro utledge Falm er.
Further reading
Furth er read in gs are commonly part of training programs, workshops, or lectures. They are included as a section
wh ere t he read er is provid ed w ith referen ces th at th e train er co nsiders useful t o expan d the t rainees ’ kn owledge and
to add more information on a certain topic. The list provided by the trainer may not be essential, but it should be
interpreted as expository or illustrative of the topic so that the trainees can extend their learning beyond the training
program.
Micro-teaching
Micro-t eachin g refers to t he co mmo n practice of havin g pro sp ective t eachers o r pract icing teachers teach a lesson to
their peers in order to gain experience with the processes of lesson planning and delivery. It is an opportunity for
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 23 OF 60
teachers to practice in an instructional s etting where the ch allenges are limited and w here constructive feedback is
provided (Benton-Kupper, 2001). This way trainees understand the value of planning and how it influences the
effectiveness of the lesson . Micro-teaching becomes even more effective if th e process is follo wed b y reflection on
th e who le exp erience.
References
Benton-K upp er, J. ( 2001) . The Microt eachin g E xperi ence: St udent Persp ectives . In Education, 121(4), p. 830.
Role play
Ro le p layin g is a wi dely us ed and ef fective learn ing and teach ing meth od . It implies an active behavior in accordance
with a specific role (Craciun, 2010). Role-playing techniques are used as a tool in many contexts and disciplines
including research, therapy, organizational change and education. The aim of role play is generally characterized as a
method to approximate real-life ex perien ces in certain set tin gs ( Yard ley-Matw iejczuk, 1997) .
The role-playing method can be implemented in educational settings without any technological support. As described
by Spen cer et al. (2 019), such t raditional classroom role-play d espit e been i mplemen ted in t he s ocial sciences fo r years,
is not well documented in the literature. Some of the findings highlight limitations of the traditional method, for
example, some students find it difficult to commit to role-play activities because of familiarity with their classmates
which may result in d iminished authenticity (Drucquer & Cavendish, 2007). Th e success of classroom ro le-pl ay has
also been shown to be dependent on students' understanding of and familiarity with the content (Hally & Randolph,
2018). Technology-supp ort ed role-playing allows to mitigate such challenges by having control of authenticity and
content knowledge on the part of the actor (Spencer et al., 2019).
Role-playing is often supported by digital games, virtual reality simulations, and other technologies and technology-
enhanced learning methods. Role-playing is a key mechanic in many digital games. Massive multiplayer online role-
playing games (MMORPGs) is one of the most popular digital game genres, and th eir pop ularity att racted considerable
attention from language researchers who reveal that certain games display qualities which align with what second
language acquisition theories deem essential for L2 learning (Yaşar, 2018). Multiple studies explored and concluded
that role-playing games facilitate and improve language skills, including, for example, learning vocabulary (Rahman &
Angraeni, 2020), sp eaking (Neupane, 2019), and licensing (Budiana, 2017).
Role playing in immersive virtual environments has been, on several occasions, reported to provide a cost-efficient
digital alternative to real-life role-plays (Lowes et al., 2013). Fo r example, it was used to provid e healthcare students
with the necessary practical experience of interaction with patients and other professionals, when the traditional
programs did not provide enough time on task (Kleven et al., 2014). Another example reports the use of role-playing
as a practical supplement to a traditional classroom course on cultural awareness in military operations (Prasolova-
Førland et al., 2013). In language learning, studies report benefits such as task immersion enabled by virtual reality
environments and important for educational role-playing, for example in training dialog skills (Fowler, 2015). In
teach er t raini ng, practi cal and coll aborati ve skills are n eeded (esp ecially, in p reservice t raining) fo r effective in teraction
wi th learners, colleag ues an d parent s (Sp encer et al., 2019) .
References
Budiana, H. (2017) Enhancing Students' Aural Communication Skill Through Role Play Technique as the Learning
Model. Journal of English Language Learning, 1(2). PDF.
Craciun, D. (2010). Role playing as a Creativ e Meth od i n Scien ce E ducat ion . Jou rnal of Science and Arts , 1(12), 175
182.
Drucquer, M. , Caven dis h, S. (2007 ) An evaluati on o f teach er-led role play for the teaching of communication skills to
general p ractice t eachers. Edu cation for Primary Care 18(2): 204212.
Fow ler, C. (2015). Virtual reality and learning: Where is the ped agogy? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2),
412-422. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12135
Hally, E., Rand olph, Z. (2018) A game of ideas: The effectiveness o f role-playing games in the political theory
classroom. Jou rnal on Excellence in College Teaching 29(2): 517.
Kleven, N. F., Prasolova-rland, E., Fomin ykh, M., Hansen, A., Rasmussen, G., Sagberg, L. M., & Lindseth, F. (2014,
Decemb er 912). Training nurses and educating the public using a virtual operating room with Oculus Rift. Paper
presented at the International Conference on Virtual Systems & Multimedia (VSMM), Hong Kong.
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 24 OF 60
Low es, S., Hamilton, G., Hochstetler, V., & Paek, S. (2013). Teaching Communication Skills to Medical Students in a
Virtual World. Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy (3), e1. Retrieved from
http ://jitp.commons.gc.cun y.edu/teaching-communication -skills-to-medical-s tudent s-in-a-virtual-world/
Neupane, B. (2019). Effectiveness of Role Play in Improving Speaking Skill. Journal of NELTA Gandaki. DOI:
10.3126/JONG.V1I0.24454
Prasolova-Førland, E., Fominykh, M., Darisiro, R., & Mørch, A. I. (2013). Training Cultural Awareness in Military
Operations in a Virtual Afghan Village: A Methodology for Scenario Development. the 46th Hawaii International
Conferen ce on System Sciences (H ICSS) , Wailea, HI, USA. D OI: 10.1109/HICSS.2013.571
Rahman, A.A., & Angraeni, A. (2020). Empowering Learners with Role-Playing Game for Vocabulary Mastery.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f Learn ing, Te achin g and Edu catio nal Research, 19. DOI: 10.26803/ijlter.19.1.4
Spencer, S., Dresch er, T. , Sears, J., Scrugg s, A. F. , & Schreffler, J. (201 9). Co mparing t he efficacy o f virt ual simulation
to traditional classroom role-play. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(7), 1772-1785. DOI:
10.1177%2F0735633119855613
Yardley-Matwiejczuk, K. M. (1997). Ro le play: Theor y and prac tice. London, UK: Sage.
Yaşar, S. (2018). The Role of Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games in Extramural Secon d Language
Learning: A Literature Review. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 1 (3), 1-10. DOI:
10.31681/jetol.436100
LA NGUAG E TEA CHER TRAI NER G UIDE ON DI GITAL COMPETENCESDC4LT CO NSORTIU M PA GE 25 OF 60
PART B: A model for language teacher
training on digital competences
B.1 About the model
Purpose
This part presents a template for describing digital competence training activities and content. The template provides
a way to select, structure an d present information on digital competence train in g. It is d esigned b y teacher trainers
and technology-enhanced learning experts to help other teacher trainers in the design and presentation of their digital
com peten ce train ing .
Backgr