To ensure smooth communication and collaboration, here are some troubleshooting tips to address common issues:
Check Internet Connection: Verify that you have a stable and reliable internet connection. Use a wired connection when possible, as it tends to be more stable than Wi-Fi. If using Wi-Fi, make sure you have a strong signal.
Update the Browser or App: Ensure that you are using the latest version of the web browser. Developers frequently release updates to address bugs and improve performance.
Clear Browser Cache: Sometimes, cached data can cause conflicts or issues. Clear the browser cache and cookies before joining the meeting.
Test Audio and Video: Before the meeting, check your microphone and camera to ensure they are working correctly. If you are a speaker, you can click on "Start Practice Session" button test to ensure audio and video devices are functioning.
Close Other Applications: Running multiple applications in the background can consume system resources and lead to performance issues. Close unnecessary apps to free up resources for the Dryfta meeting platform.
Restart Your Device: If you encounter persistent issues, try restarting your computer or mobile device. This can help resolve various software-related problems.
Use Supported Browsers: Ensure you are using a browser supported by the meeting platform. Recommended browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and Brave.
Allow Necessary Permissions: Make sure the Dryfta meeting platform has the required permissions to access your microphone, camera, and other necessary features.
Disable VPN or Firewall: Sometimes, VPNs or firewalls can interfere with the connection to the meeting platform. Temporarily disable them and see if the issue persists.
Switch Devices: If possible, try joining the meeting from a different device to see if the problem is specific to one device.
Reduce Bandwidth Usage: In cases of slow or unstable internet connections, ask participants to disable video or share video selectively to reduce bandwidth consumption.
Update Drivers and Software: Ensure your operating system, audio drivers, and video drivers are up to date. Outdated drivers can cause compatibility issues with the Dryfta meeting platform.
Contact Support: If none of the above steps resolve the issue, reach out to the platform's support team. They can provide personalized assistance and troubleshoot specific problems.
By following these troubleshooting tips, you can tackle many common problems encountered on Dryfta meeting platform and have a more productive and seamless meeting experience.
20230720T083020230720T1130Europe/Amsterdam[SYMP81] Reflections on co-production as a research practice in the field of foreign language teaching and learning100 % Online sessionAILA 2023 - 20th Anniversary Congress Lyon Editioncellule.congres@ens-lyon.fr
Une déconstruction de la co-construction : Explorer la coproduction de données empiriques en tant que pratique de recherche
Oral Presentation[SYMP81] Reflections on co-production as a research practice in the field of foreign language teaching and learning08:30 AM - 11:30 AM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/20 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/20 09:30:00 UTC
Our aim is to better understand co-production as a research practice by exploring the co-production of empirical data in a methodological seminar that prepares teachers of foreign languages for their thesis. First, we define cooperation in collaborative research by highlighting the added value of the reflective approach as a methodological pillar of data co-construction. Secondly, we discuss the roles of different actors, going beyond the usual dichotomy of researcher vs. research subjects and shed light on the challenges of an arrangement including training and research. On the basis of a document of 112 pages produced jointly by all the actors (Google Docs), characterized by multimodal and multilingual data, we then examine to what extent regularly and collaboratively produced traces of learning and reflection interact with the seminar's content. We also emphasize the importance of these traces as they make students'/teachers'/researchers' reflections visible, allowing for an understanding of past discussions and conclusions in the here and now, and initiate new thinking. On the basis of these traces, we question and redefine co-construction and shed light on its consequences. Finally, we determine the benefits and limits of such an arrangement as a tool for learning/teaching and doing research.
Notre objectif est de mieux comprendre la coproduction en tant que pratique de recherche dans la formation des futur·es enseignant·es de langues étrangères. Nous proposons d'explorer la coproduction de données empiriques en tant que pratique de recherche dans un séminaire méthodologique de préparation au mémoire professionnel dans la formation des futur·es enseignant·es de langues étrangères du primaire. Premièrement nous définissons la coopération en recherche collaborative (Bednarz 2013) en soulignant la valeur ajoutée de la démarche réflexive (Sacarino, 2014), pilier méthodologique de la co-construction des données. Deuxièmement, nous discutons les rôles des acteur·trices dépassant la dichotomie habituelle de chercheur·euse vs sujets de recherche pour les réunir dans un dispositif de formation-recherche (Desgagné 2007 ; Vinatier 2013) ; cela ne va pas sans encombre puisque le·la chercheur·euse est à la fois formateur·trice et évaluateur·trice et les sujets apprenant·es et participatif·ves à la construction du séminaire. Nous étudions ensuite l'aspect méthodologique de notre recherche à partir du document de travail de 112 pages réalisé conjointement par l'ensemble des acteur·trices sur Google Doc, se caractérisant par des données multimodales et multilingues. Nous examinons ainsi dans quelle mesure les traces d'apprentissage et de réflexion, élaborées régulièrement et de manière collaborative, interagissent avec les contenus du séminaire, c'est-à-dire comment elles sont intégrées dans la planification et les tâches ultérieures. Nous analysons également ces traces, car elles rendent visibles les réflexions des étudiant·es/enseignant·es/chercheur·es, permettant ainsi de comprendre les discussions et conclusions in situ, et d'amorcer de nouvelles réflexions. Sur la base de ces traces, nous questionnons et redéfinissons la co-construction en envisageant ses conséquences. Nous déterminons enfin les apports et limites d'un tel dispositif de formation-recherche dans le développement des compétences en méthodologie de recherche des étudiant·es au moyen de leur évaluation formative puis certificative.
Bednarz, N. (Éd.). (2013). Recherche collaborative et pratique enseignante : Regarder ensemble autrement. Paris : L'Harmattan. Desgagné, S. (2007). Le défi de coproduction de savoir en recherche collaborative : Autour d'une démarche de reconstruction et d'analyse de récits de pratique enseignante. In M. Anadón (Éd.), La recherche participative : Multiples regards (p. 89‑121). Québec : Presses de l'Université du Québec. Scarino, A. (2014). Learning as Reciprocal, Interpretive Meaning-Making: A View from Collaborative Research Into the Professional Learning of Teachers of Languages. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 386–401. Vinatier, I. (2013). Recherches collaboratives. In Dictionnaire des concepts de la professionnalisation (p. 249‑252). Bruxelles : De Boeck Supérieur. https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.devel.2013.02.0249
Teachers as active participants of member-checking: “Is this me?”
Oral Presentation[SYMP81] Reflections on co-production as a research practice in the field of foreign language teaching and learning08:30 AM - 11:30 AM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/20 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/20 09:30:00 UTC
In my talk, I will present an innovative approach to member checking - diagrammatic elicitation, which involves asking participants to comment on a diagram emerging from the data analysis. I will demonstrate how it was implemented in a study of six Armenian EFL teacher self development and motivation and will discuss its benefits. I argue that diagrammatic elicitation makes member-checking more participatory and gives research participants an opportunity to co-create meaning with the researcher. This approach leads to more reflexive collaboration between the researcher and participants enabling the participants to actively engage in the meaning-making process and provoking more reflections on the key aspects of their experiences. It also contributes to teacher professional development.
Member-checking is one of the key instruments ensuring the quality of qualitative research which is commonly associated with participants' approval of data accuracy (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Considering multiple drawbacks of the traditional member-checking methods, I will present an alternative technique, diagrammatic elicitation, which involves designing diagrams and encouraging individuals to comment on them (Umoquit et al., 2013). In my talk, I will illustrate how diagrammatic elicitation was implemented in a study of Armenian EFL teacher self development and motivation (Sahakyan et al., 2018). The participants were six teachers with diverse ages, teaching experiences and socio-cultural backgrounds. The data were collected in three phases over a period of six months using semi-structured interviews, journal writing and unstructured classroom observations followed by post-observation interviews. The diagrammatic elicitation technique was used in the last phase of the data collection. Based on the thematic analysis of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006) collected in the previous phases, for each participant I drew a diagram representing key themes and radially arranged sub-themes to capture their teacher self evolution. Then I presented the diagrams to the participants, explained how they were generated and encouraged them to read and comment on the themes, sub-themes as well as to signpost any misinterpretations. The aim of this procedure was not to merely verify information but to engage the participants in co-construction of meaning. I argue that diagrammatic elicitation makes member-checking more participatory. It triggered more reflexive collaboration between the researcher and participants enabling the participants to actively engage in the meaning making process and provoking more reflections on the key aspects of their experiences. This elicited further contributions to the research topic offering more insights into the teachers' self evolution and factors influencing it which enhance the quality of research (Thomas, 2017). In addition, such reflections not only enabled teachers to analyse and evaluate their teaching but also empowered them and encouraged to take responsibility for their professional development.
References: Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Creswell, J.W. & Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice39(3), 124-130. Sahakyan, T., Lamb, M., & Chambers, G. (2018). Language teacher motivation: From the ideal to the feasible self. In S. Mercer & A. Kostoulas (eds.), Language Teacher Psychology. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12211 Thomas, D.R. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research? Qualitative research in psychology, 14(1), 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435 Umoquit, M., Tso, P., Varga-Atkins, T., O'Brien, M., & Wheeldon, J. (2013). Diagrammatic elicitation: Defining the use of diagrams in data collection. The Qualitative Report, 18(60), 1-12.
Developing Language Awareness through cross-disciplinary collaborative action research: a model for teacher development in ICLHE
[SYMP81] Reflections on co-production as a research practice in the field of foreign language teaching and learning08:30 AM - 11:30 AM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/20 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/20 09:30:00 UTC
English is widely used as a medium of instruction in tertiary education all over the world. Thus, many subject specialists without a background in language teaching find themselves having to teach their subjects in English (Yuan, 2021), often without adequate preparation or support. If there are language teachers working in the same institution or department, it often falls to them to provide language expertise and support to their subject teacher colleagues, resulting in "a 'natural' need […] to collaborate" (Lo, 2020, p. 36) across disciplinary boundaries. Such cross-disciplinary collaborations can be challenging for a variety of reasons. Gustafsson et al. (2011) name "infrastructural, institutional, epistemological, disciplinary, rhetorical" reasons, and Wilkinson (2018) acknowledges that "collaboration across disciplines is hard work and demands much of those who try to achieve it" (p. 609), all the more so as the respective roles of content teachers and language teachers are often not clearly defined. Thus, researchers have sounded a "clarion call for partnerships between EMI teachers (content specialists) and English language teachers/researchers (language specialists)" (Yuan, 2021, p. 2) to improve the quality of EMI teaching". In our talk, we will present a cross-disciplinary collaboration model inspired by collaborative action research (CAR) (Norton 2009) developed at a computer science department at a University of Applied Sciences in Austria. We will outline the roles which language teachers at the institution and external collaborators (teacher educators and language specialists) play in creating a space of trust for the professional development of content specialists. We will use Davison's (2006) framework to evaluate the effectiveness of the collaboration. We will also highlight the crucial role of access to current research in linguistics since we believe it provides content teachers with the opportunity to enhance their understanding and awareness of the epistemic function of language. We will outline how this helps them to eventually see different forms of collaboration as effective ways of improving their teaching practice. CAR-based collaboration models such the present one therefore have great potential to contribute to teachers' professional development and to improve the quality of ICLHE teaching overall.
References: Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know when we are doing it right?. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 454-475. Gustafsson, M., Eriksson, A., Räisänen, C., Stenberg, A. C., Jacobs, C., Wright, J., & Winberg, C. (2011). Collaborating for content and language integrated learning: The situated character of faculty collaboration and student learning. Across the Disciplines, 8(3). http://hdl.handle.net/11189/4925 Norton, L. (2009). Action research in teaching and learning: A practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities. Routledge. Lo, Y. Y. (2020). Professional development of CLIL teachers. Springer. Wilkinson, R. (2018). Content and language integration at universities? Collaborative reflections. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 607-615. Yuan, R. (2021). Promoting English-as-a-medium-of-instruction (EMI) Teacher Development in Higher Education: What Can Language Specialists Do and Become? RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220980173.
Co-constructing new professional identities through self-study research: Cases of foreign-language teacher educators in Japan
Oral Presentation[SYMP81] Reflections on co-production as a research practice in the field of foreign language teaching and learning08:30 AM - 11:30 AM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/20 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/20 09:30:00 UTC
Many previous studies in teacher education have examined the professional learning of teachers, particularly the formation of their identities. However, not much attention has been paid to the trajectories of professional growth of teacher educators who teach current and future teachers (Brody & Hadar, 2011) and their role has been marginalized in educational research. There also seems to be an assumption that educating teachers does not require any preparation if one is a good teacher of elementary or secondary education (Zeichner, 2005). However, Trent (2013) states the transition from teacher to teacher educator could be problematic as they are likely to encounter many dilemmas and tensions. In Williams and Ritter's (2010) self-study research, they also identified two major challenges of beginning teacher educators: making professional connections with other teacher educators and negotiating new professional relationships with students. In the Japanese context, one can become a foreign-language teacher educator without any specific qualifications, and usually no training is provided (Takeda, 2012) regardless of the target languages. Furthermore, Asaoka's study (2022) on two foreign-language teacher educators' narratives shows that there is no one universal trajectory that teachers take to become teacher educators, although they utilize their identity as a learner and as a teacher in ways that help them "deconstruct" and "reconstruct'' who they are as teacher educators. It also indicates that these teacher educators are on a solitary journey without a space to share their experiences and feelings and to negotiate their identities as teacher educators to become full participants in their social and professional networks. Thus, with the use of online journals and focus-group interviews, the current study explores how teacher educators of foreign languages in Japan co-construct and reconstruct their professional identities in a collaborative community of practice, focusing on the process of becoming active participants of the community. It also discusses how the participation influenced their reflection on their conceptualization and practices of teacher education in relation to those of other teacher educators, and how and why they became able (or remained unable) to deal with tensions and dilemmas that they have encountered in educating pre-service and in-service teachers. Asaoka, C. (2022). Becoming a teacher educator of foreign languages: Through the narrative of two teacher educators. Dokkyo Journal of Language Learning and Teaching, 10, 9-23. Brody, D., & Hadar, L. (2011). "I speak prose and I now know it." Personal developmenttrajectories among teacher educators in a professional development community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1–12. Takeda, N. (2012). Kyoshikyoikujissen-heno-toi: Kyoshikyouikusha-no-senmonseikaihatsusokushin-no- tameni [Inquiry into teacher education practice: For the development of expertise of teacher educators]. Nihon Kyoshikyouiku Gakkai Nenpo, 21, 8–18. Trent, J. (2013). Becoming a teacher educator: The multiple boundary-crossing experiences of beginning teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 262–275. Williams, J., & Ritter, J. K. (2010). Constructing new professional identities through self‐study: From teacher to teacher educator. Professional development in education, 36(1-2), 77-92. Zeichner, K. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: A personal perspective. Teaching andTeacher Education, 21(2), 117–124.
