•

•'

''

••'

ABSTRACT: Technology is a great tool to support practice and assessment of the three modes of communication while meeting the needs of our digital native students. This session will provide you with communicative activities using these tools. Rubrics will be provided to evaluate communicative focus and encourage reflective practice.

Annual Convention and World Languages Expo for the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFI),San Antonio, TX,Saturday, November 22, 2014, 11:15AM to 12:15PM, Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center, Room 217D.

Presenters: Nicole Sherf, Professor, Salem State University, [email protected] Tiesa Graf, Spanish teacher, South Hadley High School, tiesa~raf9@~mail.com Sherf/Graf ACTFL 1

• Discuss the effective incorporation of technological applications to support the teaching, practicing and assessment of the three communicative modes. • Process the use of a rubric to identify and assess the mode of communication being addressed. • Process the use of a rubric to identify the technologic application possible for the mode being addressed.

I. II.

Introductions Think-Pair-Share "On the spectrum of Digital Immigrant to Digital Native, where do you consider yourself and what impact does this have for you in the classroom?"

III.

Whole Group Discussion

IV.

• What new strategies do you take away from the article to maximize communication while incorporating technology? Present Rubric of Three Modes: Focus on Interpersonal • Fill out the chart with technology tools that support communication in the three

V. VI.

modes Present Our Rubric of Technologies to Support Each Mode Conclusions/Questions

Sherf/Graf ACTFL 2

• ••

•r

-

•

-~

~••

~

•;

Technology Tools for the Interpersonal Mode:

Technology Tools for the Interpretive Mode:

Technology Tools for the Presentational Mode:

Sherf/Graf ACTFL 3

1

, t

1

1

~ .

Communicative Mode Interpersonal Mode

Criterion for Selecting the Mode • Negotiation of meaning between individuals (a presented dialogue is not interpersonal!) • Adjustments and clarifications made if needed to ensure meaning and intention were correctly and appropriately communicated Interpretive Mode • Interpretation of target culture message • One-way communication of information given from a target cultural perspective without the possibility of negotiation of meaning, but ability to read between the lines —not just understand the message Presentational Mode • Creation of messages or presentations • One-way communication in which material is presented to be interpreted by an audience with no direct opportunity for active negotiation of meaning (Adapted from Performance Descriptorsfor Language Learners)

What Technologies Help to Address the Mode? Communicative Mode Interpersonal Mode

What It looks Like Speaking and listening; reading and writing (via text, social media)

Interpretive Mode

Reading (websites, stories, articles) listening (speeches, messages, songs) or viewing (videos) of authentic materials

Presentational Mode

Writing (messages, articles, reports) Speaking (telling a story, giving a speech, describing something, or visually representing it (video or PowerPoint) (Adapted from Performance Descriptorsfor Language Learners)

Useful Technologies for the Mode Goole Docs, Goole Groups. Goole Voice (in pairs), language lab, texts, emails, Skype, WeSpeke,#spanstuchat (twitter), Goole Hangouts, wahtsapp, to n~o Target culture authentic documents found online (webpages, videos, podcasts S anish French announcements, menus, commercials) in their original form with questions or tasks to help guide students to interpret the material Prezi, PowerPoint, Voki, Blabberize, GoAnimate, Photostorv. Powtoon. Little bird tales, screencast-o-matic, Goole Voice

Sherf/Graf ACTFL 4

ith the plethora of technical applications available online, the t~~i: for teachers seeking to incorporate them into Lessons is 'indii=g 11i~, most a~proPriate one for their needs These social media ~~s to engage stu Jo~~ts tools ofir-~r t~ i~~n-{e of ~ ~,~ihl~ ~~ . • ;r~ in communi'~ lctends in some way beyond the classroom walls, engenders a stronger sense of community among students who might ;~~envise not connect as fatly.

Net t~~thnr;l ~ ~i~ ~', ~pF~l ~1~.~ns it . } ~,. ~: m ail lh ins to ~ i i~ a-= ~ i ,:i•'r a widercommunity. Then a~~ seeking a diverse:~clir of when seiecting a technological application to use 1n variety considerations a rl~ss setting or as an tension activity at home, not the Least of which is ;;~~e level of interactivity that ~s possible through the use of the tool. Our goal h ~ul~ h , i o find a tool that allows ~tuc~enis ~o intend in an open-ended -i; i ~ i~~e

~ ~. ~:~ut topics of interest and relevance to them. TH~!;,r~,uar~!- I r,u~-;:i:;~~

There are a variety of interestu,q ts~ ~l_s i.hat class communities a~n u,~ eith~~ to rc~ pond to specific tea,-l~cr-assigned discussion or to hold more ~_~p~~r-~~~nded discussions. Ir; ,n attempt to create a meaningful cLas> fr,~t~rc for discussion and language practice in the more relaxed after-school environment, Laura fox, an eighth grzd~~ tipanish teacheric Reading, MA, created a 6-week action research p~~,i,ec~in which hei st~~dents interacted in a variety of ways for homework assignments thrr,~~r,l~ a discussion forum called 5choel~n~~. She wanted to discover t ow tFie use of the forum would affect >.~ n~i~~~t ;_onfidence in conversations in clz~s ~~nd inspire them i~~ ~,.,nr~~t~c1 ~.v~th peers. Fir ~a~ww.schoo(ogq.com, ~t~idents are logged in by rl.=~;; `,+,~ the ~;c~ e~, and interact with one another through the p~:~ s inq of com~,~~nL~~ _~r responses. The discussion topic can be prPs~ n,c~l ~y the teacher a~ _`~e start of what will then become astudent-di,cc',cd thread of conversation and can be enhanced with '~ h~~ i~pinad'i~q ~~= documents or links. Lil