Latest interactive whiteboards

Hitachi

FX-Duo StarBoard
£1,100 (77-inch board)

Hitachi wins hands-down with this new board. If only it had been around four years ago.It offers a range of truly useful features that teachers like me really appreciate. First, FX Duoboard is both touch- and pen-sensitive so you can use an electronic pen or finger, making the FX-Duo board attractive to both primary and secondary schools.

The 4:3 format board has a durable surface (not a membrane) that is hard to damage. Its low reflection surface is kind to eyes and it caters for multiple users.

Using a camera image sensor system (five-year warranty) with all electronics contained in a replaceable component, the actual board is has an electronic-free surface which will remain fully operational even with scratches or dents on the surface area – especially useful in some schools! The new Starboard v8 software incorporates some really clever operating techniques, such as the zoom feature, the ability to handle multiple inputs, scrolling with the flat of your hand and the two-finger right-click to mention but a few. The ability to use two hands so naturally does create a whole new IWB experience.

It also has an iPhone-like ability to zoom into detailed areas of an image simply by spreading two fingers apart. On the FX Duo, students can work together at the same time, allowing real collaboration and co-presenting. But there is much more to Starboard v8, so check it out for yourself. http://uk.hitachisoft-interactive.com

Promethean

Activexpression: £2,195, Activote: £1,572 (32 units), Activsound: £1,398, Activprimary: £419 (site licence)

Promethean has been busy – a classroom equipped with all Activ products is now a very hi-tech and clever one indeed. I particularly like the Sanyo XE40 projector and Activarena software which allows for dual-pen collaboration on a single board.

With the Activexpression learner response system, Promethean is taking the concept of interaction to new levels. This is a hardware “hub” for a laptop to create a mobile learner response system without the need for a whiteboard. It allows learners to text complete sentences and numerical responses. Activote VR (a software version of Activote) enables any networked classroom computers, laptops and handheld devices to behave as an Activote response system. Learners have a virtual voting device floating on the desktop of their PC or Mac, and can vote using a mouse or keyboard. Mix up the part of the class using Activote and the part using Activote VR and you won’t know the difference, just the results. Activote VR with its virtual button-press should come into its own in a school’s ICT suite.

Activsound is another innovation – a high-quality sound system with teacher and roving microphone. However, at around £1,000 per classroom I can’t see it taking off yet. Promethean’s Activprimary v3takes some beating. It now works with any whiteboard and offers extraordinary functionality for primary schools. Bright, colourful and child-friendly, it features a movable toolbar that pupils love to use and provides access to a vast curriculum resource bank of images, flipcharts and diagrams, plus much more. prometheanworld.com/uk

Smart

600i whiteboard: £2,275, Senteo response system: £1,409 (32 units), Notebook v10: (for individual licence prices, call 08450 724 750. Free upgrade for Smart Notebook users)

Smart’s new 600i touch-sensitive interactive whiteboards are coupled with an arm-mounted Toshiba projector – all at a much-reduced cost than earlier boards which is good news for schools. The 600i is an integrated system that features a brighter projected image and the highest colour quality with significant shadow reduction. You can connect and switch between four audiovisual devices, such as a second computer, DVD player or document camera, at any one time. And the entire system can be turned on or off with the push of a button.

Similarly, Smart’s Senteo interactive response system sports a number of minor improvements: the key one is that it too now costs less. Smart has also improved its Smart Notebook software with the v10. But for functionality, however, Smartboard users should watch out for the full release of Notebook v10 – it’s superb. There’s so much to mention here. But, the pick of the improvements are: dual-page display, advanced audio ability, creative object linking, freehand screen capture and the enhanced screen shade. With v10, Smartboard software is richer, more intuitive and better than ever. education.smarttech.com/ste/en-gb

Blended Learning

by Pete Sharma and Barney Barrett Macmillan 2007 978-0-230-02083-2
Blended Learning is the term originally coined in the world of corporate vocational training to describe the integration of the new opportunities for instruction offered by modern technology with traditional teaching methodologies. Pete Sharma and Barney Barrett’s Blended Learning examines what benefit this blend of modern technology with traditional pedagogy can provide for ELT practice. For them, the blend explicitly includes face-to-face classroom teaching, but can also involve distance learning or new approaches to out-of-classroom learning, such as involving students in working on CALL activities or web-quests at home and submitting their work by email, or developing autonomy through computer-based independent work. Aimed at the less technicallyaccomplished teacher, but with plenty of fresh ideas for those who embrace the use of technology and regularly blend it into their teaching practice, Sharma and Barrett’s text is refreshingly jargon-free, written in straightforward language and includes clear explanations. The book is full of practical suggestions and examples that can easily be integrated into teaching methods. It introduces technologies which may be new to many readers, but also takes a new look at more familiar techniques, such as the discussion in Chapter 5 on using standard office software. No assumptions are made about the reader’s technical literacy, and there are sections giving basic instructions about how to use word  processors and how to get started on the internet.
After an introduction, each subsequent chapter deals with a different technique or technology – using the web to source authentic materials; using published ELT materials; use of electronic dictionaries; how to use proprietary office software such as Word or PowerPoint as a teaching aid; interactive whiteboards; portable devices; and computermediated communication (basically, this is email, chat and forums). Each chapter follows a similar pattern, opening with a description of the technology or technique, moving on to detail opportunities and issues, then describing practical activities, and often ending with a case study. It is the detailed practical activities, which describe each stage of setting up and running a teaching activity, and which are aimed at a wide range of learner levels and teaching contexts, which many teachers will find especially appealing about the book. Where necessary, photocopiable worksheets are included at the back. The case studies make interesting reading and indicate that while Sharma and Barrett may be technophiles, they do not seem to have an agenda to push technology for its own sake, with at least one study – on interactive whiteboards – describing a situation where a high-tech installation was put in for marketing rather than pedagogical reasons, and where teachers’ reservations – in this case, about not taking traditional whiteboards out of classrooms – were not taken into account in the decision-making process. Sharma and Barrett end their useful and constructive text by considering the future. They speculate confidently, and reasonably, that the trend for ‘ubiquity’ – computers, portable devices, and high tech generally being present in every area of life – will continue, but point out that the actual natures of future technologies are impossible to guess. One thing which it is possible to predict, however, is that with the rapid proliferation of technology, this edition of Sharma and Barrett’s book will be out of date quickly, and it is to be hoped that Macmillan will bring out regular updates. Right now, though, this edition of Blended Learning provides an excellent overview of the state of the art, has no real competitors, and should be a recommended buy for teachers and planners wanting to know more about what new technologies can offer.
Viv Midlane Broadbottom, UK

English Consonant Sounds

 

In the last article on Teaching Pronunciation, we looked at how individual sounds are made, and in particular talked about the way consonant sounds can be classified as voiced or unvoiced, by place of articulation and by manner of articulation. If you haven’t read the article, or don’t remember what the terms mean, it would be useful to have a look at it now, before going on.

There wasn’t time, however, to discuss all of the consonant sounds in that article. So here is a full rundown. I suggest you try making the sounds as you read, so that you get a feel for where and how they are made. We’ll start this time with place of articulation.

The diagram shows the names of the various parts of the mouth involved in the production of English consonants :

A = nasal cavity
B = alveolar ridge
C = hard palate
D = soft palate or velum
E = lips and teeth
F = tongue 1 – tip 2 – blade 3 – body
G = uvula
H = larynx and vocal cords

For each consonant, two parts of the mouth are involved, and the name given to it reflects this. Starting from the front, some consonants are made using both lips – try saying /p/ /b/ /w/ and /m/ – and these are called bilabial consonants (bilabial = two lips)

Now try /f/ and /v/. This time it’s the bottom lip and top teeth which are involved. These are labiodental consonants (labio = lip, dental = teeth).

For nearly all the other consonants, the tongue will interact with another part of the mouth. The name of the consonant doesn’t include a reference to the tongue however, just the point of the mouth which it meets. So for instance, sounds made by an interaction between the tongue and the teeth are just called dental sounds. These are /t/, /d/ and the voiced and unvoiced “th” sounds, as in this and thick) (For the phonemic symbols for these and other sounds mentioned, see here.)

If you run your tongue back behind your teeth, you come to a bony ridge called the alveolar ridge. Several sounds are made on or just behind the ridge – /s/ /z/ /t/ /d/ /n/ /r/ and /l/

Moving back from the alveolar ridge you come to a similarly hard but smoother zone – the hard palate. /j/ as in yellow is a palatal sound, are as the highlighted consonants in the words sheep, measure, cheap and jeep. There is also a palatal version of the /r/ consonant. If you found it strange that it was classed before as alveolar, you may have been saying the palatal version.

Notice that there is now a difference in the way the tongue is used. For the dental and alveolar sounds, it was the tip of the tongue which was involved. For palatal sounds, however, it’s the blade of the tongue, and as we move further back to the velum (the soft part of the palate, closest to the throat) it’s the back, or body, of the tongue. The velar sounds are /g/ and /k/ and the final consonants in sing and in bottle – often called the “dark” l.

This leaves only the consonant /h/ which is produced by air passing from the windpipe through the vocal cords, or glottis. It’s therefore a glottal sound.

Place of Articulation tells us where the consonants are produced, but we also need to consider Manner of Articulation – how they are produced. The most important categories are :

Plosives : Plosive sounds (also called stop sounds) are formed by the air being completely blocked in the mouth and then suddenly released. For example, /k/ and /g/ are formed when the back of the tongue rises to the velum and momentarily blocks the air. These are therefore velar plosives. The other plosive consonants of English are the bilabial plosives /p/ and /b/ and the alveolar plosives /t/ and /d/. Some varieties of English – London English for example – also include a glottal stop which substitutes for the /t/ consonant between vowels. Imagine a London pronunciation of butter, for example.

Fricatives : Fricatives are formed when the two parts of the mouth approach each other closely, not completely blocking the passage of the air, but forcing it through a confined space. The air molecules start to bump against each other causing audible friction. Try the palatal fricative – the sh sound. You can feel your tongue up close to the alveolar ridge and the air passing through the small space left. The full list of English fricatives is : labiodental fricatives – /f/ and /v/; dental fricatives – the two th sounds; alveolar fricatives – /s/ and /z/; palatal fricatives – the highlighted sounds in sheep and measure; and the glottal fricative /h/.

Affricates : Affricates are really a plosive and a fricative combined. The air is initially blocked, and then released through a narrow passageway like a fricative. English has two affricates, the initial sounds in cheap and jeep. These are usually classed as palato-alveolar affricates, as they’re made in a position half way between the alveolar ridge and the hard palate.

Nasals : when a nasal sound is produced, the air is prevented from going out through the mouth and is instead released through the nose. There are three English nasals – the bilabial nasals /m/ and /n/ and the velar nasal – the final consonant in sing.

Approximant : Approximants are a bit of a hotch-potch category, and contain some of the most problematic sounds in English. We’ll look at them in detail another time, but for now will classify them together as sounds produced when the airstream moves around the tongue and out of the mouth with almost no obstruction. The English approximants are the alveolar approximants /l/ and /r/, the palatal approximant /j/ and the dark l – the velar approximant. Keep in mind, however, that this is a simplification.

This leaves the third distinguishing category which we discussed in the last article – voicing. If the vocal cords are vibrated when the sound is made, the sound is voiced. If the are not, it is unvoiced. Several of the English consonants come in pairs. They have the same place and manner of articulation and are distinguished only by voicing (1). For example /t/ and /d/ are both dental plosives, but /t/ is unvoiced while /d/ is voiced. In the summarising chart below, where pairs occur the unvoiced sound is always given first.

If you know where and how the sounds are made, you are in a better position to help your students (2). In the next article in this series we’ll look at some teaching techniques to improve students’ command of these sounds.

Notes

1. This is another simplification, and again something we’ll look at in detail another time.

2. For diagrams of the exact tongue position for each sound see this chapter from Philip Carr, English Phonetics and Phonology, Blackwell Publishing.

Further Reading

Teaching Pronunciation (M. Celce-Murcia et al, CUP) is one of the most useful books I’ve come across on teaching pronunciation. It manages to combine a thorough analysis of the phonology of English with a wealth of practical activities for use in the classroom. It focuses on the analysis of North American English, so teachers with a British accent need to be on the lookout for differences. But it’s a book I wouldn’t want to be without for its clarity and practical usefulness.

Cuando el e-learning sí funciona

El e-learning es cada día asimilado por más organizaciones (educativas y corporativas) como medio para facilitar la formación de colaboradores y estudiantes. Pareciera ser, después de numerosas discusiones, que el e-learning llegó para quedarse. En el camino de su maduración como modalidad de formación, las razones que han determinado su elección en las instituciones que lo implementaron, han pasado de la masividad a la personalización, de la verticalidad de los mensajes a la construcción colectiva del conocimiento, de la estandarización de los contenidos a la customización de acuerdo al perfil del usuario, del enfoque en el contenido al enfoque en el aprendiz, del aprendizaje autoadministrado a las opciones blended. 
 

Los beneficios que caracterizan al e-learning han ido cambiando, aunque algunos se mantienen como ventaja comparativa respecto de otras metodologías: la reducción en costos de viajes, el acortamiento de distancias y de los plazos de la formación (con la consiguiente reducción de costos asociados a la contratación de expertos y docentes), la estandarización de los cursos (llegar a más personas de la misma manera), la asincronía (en cualquier momento); aunque hoy se habla más de colaboración e intercambio remoto, aprendizaje multicanal, aprendizaje a medida, simulación de situaciones…

El e-learning como modalidad de formación pareciera estar con dios y con el diablo… todo depende de quién y cómo lo aplique, y sigue adaptándose a los tiempos que corren. Hoy, web 2.0 mediante, contamos con innumerables discursos acerca de las bondades del e-learning 2.0.

Y, sin embargo, todavía encuentra observadores dudosos que lo ven como modalidad sospechosa y sospechada frente a la nunca destituida formación presencial.

A ellos va dirigido este artículo, no con el fin de defender el e-learning que, por lo presentado hasta ahora, no necesita defensores, sino para desencantar justamente los discursos que lo proponen como mágica receta contra el desconocimiento.

El e-learning funciona cuando algunas condiciones organizacionales y personales están dadas, independientemente de la tecnología y los contenidos que pongamos a disposición del aprendiz y la institución. Estas condiciones son las que también influyen en procesos de formación no mediados por el e-learning, y así como pueden operar a favor, pueden operar en su contra.

No podremos enseñarle a nadie que no quiera aprender, y quien aprende lo hace aún cuando no exista un experto docente que le enseñe. Esto es así en entornos virtuales como en situaciones de clase presencial o en la vida misma. Las organizaciones –en particular, las corporaciones- pueden generar innumerables planes de formación para sus empleados, muy adecuados a su perfil de desempeño, pero si nunca han considerado la participación del empleado en la elección del programa, los contenidos, la modalidad de enseñanza y los tiempos de la formación, difícilmente se produzca el tan mágico momento del “aaaaaaaahhh! Así era!”.

El e-learning es un medio que posibilita el acercamiento del aprendiz a su objeto de aprendizaje (y no a la inversa como se cree). Mientras veamos a las plataformas de e-learning como “transportes de información”, lejos estaremos de lograr aprendizajes significativos, ni con el mejor de los diseños, ni con el mejor de los tutores…

Las organizaciones en las que el conocimiento es secreto de estado o una palanca de poder político, difícilmente puedan implementar una modalidad de aprendizaje que ponga el eje en el aprendiz y su necesidad, y poco menos en los objetivos institucionales. El conocimiento no puede estar en ningún lugar útil si no está accesible para ser aprovechado para la transformación superadora del accionar de las personas. Y el único lugar propicio para que esto se produzca es aquel que permite que las personas puedan apropiárselo. Las bases de conocimiento son tan solo repositorios de información inertes. Los cursos de modalidad e-learning puestos on line, no tienen ningún poder transformador por sí solos, y el aprendizaje depende de quien los utilice en su propio favor. Los expertos saben mucho pero ese saber se convierte en capital cuando pueden compartirlo, discutirlo, accionarlo… y no meramente transferirlo. Las personas no somos contenedores pero sí fuentes productoras de conocimiento, si interactuamos con otras personas y si hacemos nuestra propia experiencia. Y la interacción con otras personas hoy no se limita a la interacción cara-a-cara, insuperable por cierto, pero no siempre posible.

Para que el e-learning funcione, deberíamos empezar a cambiar el modo en qué hablamos del conocimiento (ni se distribuye, ni se transfiere, ni se archiva, ni se contiene; se construye, se comparte, se activa, se discute, se produce). Si las herramientas con las que contamos permiten que las personas dialoguen acerca de sus experiencias y dificultades, sus hallazgos y sus temores, lo que aprendieron y lo que no saben aun, entonces estaremos propiciando un espacio para que el conocimiento se produzca, siempre y cuando, no primen las restricciones culturales u organizacionales que limitan la participación de las personas.

La siguiente objeción que algunos indecisos hacen al e-learning se relaciona con los temas que pueden o no ser abordados a través de esta modalidad. El e-learning puede ser útil para enseñar-aprender procedimientos y técnicas en las que no intervengan aspectos emocionales o vinculados a la personalidad. Para ser más claros, “usaremos e-learning para cursos sobre seguridad ambiental pero no para enseñar liderazgo”.

Esta muy bien que discriminemos las temáticas y adecuemos el medio al mensaje y al destinatario, pero me pregunto: cuando hablamos de aprendizaje ¿no hablamos siempre de aspectos vinculados a lo emocional y a la personalidad? ¿No hablamos también de aprendizaje “actitudinal”, además de operativo? En definitiva, quienes aprenden son las personas, y en el proceso de aprendizaje intervienen las emociones, los deseos, las experiencias pasadas y, si hay, una apertura personal a la transformación; de lo contrario solo hablaríamos de un proceso de instalación, tal como lo hacemos cuando descargamos un softwaren en nuestra pc.

El e-learning, por ser multicanal, cuenta con diferentes medios que posibilitan la adecuación al destinatario y permiten que el contenido llegue de la mejor manera posible para lograr el objetivo de aprendizaje buscado, siempre y cuando, las demás condiciones arriba mencionadas estén dadas.

Esto significa que aun en ambientes áulicos, con un docente experimentado y con amplias facultades didácticas, solo logrará impactar positivamente, si están allí quienes necesitan y quieren aprender, y quienes pueden participar activamente del proceso de aprendizaje.

Y en e-learning pasa lo mismo.