Interactive Multimedia Worksheets during
COVID-19 in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Primary Classrooms: A Case
Study
CAECE University
Marina Chura and Gisele Farfán
Nelda Racig
Abstract
Liveworksheets, a
web-based tool used to make worksheets interactive, has become an important aid
for distance learning during the COVID-19. The general objective of this
research was to analyze the use of Interactive Multimedia Worksheets (IMWS) in
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) primary classrooms in the province of
Buenos Aires during the pandemic. This qualitative case study aimed at
situational understanding by means of observing samples of worksheets and
surveying and interviewing a small group of EFL teachers and student-teachers
working at the primary level with a B2-C1 command of English and teaching from
an A1 to an A2 level. Not only did the respondents perceive the tool as a
motivating, free, emergency strategy for pedagogic continuity and language
learning, but also considered it difficult to provide the opportunities for
negotiation of meaning, interaction, creative use of the language, and to
develop higher-order thinking skills. In addition, designing Liveworksheets was
found to be time-consuming and grueling.
Consequently, a framework was done so as to guide teachers when
designing interactive worksheets. Further research should test this guide to
measure its usefulness in reducing designing time.
Keywords: Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL),
English as a Foreign Language (EFL), Interactive Multimedia Worksheets (IMWS), Liveworksheets,
web-based tools
Table
of Contents
Materials,
Tools, and Techniques
Reasons for Adoption of Liveworksheets
During COVID-19
Teachers’ Opinion on
Liveworksheets after their Implementation
The Process of Selection
and Design of the Interactive Worksheets
Analysis of the
Cognitive Skills Developed through Interactive Worksheets
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Semi-Structured
Questionnaire for the Interview
Interactive Multimedia Worksheets during
COVID-19 in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Primary Classrooms: A Case
Study
In
the recent past, increasingly rapid changes have taken place in terms of
technology and its applications. In order to find solutions to most people´s
issues, new technologies were developed. Humans now rely on technological tools
for transportation, trading, weather forecasting, communication, organization,
management, health care, and entertainment among other areas. Teaching and
learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL) have not been the exception, as
language learning has become a primary worldwide concern since the 1950s. After
World War II, and during the Cold War (1945-91), people started to feel the
necessity to understand and master the languages of both the enemies and their
allies. This need gave rise to an oral-based approach known as Audiolingualism.
Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) argue that in the audio-lingual method,
learners were instructed in the use of grammatical sentence patterns in order
to “overcome the habits of their native language” (p.59) and acquire those new patterns
in the target language. Native speakers and native speech were of utmost
importance, so tapes and recordings were extensively used. At the same time,
computers were gaining momentum and those universities and governments with a
fair budget allocation were able to develop computer-based language learning
programs. Ken Beatty (2010) names three of the pioneering institutions in this
matter: Stanford University situated in California, and Dartmouth University
located in New Hampshire, both in the United States, and the University of
Essex in the United Kingdom, where Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)
emerged.
CALL
has been defined as “the search for and study of applications of computers in
language teaching and learning” (Levy, 1997, p.1 as cited in Gruba, 2004,
p.623). CALL can also be defined as “any process in which a learner uses a
computer and as a result, improves his or her language” (Beatty, 2010, p. 7).
Even though this definition may appear extremely vague and encompassing, it cleverly
depicts the broadness of the nature of the discipline. Many domains of this
relatively novel branch of applied linguistics called CALL remain unexplored.
Due to its innovations in both technological and pedagogical advances, Beatty
(2010) emphasizes the importance of research in this ever-evolving
discipline.
Computer
Assisted Language Learning has had three major stages: a) Structural, b)
Communicative and c) Integrative (Warschauer, 2004). The structural phase was
developed during the 1950s and 1960s using mainframe technology or
large-capacity computers that were rather costly. As a result, CALL was
restricted to language laboratories at a few universities for students to do
extended drilling and practice. The dominant English-teaching paradigm stemmed
from the Grammar Translation Method and Audiolingualism. The main objective of
Structural CALL was accuracy and the view of language was considered
structural, understanding language as a formal system learned by repetition and
practice. Gruba (2004) claims that most instructors believed that extended
exposure to repetitive practices and structures was advantageous to students.
The
Communicative CALL stage began in the 1980s, a time when personal computers
started to permeate the market. Coincidentally, language teaching evidenced a
paradigm shift, moving towards a communicative approach, focusing on knowing
“when and how to say what to whom” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011,
Communicative Language Teaching, para. 1). Gruba (2004) makes the valid point
that “practices in communicative CALL seek to help students develop their own
mental models through (the) use of the target language” (pp. 328-329). This
understanding is crucial because at this stage learners are self-managed.
In
the Integrative CALL phase, the use of networked computers to motivate learners
and participate actively in relevant collaborative activities is the focus.
Pennington (1996, as cited in Gruba, 2004) argues that “learners gain
motivation through computer use because they are less threatened and thus take
more risks and are more spontaneous” (p. 631). This is worth noting as the use
of web-based tools was highly frequent during the COVID-19 world spread
pandemic. Liveworksheets, a web-based tool used to make worksheets interactive,
became quite popular in Argentina during the isolation period or Aislamiento
Social Preventivo y Obligatorio (ASPO) during 2020 and 2021. Learners were
offered these kinds of tools as an engagement practice.
Interactive
Multimedia Worksheets (IMWS), which is part of the broad universe of CALL, is
“a digital tool used by a teacher to organize students’ learning activities
with the help of cloud-based services and other web resources” (Kopniak, 2018,
p. 118). The key implication drawn from this definition is that not only does IMWS motivate learners to work and study, but also develops and trains their
thinking skills by means of providing an organized and intuitive interface for
the execution of language learning activities.
In
order to analyze and categorize the thinking skills that can be developed using
IMWS, the researchers used a taxonomy derived from Bloom’s (1956). “The
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives is a framework for classifying
statements of what we expect or intend students to learn as a result of
instruction (Krathwohl, 2002, p.212)”. It is a “scheme for classifying
educational goals, objectives, and most recently, standards. It provides an
organizational structure that gives a commonly understood meaning to objectives
classified in one of its categories (p.218)”. The original taxonomy consisted
of six categories arranged in a cumulative hierarchical framework. However, the
present case study used the revised version (Krathwohl, 2002), which consisted
of Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analysing, Evaluating and Creating
levels.
IMWS
is a pivotal instrument of assessment. Seljan,
Banek, Špiranec, and Lasić-Lazić (2009), and Kopniak (2018) claim that
IMWS provides interactive communication and immediate feedback. With this automatic
feedback, learners are given an instant and appropriate answer to self-assess,
and notice their gaps, therefore having a positive impact on their motivation,
autonomy, and meta-cognition. At the same time, teachers receive information on
their student’s performance, allowing them to adjust their teaching practices
accordingly.
Furthermore,
IMWS has the advantages of enabling people to communicate multi-medially,
improving learning and comprehension, helping with the assignments, teaching
reading and grammar, helping with their performance, and entertaining (Almekhlafi,
2004; 2006). Almekhlafi (2004;2006), from the University of United Arab
Emirates, studied the effect of CALL as an instruction tool -within the domain
of the classroom-, and its use as an independent tool to find out whether it
was beneficial to language learners or not. In his study, the findings showed
that CALL users learned better than those who did not use a computer due to
their positive attitude and willingness to keep using CALL in the future for
its “utility and educational benefits” (Almekhlafi, 2006, p.136).
Rather
than judging the effectiveness of CALL software, it is necessary to evaluate
its implementation within each particular context as it is the teacher who
should “develop (a) methodology that will best develop the users’ skill and
knowledge” (Seljan et al, 2009, VII). These authors, together with Beatty
(2004), agree on the fact that it has become imperative for the teacher to
become a researcher, especially in the post-method era (Kumaravadivelu, 2001)
where the pedagogy that best applies is that of practicality, particularity,
and possibility. According to Leakey (2010), “the role of our data must be to
inform further improvements in teaching and learning as well as CALL software
design and not be an end in themselves” (p. 7). Moreover, Levy and Chapelle
(as cited in Chambers, 2010) have emphasized that there is a “need to
explicitly develop principles and criteria” (p.114) when adopting the computer
as a significant aid for language learning.
As
regards national policies, the Curriculum Design (2018) for Primary
Education in the province of Buenos Aires recommends the use of computers as a
tool to access and produce information individually and collaboratively. It
also encourages the presentation of digital texts with audio, images, and
videos, to approach the culture and the foreign language, and reinforces its
use because it enriches the development of computational thinking and digital
literacy in children.
Even
though there is a considerable amount of CALL research, there is not enough
information available regarding the use of interactive worksheets in primary
EFL classrooms. Formal research on each new tool is rare and although some
authors are devoted to the study of interactive worksheets, their research has
been carried out in the high-education context which varies significantly from
the context of this study. Research on the use and usefulness of the
web-based tool Liveworksheets in primary EFL classrooms in the province
of Buenos Aires has not been conducted.
This
study aimed to explore the reasons behind the adoption of Liveworksheets together
with a thorough analysis of how it was implemented, bearing in mind the
learning objectives (concerning content learning, language learning, and skills
development) and how the interface of Liveworksheets may help attain
them. By means of analyzing its strengths and weaknesses and summarizing the
cognitive abilities and language learning tasks carried out using this tool,
the researchers intended to provide teachers with a practical epistemological
tool on which to base their selection and design of Liveworksheets to
work within the primary level.
The
current study was guided by the following research questions:
·
Why did teachers adopt Liveworksheets
during the pandemic?
·
What is the teacher’s opinion on this tool after
implementing or designing it during the virtual education phase of the
pandemic?
·
What cognitive skills can be developed by using
these worksheets?
To
be able to answer the aforementioned questions, this research followed the
method of a qualitative and descriptive case study. The subjects consisted of nine EFL teachers teaching at the primary level
with a B2-C1 command of English and teaching from an A1 to an A2 level
according to the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe,
2001). All participants engaged in this study voluntarily. They signed a consent form, completed an online survey, and were
interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire in a 10-minute online meeting
(via Google Meet). The participants also shared documentation of three of their
most-used interactive worksheets during the pandemics to be observed and analyzed
with the purpose of obtaining conclusive results. The information obtained
was used to create a practical guide, as shown in Figure 3, for future
practitioners in order to reduce planning, programming, and designing time
allocated to the development of interactive worksheets.
Methods
Research Approach and Design
Research in education
has been subject to multiple critiques, as some of its methodologies may appear
weak or unstructured. This belief is held especially by positive researchers
from other disciplines such as natural sciences which attempt to develop theories
deductively, relying mostly on quantitative research.
The current study was
qualitative in nature due to its small scale and its tendency to analyze
information rather than focus on calculating figures. It was conducted in
the form of a case study, as it provided a unique example of “real people in
real situations enabling readers to understand ideas more clearly than simply
presenting them with abstract theories or principles” (Cohen, Manion &
Morrison, 2002, p. 253). As the research design was descriptive, this research
attempted to provide a rich picture of the use of Liveworksheets during
the pandemic in primary schools in Buenos Aires, blending both the description
and analysis of the information gathered from the respondents’ perspectives. In
other words, the researchers endeavored to faithfully portray participants’
experiences, thoughts, and feelings on the topic (Geertz, 1973b, cited in Cohen
et al., 2002).
Case
studies adhere to the interpretive tradition of research which means that situations
are seen “through the eyes of the participants” (Cohen et al, 2002, p.257).
This adherence to the interpretive paradigm resulted in criticism of the
methodology. On the one hand, some authors like Smith (1991, cited in Cohen et
al., 2002) contend case studies are the logically weakest research method. On
the other hand, other authors such as Adelman, Jenkins, and Kemmins (1980)
advocate that case studies are a legitimate research method. However, instead
of delving into the discussion of the rigor of this design, it is useful
to recognize that case studies may suffer from bias. Bearing this in mind,
researchers tried to avoid some common pitfalls of this method: journalism and
anecdotal style, selective reporting, pomposity, and blandness (Nisbet &
Wat, 1984, cited in Cohen et al., 2002).
Context
The current study was conducted in two different
contexts in the province of Buenos Aires. The first involved all English as a
Foreign Language teachers at a primary school in West Florida, Vicente López,
which is run by the Town Hall. The second teaching context involved some student-teachers
in a private subsidized Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) College
called Instituto Manuel Belgrano Obispado de Quilmes, which is a denominational
school.
Participants
The subjects consisted of nine English as a Foreign Language teachers
teaching at the primary level with a B2-C1 command of English and teaching from
an A1 to an A2 level according to the Common European Framework of Reference
(CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001). Six of these teachers belong to the Town Hall-run
school called Manuel Dorrego, which is located in West Florida in the province
of Buenos Aires. The rest belonged to the second context, a private
subsidized Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) denominational College
called Instituto Manuel Belgrano Obispado de Quilmes, where three female student-teachers, with a B2 level as established by
the CEFR, were enrolled in the fourth year and carried out their teaching practices
in the primary level. The overall age range was between 22 and 45 years of age.
All of the
respondents participated in the study voluntarily. Regarding ethical management, teachers and heads of
the institutions involved were informed of the study being conducted, its
aims, time allocation, methods and procedures, possible outcomes, and
risks. Written consent was required in a form (see appendix A) that was
signed both by the respondent and the researchers. All respondents were able to opt out of the study without there being any consequences, before or during the
research process. In addition, no real names were displayed in any document,
appendix, or article section to protect the subjects’ privacy. As
regards time allocation, the study was conducted during the last trimester of
2021.
Materials, Tools, and Techniques
The researchers gathered
contributions from other colleagues with the purpose of creating new ways of
understanding education and constructing collaborative knowledge by means of a
dialectical process with the community of practice. “Educational research [is]
a dialogical and democratic process of inquiry that is grounded in phronesis”
(Elliott, 2009, p. 24). According to Elliott (2009), phronesis should be
understood in Aristotelian terms as a way of producing knowledge out of
situational understanding. To understand the use of Liveworksheets, the
researchers relied on techniques for data collection such as surveying,
interviewing, and observing. The data types varied from narrative to numerical,
being most of the data of a narrative nature.
Case
studies require triangulation of the results obtained through the application
of different tools. In this triangulation, frequencies, percentages, and factors
were analyzed to fulfill the purpose of this investigation. “Triangulation
increases the reliability of the data and the process of gathering” (Tellis,
1997, p.9). The tools used included a consent form (see appendix A), a
semi-structured questionnaire (see appendix B), and a survey (see appendix C) which
consisted of multiple-choice, rank orderings, and closed and open questions. In
addition, 10-minute online interviews using Google Meet were held and three of
the most used Liveworksheets during the pandemics were asked to be
observed and analyzed. Even though all sources are not essential in every case
study, the importance of multiple sources of data to the reliability of this
study was conclusively proved (Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994 as cited in Tellis,
1997).
Procedures
First,
clear official and formal requests for permission in both institutions were required.
Second, teachers at Manuel Dorrego school and prospective teachers at Manuel
Belgrano Institute were told the details about the project and were asked to
cooperate. Participants were explained the purpose of the study and the
conditions under which the results of the study would be shared with other
colleagues. The subjects were also informed about anonymity and confidentiality
rights. They expressed their choice to voluntarily take part or abandon
the research. Once the subjects understood and accepted the conditions, they were
given a consent form (see appendix A) to be signed.
After
collecting all the signed consent forms, the researchers organized a timetable
for the online interview in which each participant completed the same
questionnaire.
Participants were sent a survey (see
Appendix C) in order to obtain more details about the reasons for their choices
of Liveworksheets during the pandemics in real contexts. In addition,
all respondents were asked to provide three Liveworksheets they had used
to observe and study them.
Results
In order to analyze the use of interactive multimedia worksheets
in EFL primary classrooms during the pandemic, data was gathered through the
implementation of a survey, a semi-structured questionnaire to guide
participants’ interviews, and the analytic observation of a repository of
interactive worksheets provided by the respondents. More specifically,
these data collection methods were applied to gather information on the
implementation of Liveworksheets; explore the reasons behind their adoption; discover the strengths and weaknesses of the tool; and summarize the
cognitive abilities and language learning tasks that can be developed and
carried out using this tool. The following findings offered a clear answer to
each research question.
Reasons for Adoption of Liveworksheets
During COVID-19
All participants were
surveyed and interviewed. Concerning the overall impressions and feelings of
the respondents when school was first canceled in March 2020, some teachers
revealed they were puzzled, disoriented, and worried. A few teachers remarked
that they were calm due to previous experiences and their good command of
technology. On the contrary, a tiny minority of teachers rejected the idea of
virtual education, arguing that language needs to be lived and technology does
not allow for it. A few teachers declared having developed their digital
literacy by means of implementing new technological tools during the
pandemics.
To understand the
teachers’ prior usage of technology they were asked whether they used
technology or not in their lessons before the pandemic. Most of the respondents
claimed not having used technology at all, essentially because of a gap in
resources. Some of them used CD players or speakers to play audio, and some
others used their own or a colleague’s devices to share audio-visual material
with their students. As regards training, the six teachers from the town hall-run school completed a summer course on Google tools for education in February
2020 plus they attended a webinar to learn how to design and program
interactive worksheets which stemmed from a colleague’s initiative. However,
the student-teachers considered themselves to be self-taught except for one who
stated having received guidance at the TEFL college.
Teachers’ Opinion on Liveworksheets
after their Implementation
With reference to the
advantages of the tool, the teachers coincided in the following
characteristics: Liveworksheets provide immediate feedback and
self-correcting activities; students are able to repeat the activities as many
times as needed; it is easy for students to access the worksheet by
themselves; students like and enjoy the interactivity of the tool; information
can be presented in a multi-modal fashion; teachers can choose from a variety
of already made worksheets; it helps develop a sense of community by learning
from others collaborations; it is free of charge and it demands a low amount of
data. Furthermore, the questionnaire revealed that this tool was adopted after
being recommended by a colleague or the Head of the Department of English as a
Foreign Language in the institutions. A couple of teachers found the tool by
themselves, searching the web for different resources, and started implementing
it without any prior references. The tool was given an overall
qualification mean of 9.11 out of 10 (see Figure 1 for distribution).
Figure 1
Overall Rating of
Liveworksheets
As regards the
disadvantages of the tool, most teachers agreed that as it is an online
tool, students with no access to the internet or a device were not able to
carry out the activities proposed. In addition, a small number of teachers
added that it was only useful for getting feedback and evaluating instead of
teaching, and suggested including a translation feature within the interactive
worksheet so as to help students carry out the tasks. Only a minority of
participants advocated simplifying the steps for programming the incoming
answers to enter the tool’s mailbox. With the discussion of the low points of
the tool, a few teachers provided suggestions for improvement such as enhancing
the visuals of the tool or to make the content more engaging for students.
The Process of Selection and Design
of the Interactive Worksheets
As far as designing is
concerned, 44.4 percent of the teachers did not design their own worksheets,
while the rest designed or chose from the repository interchangeably, according
to their needs as shown in Figure 2. Most of the participants admitted having
designed their own worksheets as well as using the ones available on the
webpage. They recognized that they could seldom find the activities with the topics
they wanted or needed for their lessons so they tended to customize the
activities in order to make them more relevant and suitable for their needs. Teachers
who designed also accepted having crafted their own worksheets because they
were more accurate for their group of students, and more specific as regards
the vocabulary and the characters of the coursebook they were working with.
Figure 2
Already Available vs
Designing Worksheets
Analysis of the Cognitive Skills Developed
through Interactive Worksheets
In order to summarize
the cognitive abilities and language learning tasks that could be developed and
carried out using this tool, each teacher was asked to provide three worksheets
they had designed or given to their students. The kind of activities observed
in the worksheets included drag and drop, multiple choice, selecting, matching,
drop down options, blank space, gap filling and check boxes activities. Less
than half of the worksheets had audio or video embedded.
Having followed the
classification of activities in the revised version of Bloom’s
(2001) Taxonomy as cited in Krathwohl (2002), twenty-seven different
activities were identified, examined (see appendix D), and divided into two
categories: self-correcting and teacher corrected. The cognitive levels which
were mostly observed in the material provided by the participants correspond to
level 1: Remembering, level 2: Understanding, and level 3: Applying, being the
lower thinking levels the most frequently developed. Only a small
percentage of activities were designed to be corrected by the teacher and
allowed for different or more creative answers, whereas the rest offered an automatic correction. In figure 3, the different programming commands
were matched to their possible applications.
Figure 3
Applications of
Liveworksheets in EFL
Discussions
Limitations of the study
Although
some statistical inferences were done at some point in the study, its nature
was mostly qualitative. Consequently, it cannot be replicated to obtain the
same results, ultimately affecting the reliability of the study. Moreover, the current research only had access to two different
institutions in the province of Buenos Aires, a primary school and a TEFL
College. In the former educational service, the whole population of teachers took
part in the study, and in the latter organization, only a sample of three student-teachers
participated. Non-random, purposive, and convenience sampling was carried
out, i.e.: respondents were chosen out of a pool of participants according to
their availability, willingness to participate, and easy access. Due to this,
the study may not allow the researchers or prospective readers to generalize
the conclusions drawn from it.
Time constraints were the most difficult to overcome since
even though arrangements were made, the subjects were allowed to reschedule or
refuse to participate at the last minute, using the principle of the right of
freedom and self-determination. If a
participant were to abandon the research, there was a backup of two more student-teachers
from the TEFL College to complete the questionnaire, interview, and survey.
The purpose of this
study was to provide a reflective analysis of the
web-based tool called Liveworksheets in a group of English teachers in order to evaluate its
usefulness during the pandemic. After
carrying out specific steps in the process of collecting data, the findings uncovered
supporting evidence that although it was found challenging for Liveworksheets
to provide opportunities for communicative practice and higher-order thinking
skills development, this tool was considered useful for keeping pedagogic
continuity, and engaging students in language learning activities during the
pandemic. This pattern of results was consistent with the previous literature
of Pennington’s (1996, as cited in Gruba, 2004) explanation of learners’
motivation in the use of computers. These results were also consistent with Almekhlafi’s
(2006) work that deals with the educational advantages of becoming a regular
CALL user and learner.
As expected, the
interactivity, gratuity, and low data consumption of this web-based tool were
the basis for its adoption in both contexts, the TEFL College and the Town
Hall-run school. The self-correcting feature of the worksheets released some of
the burdens teachers had when correcting students’ work. However, more often
than not, it seemed to prevent teachers from providing the possibility of
negotiation of meaning, interaction, and creative use of the language. A
combined environment of both asynchronous instruction and synchronic meetings
would have been useful to give feedback, interact and allow for creativity
though this was not the case for many of the interviewed teachers. Anyway, the
tool should not be fully discarded as it could be used in complementation with
other tools that allow for collaboration or creativity such as Google Docs,
Slides, or Canva. Additionally, extended exposure to repetitive
practices may result in language learning (Gruba, 2004), hence becoming useful
for language learning and freeing time for other practices in the limited
synchronic lessons, both online during part of 2020 and in-person during 2021.
Some of the respondents
suggested enhancing the visuals of the worksheets. Even though these changes
can be made by means of designing the PDF worksheet to be embedded within the
interactive interface, only half of the teachers devised their own worksheets even
acknowledging that designing was a better way to fit students’ needs rather
than choosing from the already available repertoire of worksheets. It became
imperative to decipher and interpret why teachers were reluctant to design.
First of all, designing was considered a time-consuming activity. Second, the
results showed that crafting an interactive worksheet was difficult in terms of
both graphic design and commands programming.
During the pandemic,
most teachers were left to their own devices, not only in terms of hardware but also in terms of software and training. Even though teachers in the Town-Hall
run school received training in the use of Google Tools and Liveworksheets,
the student-teachers argued for being autodidactic in the selection and design
of the technological tools to be implemented to reach their students during the
isolation phase of the pandemic.
“The role of our data must be to
inform further improvements in teaching and learning as well as CALL software
design and not be an end in themselves” (Leakey, 2011, p. 7). The main
implication of these results is that by observing and categorizing the
possibilities of the tool, time constraints may be overcome by reducing
designing time. The focus of attention was put neither on developing a CALL
pedagogy -as it has demonstrated to be a fruitless endeavor- nor on
classifying the tool into a CALL stage: structural, communicative, or
integrative (Gruba,2004). Conversely, this research sought to analyze the
strengths of the tool summarizing them into a practical mind map (see Figure 3)
to aid EFL teachers when designing. However, given the size of the sample of
this case study, not all of the possibilities of the tool were able to be
explored.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The increasing interest
of EFL teachers in adopting online tools to reach their students during the
COVID-19 pandemic brought together a smorgasbord of new technological tools for
language instruction and learning. The IMWS, called Liveworksheets, was
one of the most widely used, hence the attempt of this study to analyze its use
and usefulness in the EFL primary classroom. After being interviewed and
surveyed, a group of EFL primary teachers and student-teachers gave answers to fulfill
the following research objectives: to gather information on the implementation
of Liveworksheets; explore the reasons behind its adoption; analyze
the strengths and weaknesses of the tool, and summarize the cognitive
abilities and language learning tasks that can be developed and carried out
using it.
Analysis of the survey,
questionnaire, and interview data obtained in this study showed that the main
reasons for the adoption of these IMWS were its ability to present multimedia
content, the availability and variety of pre-made resources, the students'
heightened motivation, its gratuity, and its low data consumption. As
regards the users’ opinion, the tool was given an overall mark of 9.11 out of
10, and all respondents agreed on the fact that they would recommend it to a
colleague. Concerning the actual use of the web-based tool, teachers
mostly used it for language practice or drilling and vocabulary learning,
focusing primarily on developing lower-thinking skills such as remembering and
understanding according to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Krathwohl &
Anderson, 2010). Consequently,
it is highly recommended to analyze a bigger sample of Liveworksheets in
order to expand the summary and discover new ways of applying the tool.
The study also showed that even
though designing Liveworksheets was beneficial for students, more than
half of the teachers alleged not having done it due to time constraints and
difficulty in programming. This raised a new question: what can be done to
train teachers in designing materials using this tool? As a result,
samples of worksheets were analyzed and summarized in a mind map (see figure 3)
to serve as a framework for IMWS. However, due to time allocation, the
researchers were not able to test whether the framework would help teachers
reduce designing and planning time. A
second research instance needs to be carried out to find out whether the
Observation Guide (see Appendix D), improves designing time and raises the
number of teachers willing to design their own worksheets.
Therefore, further
research is recommended to determine the maximum achievable design output after
using the provided framework. Besides, this study was carried out by analyzing only
the teachers’ perspectives on the use of IMWS. A deeper analysis of the
motivational factor of interactivity and the development of autonomy in young learners
is also recommended to achieve a more comprehensive analysis of the tool.
References
Adelman, C., D. Jenkins, and S. Kemmins.
(1980). Rethinking case study: notes from the second Cambridge conference. In
H. Simons (ed.) towards a Science of the Singular. Center for Applied
Research in Education, University of East Anglia,45-61.
Almekhlafi, A. R. G. (2006). The effect of
interactive multimedia on learning English as a second language. Proceedings
of the Fifth Annual UAE University Research Conference, 2.
Almekhlafi, A. G. (2006). The effect of
computer-assisted language learning (CALL) on United Arab Emirates English as a
foreign language (EFL) school students’ achievement and attitude. Journal of
Interactive learning research, 17(2), 121-142.
Beatty, K. (2013). Teaching &
researching: Computer-assisted language learning. Routledge.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 20(24), 1.
Chambers, A. (2010). Language Teaching. Cambridge
Journal, 43(1), 113-122.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K.
(2002). Research methods in education. Routledge.
Council of Europe. Council for Cultural
Co-operation. Education Committee. Modern Languages Division. (2001). Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment.
Cambridge University Press.
Dirección General de
Cultura y Educación de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. (2018). Diseño
curricular para la educación primaria: primer ciclo y segundo ciclo.
Dirección General de Cultura y Educación de la Provincia de Buenos Aires.
Elliott, J. (2009). Building educational theory
through action research. The Sage handbook of educational action research,
28-38.
Gruba, P. (2004). Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL). In Davies,
A., & Elder, C. (Eds.). (2008). The handbook of applied linguistics.
John Wiley & Sons.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s
taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2010).
Merlin C. Wittrock and the revision of Bloom's taxonomy. Educational
psychologist, 45(1), 64-65.
Kopniak, N. B. (2018). The use of interactive
multimedia worksheets at higher education institutions. Інформаційні технології і засоби навчання, (63,№ 1), [NR1] 116-129.
Kumaravadivelu,
B. (2001). Toward a post-method pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4),
537-560.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques
and principles in language teaching 3rd edition-Oxford handbooks for language
teachers. Oxford university press.
Leakey, J. (2011). Evaluating
computer-assisted language learning. Peter Lang AG.
Seljan, S., Banek, M.,
Špiranec, S., & Lasić-Lazić, J. (2009). CALL
(computer-assisted language learning) and distance learning. In Proceedings
of the 29th International convention MIPRO (pp.
145-150).
Tellis, W.M. (1997). Application of a case
study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3(3), 1-19.
Warschauer,
M. (2013). Technological change and the future of CALL. In New perspectives
on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 27-38). Routledge.
Appendix A
Consent Form
|
Name of researchers: Marina Chura and
Farfán Gisele Title of study: Use of interactive worksheets during the
pandemic in English as a Foreign Language Primary classroom.
Please read this consent form thoroughly. This
will inform your consent to participate in this study. Circle the appropriate
answers and sign the signature slot and date the declaration by the end. You
will be given a copy of this document. In case of doubt, feel free to ask any
of the researchers in charge.
yes/no
yes/no
yes/no
yes/no
yes/no
yes/no
I freely give my
consent to participate in the aforementioned research study and have been
given a copy of this form for my information.
SIGNATURE:
______________________________________________________ DATE:
____________________________________________________________
RESEARCHERS’
SIGNATURE_______________________________________ |
Appendix B
Semi-Structured
Questionnaire for the Interview
|
Part I How long have been you
teaching? / How long have you been doing your teaching practices? Are you teaching or doing
your practices at a private or a state-run school? How did you feel when online
lessons started? Did you use technology in
your classroom before the pandemics? How often do you include
technology in your lessons now? Have you had any training in
new technologies for education? Which tools? Part II Did you use Liveworksheets
in your online lessons during the pandemics? What features of the tool did
you use? The students’ section, workbook section… etc How did you use Liveworksheets:
as homework or to deliver a lesson? What advantages did you find
in this tool? What disadvantages did you
find? Did you use self-correcting
activities only or did you add open ended? Did you use these interactive
worksheets for self-assessment? Did you design your own
worksheets? and now? What are the advantages of designing? Did you use only this
interactive tool during the pandemic or did you try others? What other tools
did you use? Were your students more
motivated? What would you say about their level of engagement?
Part III Is there anything you would
like to improve? What macro-skills do you
think can be developed using this tool? Would you recommend it to
another colleague? Why? Did you continue using Liveworksheets
after in-person lessons were restored? |
Appendix C
Survey
Appendix D
Observation Guide
|
Activity |
Command |
Application |
Bloom’s level |
Self-correction |
Teacher’s correction |
|
DRAG
AND DROP |
DRAG/DROP |
matching
pictures
with
words |
remembering |
x |
|
|
Labeling |
remembering |
x |
|||
|
unscrambling
the word |
remembering |
x |
|||
|
coloring (reading the color and dragging the
right colored item) |
remembering |
x |
|||
|
ordering a sequence
(size, numbers, stories) |
remembering
understanding |
x |
|||
|
Classifying |
understanding |
x |
|||
|
MULTIPLE
CHOICE |
SELECT |
true or false reading comprehension
activities |
remembering |
x |
|
|
choosing the correct picture/description/word |
remembering |
x |
|||
|
LISTENING |
playmp3: |
picture/audio
dictionary |
remembering |
||
|
embedding audio as
input |
remembering |
||||
|
WATCHING
A VIDEO |
YOUTUBE
LINK |
embedding A video as
input |
remembering |
||
|
MATCHING |
JOIN |
matching descriptions
to pictures |
understanding |
x |
|
|
DROP
DOWN OPTIONS |
CHOOSE |
doing true or false
reading comprehension |
understanding |
x |
|
|
answering yes/no questions (only one correct
answer) |
remembering |
x |
|||
|
completing
a sentence |
remembering |
x |
|||
|
BLANK
SPACE |
- |
correcting wrong
statements |
understanding |
x |
|
|
writing
a composition |
creating |
x |
|||
|
FILL
IN THE GAP |
- RIGHT ANSWER |
answering wh questions according to input |
remembering |
X |
|
|
doing crosswords (a
letter in each space) |
remembering |
x |
|||
|
writing the sentences in the
negative/affirmative form |
applying |
x |
|||
|
ordering a sequence
using numbers |
remembering |
||||
|
listening and writing
(dictation) |
remembering |
x |
|||
|
Drilling |
remembering |
x |
|||
|
CHECKBOXES |
TICK |
Surveying |
evaluating |
x |
|
|
doing
word search activities |
remembering |
x |
|||
|
reading/listening comprehension with more than
one correct answer |
remembering |
x |
