First of all, what exactly is a CD-ROM? Short for'Compact Disc Read-Only Memory', a CD-ROM looks exactly like an audio CD but contains multimedia files that are programmed to use text, images, audio and video to provide interactivity. CD-ROMs are often included free or at little extra cost with coursebooks and workbooks. CD-ROMs accompanying courses typically have content related to each course unit, providing learners with extra reading and listening materials, recording functionality to practise pronunciation and speaking, and with grammar and vocabulary activities like matching vocabulary to definitions, drag and drop exercises, gap-fills, crosswords, and so on.
These CD-ROMs are primarily designed for learners to work on alone as follow-up to a lesson, either in a school self-access centre or at home. They can include features such as allowing learners to choose their own path through the CD-ROM materials by making their own 'lesson plans' - choosing which activities to do and in what order to do them. Many coursebook CD-ROMs also have testing materials incorporated, so that learners can check their own progress, as well as a grammar reference section and mini-dictionary. As well as the CD-ROMs accompanying language coursebooks, there are standalone CD-ROMs aimed at different groups of learners which cover different language areas and skills, such as examination preparation and practice, grammar and vocabulary andpronunciation. And of course there are dictionary CD-ROMs. Pronunciation practice usually involves a learner listening to a word or short sentence, and then recording themselves while repeating the word or sentence. The learner's output is then compared to a 'model' of correct pronunciation and the results displayed to the learner, often in the form of a graph. What is known as voice recognition software is used for this type of pronunciation activity. Note that voice recognition software is not always reliable, and even native speakers can be given negative feedback if their accents do not match the model provided!
CD-ROMs are particularly strong on providing grammar practice activities, and listening and reading materials for learners. CD-ROMs are less effective for speaking practice, as it is difficult to move beyond a 'listen and repeat' model, given the technology currently available and the lack of 'real' interaction inherent in a CD-ROM. Writing, too, will tend to be limited to 'fill in the blanks' activities, or reordering sentences into paragraphs or comparing paragraphs to a model. Any longer texts or creative writing produced by the learner will need to be corrected by the teacher, which makes practice of the writing skill less suited to this kind of self-study.
Starting to make an appearance along with CD-ROMs in the language teaching world are DVDs - short for 'Digital Versatile Disc' - which were developed in the 1990s. These are similar to CD-ROMs in that a variety of data can be stored on them, but they have much greater storage capacity than CD-ROMs. DVDs are usually used as an alternative to video cassettes, which are becoming increasingly outdated. DVDs allow the viewer to choose from various language options. On an EFL coursebook DVD you will generally find more video, which takes up a lot of disc space, than you would find on a CD-ROM. The video content on a DVD can be viewed on a computer with DVD viewing software installed, or on a DVD player. Note, though, that DVDs featuring interactive exercises need a computer. Some people believe that DVDs will eventually replace CD-ROMs in the EFL world, given their superior storage capacity and the high quality of video and audio. One particularly useful feature of DVDs is that there is often an option to view subtitles along with a video dialogue. In ELT courseware DVDs these subtitles are generally only in English, but in authentic DVDs, such as feature films, they can be in a choice of several languages. There are several ways the subtitles in DVDs can be used with learners in an English class. Here are a few ideas:
• The subtitles for a dialogue are hidden during a first (and even second) viewing. How much the learners understood can then be checked with comprehension questions, and the dialogue played a final time with the subtitles displayed.
• Learners listen to short sections of a DVD dialogue several times, transcribe them and then check their version of the transcript with the subtitles.
• Learners watch a short DVD dialogue between two characters with the audio switched off, reading the subtitles several times. Pairs are then invited to each take a character role, and to read the subtitles for their character at the same time the dialogue is played again, still with the audio switched off. This can be repeated several times. Can the learners keep up with the lip movements of their characters? Finally, the dialogue is played with the audio switched on.
While the use of DVDs of feature films is not a feature of using technology-based courseware, it is worth pointing out that you can exploit the use of native language subtitles for English language films, if you teach in a monolingual context. Play a short dialogue from an English language film, with the sound switched off, and only the native language subtitles displayed. Allow learners time to translate their native language into what they think the characters are saying in English. Replay the sequence several times with the sound still off, so that learners can check their translations with the lip movements of the characters on the DVD. Finally, play the sequence again with the sound on. Compare and discuss any differences in the translations.
Using CD-ROMs with learners in the classroom
Given that CD-ROMS are readily available and easy for learners to use, one of the first issues to resolve is whether to encourage your learners to use them entirely alone at home or in the self-access centre, or whether to integrate them into the classroom in some way. Self-study use of CD-ROMs at home is only possible, of course, if learners each have their own copy of a CD-ROM (or if the self-access centre in a school allows learners to take CD-ROMs home) and access to a computer. There are several types of activities that can be done to integrate a CD-ROM into your lessons:
• In the single computer classroom or school, pairs of learners can take turns to do a few CD-ROM activities, for example a couple of grammar drag-and-drop activities, while the rest of the class are busy with paper-based activities on the same grammar point. This introduces variety into the classroom.
• If you have access to a data projector (or 'beamer') and one computer, CD-ROM or DVD content can be projected onto a screen for the whole class to view and work on together, with learners taking turns to take control of the computer mouse. This is especially useful with video content, which in itself adds variety to the lesson. Using a data projector is also an excellent way to train your learners about what is on the course CD-ROM and how they should use it at home or in the self-study centre.
• If the school has a computer room or self-access centre, the teacher can programme in regular short sessions, for example once a week or fortnight, in which learners work alone or in pairs on CD-ROM materials during class time. Note that these sessions should be kept short so that learners don't get bored or lose focus.
CD-ROMs are often cited as being particularly motivating for learners, as they use 'new' technology, provide a multi-sensory alternative to paper-based classroom work, encourage self-study and autonomous learning, and can expose learners to authentic language via audio and video. The truth of the matter is that, like any tool, overuse can undermine the 'novelty' effect for students. Also, CD-ROMS have now been around since the late 1980s, and are being increasingly superseded by newer technologies such as blogs, podcasts, instant messaging, and so on, which we have already discussed in earlier chapters. The one big advantage that CD-ROMs have over these newer Internet-based technologies is
that learners can work with CD-ROMs offline, and are thus not reliant on an Internet connection, which in some contexts may be unreliable, expensive or simply not an option.
Given the wealth of CD-ROMs available for learners of English, where do you, the teacher, start in terms of evaluating whether one CD-ROM or another will be 'better' for your learners? In reality, teachers usually make the pragmatic decision of encouraging their learners to work with the coursebook CD-ROM (if there is one) in their own time, or refer them to the self-access centre. However, for those teachers who need to either recommend CD-ROMs to their learners, or are asked to choose CD-ROMs for their resource centres, where do you start?
The first issue to consider is whether a specific CD-ROM is meant to be a standalone resource, for example a CD-ROM for exam practice, or if it is an additional resource for a course. We will now consider how to evaluate a freestanding or standalone CD-ROM. Asking the following questions, and matching them to the needs and interests of your learners, will help in this process.
• What age group is the CD-ROM aimed at? Is the content suitable for adults, adolescents or younger learners? Is the content suitable for the cultural context in which you teach?
• What linguistic level is the content aimed at - beginners, elementary, intermediate or advanced?
• What kind of English is being focused on, for example business English, general English, English for academic purposes, and so on?
• How 'interesting' are the materials, and how well are they presented? Is the CD-ROM easy to navigate around? Is there a range of activity types and is enough variety provided?
• What skills and language areas are focused on - reading, writing, listening, pronunciation, vocabulary or grammar?
• Is it clear to the learners what the aim of individual activities is?
• How much multimedia content, especially video and audio, is there? What is the quality like? How much authentic audio/video is there, and how suitable is this for your learners?
• How is feedback on activities given to learners? Does feedback, although automated, help students really learn from their mistakes, and if so, how?
• How is testing integrated into the CD-ROM, and how do learners measure their own progress through the materials?
• What additional resources are provided, for example a dictionary or glossary, grammar paradigms and explanations?
• Are non-linguistic areas, such as intercultural communication skills, learner training or differences in learning styles, addressed in some way? If so, how?
• Does the CD-ROM meet any accessibility laws you may face?
Finally, you might want to consider what using a CD-ROM really adds to your learners' language learning experience, and how motivated they will be to use CD-ROMs, before you invest in CD-ROM resources. One way to do this is to discuss their value with your learners directly. It is also important to provide both teachers and learners with hands-ontraining in the use of CD-ROMs, and to link classroom work as far as possible with self-study CD-ROM work. Encouraging learners to keep a learning log of their self-access work and achievements, and even integrating this activity into your method of assessment, are ways of ensuring a sense of continuity between classroom work and self-study CD-ROM work.
Computer-based testing, online testing, e-assessment ... all of these terms refer to a phenomenon which has become increasingly visible in English language teaching in the last few years, that of taking tests via a computer rather than on paper. EFL learners can now take a range of different tests and examinations via a computer. Here are some examples:
• Learners can be given a diagnostic test on a computer before they start a course. This assesses their language levels in the skills of reading, writing, listening and even in discrete-item pronunciation, as well as in grammar and vocabulary. This information can then be used to assign the learner to a certain class or language programme, although for more thorough diagnostic testing, most institutions will also include a spoken interview and ask for a sample of the learner's writing.
What is important to note is that both of these tests are examples of adaptive tests. The computer offers a question, and depending on the learner's answer, it mathematically estimates the level of ability and then finds a second question that matches that level of ability. It does the same with the next question, the second time revising its estimation of the learner's ability based on the two answers it now has. The same process continues with each question, and each time the computer has more information on which to base its estimate of ability, which becomes increasingly accurate as more questions are asked.
Note that the free language school adaptive diagnostic test above is based purely on the recognition of grammar items. More sophisticated commercially available diagnostic tests (either online or via CD-ROM) will take into account a range of skills, and will recommend learning strategies for individuals based on their test performance, as well as point learners to their equivalent test scores in recognised examinations or tests like TOEFL or TOEIC.
Learners can take simple progress tests on CD-ROM. These tests will be based on the work that the learners have been doing in their coursebooks. Tests are often included in the learner's coursebook CD-ROM, or 'Test Master' CD-ROMs are made available for teachers as editable Word files. Teachers can then use ready-made tests, or make new tests for their learners, based on coursebook material.
Some publishers are starting to produce programs, or banks of online materials (often linked to courses), that enable teachers to create their own digital tests at the touch of a button.
• Learners can take internationally recognised examinations on a computer, for example the Internet-based TOEFL Test from ETS.
Advantages and disadvantages of computer-based testing
For the large international examination boards there are obviously several important advantages in being able to offer examinations online. By offering increased flexibility in location (learners can take an exam in many more centres geographically online) and in timing (an exam can be offered more frequently online), their market is considerably expanded and convenience to the customer improved. With computer-based testing, the mechanics of marking and feedback can be automated to a much greater extent, and results provided to candidates more quickly than with a paper-based exam. Marking of certain items is also much more reliable by computer than by hand, although examining speaking and writing skills still requires human intervention. The long-term costs of developing and running online exams are also considerably lower than those for face-to-face examining.
The main disadvantage of computer-based testing in our field continues to be that of ensuring reliability in the marking of extended pieces of writing and in assessing speaking. In this sense, nothing has changed from paper-based testing, as examiners are still needed and inter-rater reliability is difficult to guarantee. One other disadvantage is that initial investment costs in computer-based testing tend to be high, as software especially designed for specific computer-based tests is developed and an item bank of'questions' and resources is built up.
A further important issue is that of authentication with distance testing: how does the examiner know that the person taking the test online is indeed who they claim to be? With the advent of optical and fingerprint recognition technology, we may start to see more official examinations and tests delivered online, with students taking them from home, but at the time of writing this is still an area in development. Security is an ongoing issue for anyone involved in setting examinations.
For the language teacher, the main experience of computer-based testing is likely to be that of using computer-based progress tests or in preparing learners to take one of the internationally recognised exams online - and again, there are several CD-ROMs on the market that provide learners with exam practice that mimics the real thing (see page 120).
Related to the area of online and computer-based assessment, are electronic portfolios, also called ePortfolios or digital portfolios. A traditional paper-based portfolio is a collection of a learner's work, and an ePortfolio simply means that this work is presented in electronic format, and can thus include various electronic media such as video, audio, blogs or websites, as well as documents. An ePortfolio can showcase a range of the owner's skills, and display achievements not just from formal learning situations, but also from extra-curricular activities or work experience. The portfolio may also include reflections on the learning experience itself.
A portfolio is considered to be a richer way of assessing students, as it provides a much clearer idea of learner achievements and products than test scores or grades. ePortfolios are becomingly increasingly common in education, especially in secondary schools and further education institutions, reflecting the growing importance of, and access to, technology in our lives, as well as the rise of the electronic job market. A learner applying for a job with a company can send an ePortfolio of work to a prospective employer easily and quickly, and so display a range of skills not reflected in a test score.
Portfolio building is generally an ongoing process, and may include materials from courses already taken by learners, as well as current projects and works in progress. Opposite (top) is a diagram of areas that might be included in an ePortfolio. This is a comprehensive overview of what could be included in an ePortfolio. Learners and teachers can choose from all of these elements and include what seems most relevant to the learner's needs and interests, and to the aims of the portfolio. The content of an ePortfolio belonging to an adult learner of business English working for a multinational company will obviously be considerably different from that of a secondary school learner whose ePortfolio is part of their overall English class annual assessment. Opposite (bottom) you can see an example of the opening page of an Italian student's ePortfolio. Susana has put links to her work in the right- and left-hand columns of the ePortfolio main page.
There are several open source (free) software packages which learners can use to create an ePortfolio. One of these is Elgg (http://elgg.org/).
An interactive whiteboard (IWB) is made 'interactive' by being linked to a computer which uses special IWB software. The three essential components needed to use an IWB are the whiteboard itself, a computer which has IWB software installed and a data projector (or 'beamer') which projects the image from the computer screen onto the whiteboard. What makes tVie interactive whiteboard different from a normal whiteboard is that the teacher uses a special pen (or their finger with some makes of board) to manipulate content on the whiteboard itself, rather then using the mouse to manipulate images on the computer screen, which the teacher can also do. The latest IWBs can also be used with a wireless tablet PC (a smaller, hand-held computer) instead of a larger desktop or laptop computer. This has the added advantage that it can be passed around so that learners can manipulate the IWB from the tablet PC.
The interactive whiteboard itself comes in different sizes, measured diagonally across. The most common size is 190 cms (75 inches) across, and teachers tend to agree that the bigger the board the more effective it is, as images are more clearly displayed on a larger board. A whiteboard can be mobile (that is, moved from room to room) or fixed, but a mobile board needs to be set up again each time it is moved, which can take time. There are also backlit interactive whiteboards which do away with the need for a projector, but these are the most expensive kind of board. They are particularly useful in rooms with low ceilings.
The main advantage of an IWB used with a computer and data projector over a computer and data projector used on their own is that you can write on the IWB with your pen or finger and interact with what is on the screen from the front of the class rather than having to look down to your computer and using the mouse to control the screen.
IWBs in education
The British Council has been influential in bringing IWBs to language classrooms outside the UK, introducing them into Southeast Asia in 2003, and expanding their use of IWBs since then. In the UK itself, huge government investment from the early 1990s has seen IWBs appearing in primary and secondary schools, and further education, on a large scale. Both are examples of a top-down implementation of technology, with large organisations (in this case, the British Council and the British government) providing the impetus for the introduction of new tools in the classroom. Excellent classroom work is being done using IWBs at primary, secondary and university level, as well as in the language classroom. ]ust Google 'IWB projects in schools', and you'll see a range of current and recent IWB projects in all sorts of school subjects. However, at the time of writing IWBs are being used mainly in large organisations like the British Council, or are part of government-led education initiatives, especially within the European Union. This is down to the high costs associated with IWBs. The hardware outlined above is expensive, and usually well beyond the budgets of individual language schools or educationin less wealthy countries. Although the costs of the hardware involved in using IWBs are expected to decrease over time, they are likely to remain beyond the reach of most EFL teachers worldwide for some time to come.
Using IWBs with learners
If you are lucky enough to have access to an IWB, you will know that the 'wow' effect is extremely high. In other words, IWBs look and sound impressive. Imagine a full-size colour screen in your classroom, with video, CD audio, pictures, interactive exercises like those found on a CD-ROM, access to the Internet, and more, all instantly accessible at the touch of your IWB pen. You can also use an IWB pen to write over the images on the screen, highlighting things in different colours, using a variety of fonts and styles to write in, or you can use the pen to hide and reveal images on the screen. Items can be moved around the screen using the pen, and previous lessons and content can easily be kept and retrieved, as everything is saved on the computer. This means that a huge bank of resources is always available at the touch of a pen.


Three chapters in PME – by Martin, Barrett, and Burnard – focus primarily on the nature and teaching of musical creativity. These authors provide exceedingly valuable insights and perspectives, both theoretical and practical. Although I disagree with them on some points, we share a great deal in common, and I’ve learned from studying their views.
To begin with, we all answer the following questions affirmatively: Is it possible to teach musical creativity? Yes! We can, and we must do so. Can children be creative? Yes, by all means!
The big question, of course, is how do we develop our students’ creativity? The praxial view proposes that teaching musical creativity overlaps with and extends the strategies we use to develop our students’ musicianship-and-listenership in all situations – performing, improvising, arranging, composing, conducting – all of which involve and depend on listening. As Barrett says, “For Elliott, the key to creativity lies in developing musicianship and creative strategies concurrently (not consecutively), beginning at the earliest stages of instruction” (PME, p. 181). In addition, however, we help our students learn strategies that will enable them to apply and extend their musicianship-and-listenership toward producing creative outcomes, by which I mean original and significant performances, improvisations, compositions, and so forth. These strategies include what I and others call generating-and-selecting, instilling a creative disposition, planning, producing multiple drafts, risk-taking, opportunity finding, and so forth (see MM, pp. 225-227; 228-230; 234; PME, p. 181).
So, a basic tenet of the praxial approach to musical creativity is that “creativity” is not something we restrict to teaching composing and improvising. Everything we do as music teachers should integrate the development of students’ musical understanding and students’ creative know-how. For example, if we are teaching our students to sing a simple song by Schubert, or Ella Fitzgerald, then we should simultaneously teach them to sing expressively in relation to the way music is sung in these styles and, also, develop their “creative mindsets” by inviting them to make suggestions (reflect) about and experiment with different interpretations of these songs, answer questions and give reasons for their choices, and so forth. In these ways, students learn that music making is not a simple matter of sound-producing; rather, musical music making involves reflecting on, generating, and selecting musical options toward creative outcomes.
For example, if we are teaching our students to improvise the blues, we develop all ten forms of their thinking-and-knowing that make up their musicianship-and-listenership (see MM, chapters 3, 4 and 9-11), and we do this in the context of the blues-jazz practice being taught. Taking a contextual approach to developing creativity is a basic tenet of the praxial philosophy. Why? If a person is a creative blues improviser, this doesn’t mean that s/he will automatically be a creative rap improviser, or Broadway musical theater composer. Clearly, different criteria and histories of achievement apply in each musical style domain. Put another way, composers don’t “just compose,” improvisers don’t “just improvise,” and so forth. Composers (improvisers, performers, arrangers) work within specific musical style contexts which, in turn, favor different kinds of musical forms, expectations, and values. Of course, musical style characteristics can always be modified, appropriated, or combined. Indeed, “fusions” or ‘cross-overs” among and between styles are exceedingly common.
What I’m saying, then, is that the musical style-practice we are working in provides us (teachers and students) with the guidance we need to teach and learn how to be musically creative in each musical practice. By “guidance” I do not mean “strict rules.” I mean that “placing” and planning the development of students’ creativity in particular musical-style contexts informs us (teachers and students) about many things we need to know to be creative in that style. For example, each style-practice will “point us” to everything from compositional techniques, to model works, to evaluative criteria, to recordings that students need to listen to for the stylistic features they need to learn, adapt, and/or surpass in creating their own music.
Martin offers his perspective on these views:
“This praxial perspective enables all music students to engage profitably in composing and improvising. It should also encourage teachers to become composers and improvisers and learn how to teach their students to do the same in some selected musical styles.”
Also, Elliott’s premise that composing and improvising are “situated,” meaning that they should be taught in context, underscores the need for effective alternatives to abstract (acontextual, aesthetic) notions of “creativity,” which many teachers accept uncritically. Today, “creativity” is more often considered to be the outcome of doing, learning, and making in particular contexts of effort (e.g., musical styles), as Margaret Barrett also explains in the next chapter of this book (see PME, chapter 10). Thus, there is no substitute for engaging in style-related projects of composing and improvising. (PME, p. 174).
These points bring us to a larger question: What is musical “creativity”? I spend a long time answering this question in MM (chapter 9). Here I’ll simply say that teachers hold a wide variety of views and, therefore, musical creativity is taught in a variety of ways. At one end of the continuum, many teachers believe that anything anyone does is “creative” and any kind of “doing” is automatically an instance of “creating.” In other words, judgments of creative achievement are purely subjective and personal. At the other end of the spectrum, some teachers believe that creativity is something that only geniuses can accomplish.
Praxialism takes a contextual view: all people can develop their musical creativity because “creativity” is something that employs and extends musicianship and listenership, and because many kinds of “daily thinking-and-feeling” are always involved. This does not mean that everyone can become a Mozart. It means that people of all ages can learn to generate creative musical results: compositions, improvisations, performances-interpretations, and so forth. As Martin says: “Elliott’s praxial view of composition and improvisation as reflective practices is consistent with the demonstrated reports of practitioners and with the views of psychologists like Perkins (1981) and Weisberg (1986) for whom creative processes comprise ordinary procedures, not special talents” (PME, p. 174).
A key tenet of the praxial view is that, because creativity occurs in particular musical style contexts, teaching and assessing the development of people’s creativity depends centrally on teachers who understand the style in question. Indeed, ask yourself this: would it be reasonable for a teacher with no knowledge or ability in the language and literature of French culture to assess the creative writing of a French secondary-school student? No. Similarly, would it be reasonable, musical, and educationally appropriate for a teacher with no experience or ability as a jazz-blues improviser to tell a student that his blues improvisation was good, bad, “creative” or “not creative”? I do not think so. Teachers must know how to listen to and compose (arrange, or whatever) in a given style if they’re going to teach and assess their students’ composing (performing, improvising, or whatever) in that style.
Viewed from this perspective, students who are beginning to learn how to compose, arrange, improvise (and so forth) in a particular style-practice can be described as being “on their path” as creative music makers. They are learning what to listen for in the music of a specific style (or styles) and developing the musicianship needed to produce music in that particular style (or styles). They are not “creative” just because they are taking their first steps as composers; they are “novice or beginning composers.” However, as they gain some competency and proficiency with the materials and means of composing (improvising, etc.,) in a style, they are likely to generate a work that is more than ordinary, or routine: they will construct something original and significant – something creative – in the context of that style. So, a person (child or adult) does not need to be a genius or possess expert musicianship to produce creative musical results, but s/he does need a reasonable level of style-related musicianship-listenership in order to produce creative results. The reason is that a “creative product” is something that goes beyond normal, everyday doing.
It follows from this that students need informed guidance about how to (for example) compose melodies in a “Cool” jazz style, or how to compose “soundscape” pieces in the style of R. Murray Schafer, or how to compose a 12-tone piece. Learning to do these things begins with explorations of sounds, yes, but the learning process must progress through various levels of knowing-how and knowing-why composers do what they do in particular musical style-practice communities. I strongly suggest (based on my own teaching and learning experiences as a composer), too, that throughout the processes of teaching musical creativity, students must be given opportunities to produce multiple versions of their compositions, improvisations, and so forth. Suppose, for example, that I want my middle school students to learn and appreciate the qualities of different modes (e.g., dorian, phrygian) in Cool jazz (as in Miles Davis, Birth of the Cool). To do so, I guide them to compose three (or five, or eight) modal melodies (8 bars long). I do not limit them to one melody. This way, I’ll have lots of latitude in giving them constructive-formative assessments of their melodies. Also, my students won’t be “holding tightly” to their one-and-only melody, which could easily cause them to feel badly if I offer them constructive criticism, which is difficult for most people to hear at the best of times.
Burnard’s essay (PME, chapter 14) offers excellent examples of what I mean by praxial music education and the teaching of creativity. Notice, first, that her student composers are engaged in listening, improvising, composing, performing, and reflecting – in combination. These actions are not separated or compartmentalized. Notice, also, that the compositional processes and products of these students draw upon musical materials and experiences they first encountered as performers-listeners. As Burnard puts it: “This music making illuminates Elliott’s notion (MM, p. 102) of ‘listenership and its component knowings’ as procedural knowledge that feels and sounds in bodily actions learned from inside the musical practice of one player who transfers it to the other” (PME, p. 273).
Martin’s experiences as a composition teacher include a concern for reflecting-in-and-on-action, problem solving, generating and selecting musical ideas, “conversations” with musical materials, and so on. I discuss several of these same strategies (MM, chapter 9). Like the children in Burnard’s “Music Creators Club,” Martin’s students embody their performance abilities in their composing (PME, p. 167). In short, Burnard and Martin agree with me that “performing experience [I would add improvising, too] is arguably a more basic and practical starting point for composting . . . because performing gives students a first-hand, practical experience of the materials and the procedures of musical discourse in specific musical-cultural practices (PME, p. 167).
“Still,” says Martin, “there are unique aspects of compositional thinking that need attention during instruction” (p. 167). Yes, I agree. Moreover, we don’t have to limit the starting point of students’ composing to performing alone, which brings us to one of Martin’s main concerns. Martin states that he cannot agree with my decision “to include composing, alongside performing and improvising, ‘only as time permits’” (PME, p. 168). Actually, I do not say “only as time permits.” Nevertheless. I should have been clearer. As I’ve been emphasizing, I believe we must teach all forms of musicing in a balanced program. In reality, however, I’m also aware that most teachers do not have the time they need to teach all forms of musicing all the time. So, we need to decide some priorities (at the same time, I understand why many colleagues may want to put composing at the center of the curriculum. More on this in a moment). Still, I’m persuaded about the importance of performing and improvising (and listening, of course) as foundations for composing, and the need to link performing to composing so students can hear what they compose. This is why I say that, in addition to performing and improvising (note that improvising is a form of composing), “composing, arranging, and conducting ought to be taken up [i.e., taught] with reasonable frequency” (MM, p. 274). So, I see a difference between how Martin interprets my words and what I say. In fact, Burnard interprets my view another way: “the praxial view of general music education affirms the complexity of children as reflective music makers and validates listening, performing, improvising, composing, arranging, and conducting as interdependent forms of creative doing” (PME, p. 267).
That said, I want to confirm that I understand why and how some teachers (especially many colleagues in the UK) hold that student composing should be “first among equals” in music education. For example, if a teacher knows how to compose reasonably well in a reasonable range of styles, and if her students can learn to sing and play to some extent, and if students have ways of hearing their compositions performed expressively and regularly (e.g., by performing themselves, or in their class ensembles, and/or by other student performers in their school or community), then I agree that (a) a composing is an excellent “emphasis” in music education and (b) that a composing emphasis fits perfectly well with what I mean by “praxial music education.” And since composers frequently improvise in the processes of composing their works, improvising is an important process/strategy to learn in connection with learning to compose.
Here is a case in point. When I was a secondary school music teacher in Toronto in the 1970s (our school had 2200 students), my responsibilities included teaching composing and improvising in several general music classes. (I also taught instrumental music classes: wind ensembles, brass and woodwind chamber groups, and large and small jazz groups). In collaboration with my two colleagues (a sting orchestra teacher and a choral specialist), I continuously linked our student composers to our vocal and instrumental students. These composer-performer collaborations allowed our student composers to hear (and conduct) their works on a regular basis in class, at school concerts, and at evening chamber music concerts, which my colleagues and I organized every few weeks to showcase our students’ compositions. In short, I am not a performance-only teacher, and the praxial philosophy is not limited to performing. It emphasizes the basic importance of performing and improvising (MM, p. 172), both of which involve listening, but it also advocates that students’ compositions and arrangements be given the time and consideration they deserve towards musical performances of these works.
Martin makes two additional comments about my thoughts on improvisation (PME, pp. 168-170). On the topic of teaching improvising and composing, Martin makes a fair point in favor of teaching improvising in a “pure way,” without getting involved in composing: “I cannot see why student improvisers necessarily require ‘the more deliberate and forgiving tempo of compositional-notational time, as Elliott suggests’” (PME, p. 170). However, I do not say composing is “required” in the teaching of improvising. I only say that “student improvisers would benefit from opportunities” to engage in compositional processes and projects because composing and improvising are so similar in fundamental ways. Besides, from a pedagogical perspective, different students learn in different and/or multiple ways; so, linking composing to the teaching-learning of improvising would most likely assist some student improvisers in important ways.
A second criticism (p. 171) is that I focus exclusively on the solo improviser. Martin gives excellent examples of how and why it’s necessary to examine and teach improvising as a group activity. Martin is right. I should have said much more about the collective nature of improvising as it occurs in different musical practices. I believe my emphasis on the collective and collaborative nature of the praxial curriculum-as-practicum implies that improvising must be taught with attention to the interactive nature of improvising, but I must make this point more explicit in future discussions.
Barrett supports the praxial view for several reasons (PME, chapter 10). First, she observes that praxialism “moves our profession beyond the excesses of the progressive child-centered movement where an ‘anything goes’ kind of ‘self-expression’ was the guiding principle for teaching the arts (Abbs, 1987, pp. 38-46). For Elliott, creative musical achievements can only arise in a context in which issues of domain and field (e.g., knowledge in a field) are considered in conjunction with individual makers” (PME, p. 177). She adds that the praxial concept of creativity “goes far beyond traditional notions of creativity-as-composing to include all forms of music making: arranging, composing, conducting, improvising, and performing” (p. 177).
Nevertheless, Barrett has some important concerns. First, she queries my view that that “composing is a ‘major’ but secondary means of developing musicianship” (PME, p. 178). I admit that this was not a good choice of words. I did not mean to say that composing is “secondary” in the sense of being lesser, unimportant, or inferior to performing and improvising. I meant to say that composing must be connected to performing and listening; otherwise, students will not learn to discern when their works are performed well or badly. I’ve already explained (in my discussion of Martin’s essay, above) that I support curricula where composing is central – as long as student composing is intimately connected with a serious concern for how well students’ works are interpreted, performed, and listened to by the student composers themselves and their peer (classroom) audiences.
In fact, Barrett seems to acknowledge what I’m saying in this statement: “when he discusses composition as musical creativity ([MM] pp. 161-163), he does not see it as a “stand-alone” activity. Rather, he sees each kind of composing (defined by its context of traditions, standards, and style elements) as embedded in a web of social-historical-musical thinking-in-action” (PME, p. 177). Yes, and this is why I think Barrett’s use of the term “schism” (p. 178) might be too strong in comparing my view with educators like John Paynter. For example, I don’t think Professor Paynter would disagree with me that teachers need to be very concerned with how students’ compositions are “made audible” and how well students are learning to listen in the composing context. Surely “teaching and learning composing” means students do more than generate and “write down” their ideas (graphically and/or in standard notion)? Otherwise, there is no comprehensive music teaching-learning going on.
Again, then, a very serious question is this: Are students’ hearing their compositions performed (by themselves, their classmates, and/or others) accurately, sensitively, expressively – musically! – in our music composition classes? Unfortunately, some music teachers “teach composition” with no attention to this vital issue. For them, it’s enough to “sound out” or “reproduce” students’ compositions. (I’ve seen this kind of non-musical “composition teaching” in many parts of the world). I oppose such unmusical teaching practices that split composing and performing. This is why I emphasize the need to be concerned with performing, improvising, and listening in relation to teaching composition. And this is partly what I mean when I say that students need to be involved in performing and improvising before and during their efforts as composers.
Next, Barrett suggests that the praxial view of creativity is a significant departure from earlier views of creativity because of the following:
it (a) recognizes the influences of historical and socio-cultural dimensions of creativity, (b) it emphasizes the development of individual skills and understandings from novice-to-competent and proficient levels of music listening and making (MM, pp. 70-71; p. 227), and it (c) views the processes through which the individual works in contexts of real musical practices. (PME, p. 182)
However, Barrett is concerned that I do not draw from research that examines the creative processes of school-aged children. In relation to this issue, she asks the following questions:
“What constitutes the community of practitioners in the music classroom? Is it the larger community of practitioners to whom Elliott refers – that is, the musical community beyond the classroom and school setting where the ‘practitioners who originate, maintain, and refine established ways and means of musicing’ dwell? Is it that micro-community of practitioners who operate in specific schools and classrooms encompassing all the social and cultural features of these settings? Alternatively, is it the community of practitioners who originate, maintain, and refine established ways and means of musicing in the domain of music education? In learning a musical practice, says Elliott, interactions with ‘significant others,’ including teachers and the wider community of practitioners, whether in person or on recordings (p. 161), is essential. However, should students’ ‘creative’ endeavors be judged against those of the wider musical community or (as Csikszentmihalyi and Rich now seem to suggest) in comparison to the micro-communities of the school and the domain of music education?” (pp. 182-183)
My answer is: all of the above. Guiding and assessing the musical-creative development of our students requires that we include all these factors. We nurture and assess creativity in relation to their efforts in the specific musical style-practices they are working in, and in relation to their peers and, therefore, in relation to both the larger community of musical practitioners and the micro-communities of the school, and the field of music education.
Accordingly, when Barrett suggests that we should make a distinction between children’s musical creativity and adult creativity, I wonder about this. If we follow this line of thinking, then do we also assess adolescents’ musical creativity on a separate scale; and, do we assess middle-aged persons’ musical creativity on a different scale? The danger in this kind of age-based view of creativity is that teachers will assess children’s creativity only “against other contributors of a similar nature made by their peers” (p. 182). If this happens, then teachers may avoid the education of musicianship-listenership in favor of unique “self-expression,” and judgments will become highly subjective. The educational consequence is that, without a musical context to “refer to,” we will have nothing to teach and students will have nothing to learn because whatever student peers think will be deemed “creative.”
Of course, I know music is different from other school subjects, but (for the sake of argument), consider what would happen if we limited our judgments of students’ efforts in math, or English, or soccer to aged-based criteria. Do we ever do this in education? No. We know and bear in mind the nature and standards of good (excellent, creative) English writing, good (excellent, creative) science work, good (excellent, creative) soccer playing. In terms of musical creativity, the process is similar, but not the same, of course. Musical creativity requires musicianship and listenership, but it goes beyond these because the many dimensions of meaning that make up a “musical work” in (an improvisation, composition, arrangement, performance-interpretation), in each given style, are more fluid and elusive than a mathematical proof, an experiment, or a creative “play” in sports. Thus, it is more difficult to assess creativity in music than in most fields. So, what would happen if we compared one first-grader’s beginning-level improvisation to another first-grader’s beginning-level improvisation to determine the relative “creativity” of each. Without considering these students’ efforts in relation to the musical-style context in which they’re improvising, we have no way of knowing whether their novice efforts are musical, let alone creative. For example, if one of these students plays four different notes of a pentatonic scale, and the other student plays three random notes in serial music fashion), which one is “creative”? How could a teacher possibly determine this reasonably, fairly, and musically? So, even at the earliest stages, teaching musicianship and creativity needs to be situated in style contexts, including (of course) 20th and 21st century avante garde, “exploratory” styles.
At another point in her essay, Barrett worries that my concept of inducting children into musical practicums that approximate real musical practices “suggests that children are incapable of creative endeavor in music until they have attained sufficient levels of musicianship in real music cultures” (PME, p. 185). I didn’t mean to suggest this. In fact, consider the students in Burnard’s “Music Creators Club” (PME, p. 273) who are engaged in creative endeavors. Notice that they are drawing many of their musical ideas from “real” music cultures (or so-called “adult music”). For another example, I offer a scenario in MM (pp. 225-226) wherein a student named Clara is composing a short jazz flute duet in bebop style. So, I affirm that children can and do achieve creative results in real musical practices.
Second, I see a possible contradiction in Barrett’s reasoning. On one hand, she suggests that there’s a problem with the praxial curriculum due to its focus on engaging students in “real music cultures” (my term) and “the communities of practice evidenced in the adult musical world” (PME, p. 185). She argues that by conceiving music education in relation to so-called “adult music,” we may “ignore (to our detriment) the musicianship that children bring to the music education enterprise, with a concomitant potential loss of musical richness and diversity in their, and our, lives” (p. 185). On the other hand, I note that most (if not all) of her examples of “children’s creativity” are linked to adult musics, as I’ll show in a moment. The same holds for the highly social aspects of improvising, composing, performing and moving that Barrett discusses as characteristic of children’s musical activities outside the school. I suggest that these characteristics are not unique to children; most real-world musics display the same characteristics, as we can see, and as ethnomusicologists commonly tell us.
I freely admit that children, and people of all ages, bring their own musical experiences and ways of thinking to their unique processes of composing, listening, and so forth. We should honor and build on these prior experiences, as I affirm in my discussion of multicultural music education (MM, p. 211). And I agree with Barrett when she states that “many children bring to school considerable musicianship within a particular community of practice” (p. 189).
However, I wonder if so-called adult music is a different species or practice (or praxis) compared to music “of the child’s musical world”? Perhaps we might say that children are exploring, discovering, learning and expressing the musics of their cultures in a variety of ways, from novice to beginning levels of ability and beyond? I suggest this because the examples of “children’s creativity” Barrett names in her essay are intimately related to “adult” musical practices – they are either drawn from real music cultures, or they are variations on pre-existing music cultures of the “real world.” For example, Barrett cites research on (a) West African singing games (which are related to West African adult traditions of music making), (b) the song-writing processes of young rock musicians (“rock music” is also a cluster of adult musical practices), and (c) Harwood’s research on the improvisational practices of African American girls, which Harwood relates to the girls’ knowledge of rap and pop songs from adult media, including MTV.
Barrett concludes by suggesting that “when we speak about children’s creativity as it occurs in settings where children are the ‘controllers’ of the ‘musical community of practice, these elements of the domain and field must be defined as part of and within the parameters of that ‘community of practice’. Consequently, the ‘field’ is made up of experts in that domain, that is, other children” (PME, p. 189). But if what I pointed out above is accurate – i.e., if children very often make music in relation to the musics of real world practices, as Barrett substantiates with her own examples – then I question whether children are the only “experts” involved; perhaps teachers and adult musicians are also “experts” by virtue of knowing the musics that children appropriate?


Undoubtedly, virtual reality has been one of the most discussed topics between educators since the past year. Multiple applications try to exploit its characteristics in order to enhance students’ learning process.
Virtual Speech (Language VR) is an application which through scenarios and a wide range of language situations, aims to use the virtual reality to teach foreign languages. Besides English the user can choose between the following languages: French, Spanish, Portuguese, German and Chinese. Russian, Japanese, Italian and Korean are soon to be released.
Originally the app was developed to help people learn English through simulations of the English culture and landmarks. The idea behind this was to create a more exciting way of learning in a virtual environment. Research shows that visual representations help in maintaining information and learning new vocabulary (Jones, 2010). In addition the use of images helps in making abstract ideas more specific to students.
Below are listed the categories that the user can pick from.
Experience Culture: Virtual Reality (VR) is the possible solution for creating genuine language learning environments in EFL countries for a variety of reasons. The most beneficial part of using VR is the creation of those situations that simulate the physical environment through digital representation (Chen & Chen, 2016). London, Cotswolds, Warwick, Cornwall and many other British places are available to visit.
Vocabulary: The user is asked to locate various objects in beautiful and well-designed rooms. Despite the fact that we really liked this option it should be mentioned that the free version of the app includes only room.
Audiobook Chapters: The user can choose to listen to renowned books such as Treasure Island or Alice in the Wonderland. Of course, it would be an addition if moving or static images could be added as to enhance the student's involvement.
Basic Tenses: The player interacts with different shapes and objects trying to put them in order while creating sentences. Each object represents a single word. At the moment the user can choose from Present Simple, Past Simple and Future Simple.
Numbers: A realistic space ship simulation game in which the player tries to maneuver his spacecraft to the right number. It's not just a language learning game, but it certainly enriches the whole experience.
Roleplaying Speeches: It is a fact that through virtual reality it is possible to simulate situations that would be either too expensive or unfeasible to perform (Dávideková, et al., 2017). On this axis the user can simulate a speech, an interview, make a reservation for a hotel etc. It is a fact that there is no feedback based on what is said, but this may have had dubious results and would certainly require some financial consideration such as the purchase of the application.
Rewards and statistics: Finally, it is possible to record some of the user's achievements which are earned after completing certain activities.
Language VR will help teach English language and culture by providing photorealistic virtual reality environments to students to talk, listen, interact, and ultimately play.
The application is fully compatible with Google Cardboard and is available for Android, IOS, and GearVR devices. You can find out more here https://virtualspeech.com/
Chen, X. and Chen, M. (2016). The Application of Virtual Reality Technology in the EFL Learning Environment in China. Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Sensor Network and Computer Engineering.
Dávideková, M., Mjartan, M. and Greguš, M. (2017). Use of Virtual Reality in Education of Employees in Slovakia. Computer Science, 113, pp. 253-260.
Jones, A.D. (2010). Science through photography. Science through photography. Science and Children, 47 (5), 26-30.
The gamification of learning is a modern, student friendly, efficient way of teaching and deliving content. This approach uses the elements and characteristics of video games to transform teaching in a way that will greatly affect students' engagement.
Νearpod is an extremely powerful presentation tool. It allows teachers to create digital lesson plans, share it with students during class, and track individual progress. Lessons are comprised of teacher-created slides that can include text, video, images, websites, questions, quizzes, polls, and assignments. Teachers can use Nearpod effectively in the classroom to support student learning in a variety of ways. Give students opportunities for interaction and immediate feedback by having them draw on a map, respond to a poll question, post to a collaboration board, or take a multiple-choice quiz. Besides, teachers can incoroprate virtual reality trips and 360° views into their slides using the build-in capabilities the Nearpod offers. By watching videos and reviewing notes students can review the key concepts of the lesson. In addition they are able to follow the lesson on their own devices at their own pace or teachers can lead a synchronized session where students can follow the lesson in real-time. This way the learners become active participants in their education while teachers get valuable feedback on student learning.
Nearpod augments the normal PowerPoint experience. Τhe presentation experience is enhanced by administering formative assessments to students as they work and allowing the teacher to monitor students as they take notes, draw or map concepts, answer quizzes and more. This is formal learning that uses the traditional classroom model and elevates it to include more interactive elements.
How to use:
To use this tool, the teacher must visit the Nearpod website and register.The teacher can either create the lesson from scratch or import an already made presentation in PowerPoint and then add the elements to enhance it. When satisfied with the created lesson, teachers can choose if they are going to lead the lesson or if students will complete the lesson individually. If they are going to complete it together, students will need to log onto the lesson by entering the lesson plan’s pin into the Nearpod app or website. If this option is selected, teachers will have the ability to monitor their students’ computer screens once they are logged in, which means whatever is shown on the teacher’s screen is also shown on the students’ screen. If students complete the lesson independently, they will be able to work on their own pace. If teachers include different activities and assessments, they will be able to view student achievement and work as students progress through the lesson. Teachers will be able to see student progress by clicking the group icon on the top left of the screen.
Side note: Not all the content on Nearpod is free. A teacher may have to purchase a subscription to access all the content. However, the educator can still make and use a custom lesson with the students for free but some of the options are limited. Also, teachers are encouraged to use the “Explore” option to view lessons made by colleagues and then use them or modify them for their own needs.
According to Gee's evaluation criteria (2003), educational video games must be pedagogically driven and appropriate to promote learning. These criteria refer to the motivation given to the student when using the application or game, the potential problems he / she will be faced with and his / her level of interactivity.
Johnny Grammar's Word Challenge is an application suitable for Android and IOS devices. It is really beneficial for students who learn English and want to improve their knowledge of grammar and vocabulary. The aim of the game is to answer as many correct questions as possible within a minute, with the user receiving badges depending on his performance (Grammar Guru, Word Wizard and Supreme Speller badges). By winning badges the player is placed on a leaderboard competing with other players worldwide.
There are three levels of difficulty (easy, medium and hard) depending on the level of questions asked. In the vocabulary category there are 10 sub-categories related to food, travels, idioms, movies, hobbies etc. In the grammar category there are 12 sub-categories related to intentions, irregular verbs, auxiliary verbs, etc.
After completing quizzes, the application offers feedback so the user can evaluate the answers given. In fact, through this gamification process, the user indirectly aims at improving the cognitive knowledge’s capacity as this improvement will also lead to a better placement in the ranking board.
Assessing the "Johnny Grammar's Word Challenge" application with Gee's criteria for mobilizing the student, this game is structured in such a way that it makes the user feel that his action have a meaning (Gee, 2004). Problems in the application are well organized as there is a scaling difficulty so the learner can easily start from the lowest level of difficulty and reach the highest, making the challenges easily manageable (Gee, 2004). Another advantage is the immediate feedback given as the student quickly acquires an image of his level and knowledge. This is a valid update on the processes that should or have been applied, which serves in understanding and building new knowledge. After all it is widely known that people learn skills, strategies and ideas better when they see how they fit into a more general frame which is meaningful for them. In fact, every experience is reinforced when we understand how it fits into a more important set.
Gee, J.P. (2004). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Interactive Educational Multimedia, (8), 15-23.
Socrative is a tool primarily designed to evaluate the learner. The application (response system) allows the educator to create several kinds of quizzes: Multiple Choice, Right or Wrong, Brief Response, etc. Those quizzes are accessible by the tutor who has access to view the responses of each student (Kokina, & Juras, 2017). There is also another option called “Exit Ticket”, which provides a direct insight into the students' understanding of the main points of the course. (Tretinjak, Bednjanec & Tretinjak, 2015).
Socrative is also a tool of gamification since it is a virtual environment which is full of challenges that pupils have to respond to. Unlike other applications it doesn’t embed a reward system but through its leaderboard option students can recognize their weaknesses and improve their knowledge. After a quiz is done, the teacher receives a report which records individual performance. Then the educator can share this report with the learners and process the results of their responses.
An other useful option is the “Space Race”. When using the “Space race” option, the answers are given by groups of students, thus enriching the group-work spirit and the element of competition between the different teams. As stated in an article by Ferrándiz, Puentes, Moreno, & Flores, (2016), Socrative allows group collaboration and competition. As a result the students become more motivated compared to the usual quizzes.
All in all, it can be said that the use of Socrative in class strengthens the metacognitive processes of learners while promoting learning at the same time.
Kokina, J., & Juras, P. E. (2017). Using Socrative to Enhance Instruction in an Accounting Classroom. Journal Of Emerging Technologies In Accounting, 14(1), 85-97. doi:10.2308/jeta-51700
Tretinjak, M. F., Bednjanec, A., & Tretinjak, M. (2015). Interactive teaching with Socrative. 2015 38Th International Convention On Information & Communication Technology, Electronics & Microelectronics (MIPRO), 848.
Ferrándiz, E., Puentes, C., Moreno, P. J., & Flores, E. (2016). engaging and assessing students through their electronic devices and real time quizzes. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 3(2), 173-184.
The integration and exploitation of technology in in recent years takes place through pleasant environments of learning, collaboration and authenticity. Such an environment is the Quizizz. It requires the student's active engagement and the emergence of a learning experience that no longer relies on the sterile knowledge of the content. The use of such tool keeps students' interest and commitment to acquiring new information (The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz, 2017).
Quizizz is a free learning application designed for mobile phones that uses wireless handhelds to collect student responses and then show the results in the classroom while collecting direct feedback by answering questions posed by the educator (Kahoot, Quizizz, 2017). The teacher selects a quiz that has been structured for the particular subject of interest and then provides a pin for the students. Students then use the pin and the questions appear on their mobile devices. They are required to answer a timeframe predetermined by the teacher. Questions appear randomly to each student, and then the learner observes the results of the choice he/she made (Boulden, Hurt & Richardson, 2017). The total results are also shown at the interactive whiteboard with the help of the teacher’s computer and a projector.
Students play together, but each at their own pace. Gamfication elements like avatars, leaderboard and funny memes add to the fun. At the end of the game, the educator receives detailed class and student-level reports to understand where the pupils need help.
It is a tool based on behavioral learning theory as learning through quizizz is done with specific activities to achieve goals that are designed by the teacher (Learning Theories, n.d.). Thus, the student is not in control of the application since the teacher is the creator. As far as the evaluation of the learner is concerned, the behavioral patterns are also followed, since the results of the quiz appear at the scoreboard.
Effects on the learning process:
By studying the positive results in the learning process, many pedagogical benefits are attributed to Quizizz. Students perceive commitment and acquire a different perception of learning as their motives multiply (The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz, 2017). Studies show increased collaborative learning and engagement as well as increased learning outcomes (Boulden, Hurt & Richardson, 2017). Then the concentration of children in the process increases as well as their active engagement (The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz, 2017). As far as the teacher is concerned, the contribution of the tool is to control the level of understanding or lack of knowledge through the feedback system provided at the end of the process.
In conclusion one could imply that the inclusion of games and technological tools offers all the resources to students for communication, contact and collaboration. In the context of teaching, the tools that technology has provided us, ensures a more extensive and cost-effective exploratory work on the subject of teaching (Cardet, 2013).
Create your own Quizizz at http://quizizz.com
Boulden, D. C., Hurt, J. W., & amp; Richardson, M. K. (2017). Implementing Digital Tools to Support Student Questioning Abilities: A Collaborative Action Research Report. I.E .: Inquiry In Education, 9 (1), 1.
CARDET (2013). Authentic Learning. Report within the project Developing Authentic Learning Environments through School and Business Collaboration. Nicosia: CARDET Press.
The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz and Google Forms on student perception in the classroom response system. (2017). 2017 International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology (ICDAMT), Digital Arts, Media and Technology (ICDAMT), International Conference on, 178
Classcraft is a free e-learning system that transforms class into a role-playing game, based on the theory of the gamification of learning which attempts to make the learning process even more accessible to students (Analysis of Factors Affecting, 2015). It is basically used as a means of managing the classroom and the behaviors of its members (Sanchez, Young, & Jouneau-Sion, 2017; Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2017). Classcraft transforms school by taking the video game mechanics that provide rich and interesting play experiences and applying them to the classroom setting.The teacher is responsible for coordinating the game since he is the game master.
A computer and a projector are required for viewing the statistics of the students, while students can view their progress and interact with the content by downloading the application which is available for IOS and Android devices.
The game runs in the background during the lesson and it normally takes place simultaneously. The teacher chooses to switch to the game whenever he or she sees that fit or whenever (2015) .
In-game students create an avatar and then are divided into small groups that will compete with one another. The student has the option to customize his own avatar with a number of predefined characters (mage, warrior, healer) each of whom has his / her own powers and weaknesses (Brettton, Sim, & Read, 2016)
These powers represent behaviors and processes that occur within the classroom. For example, the healer's "Ardent Faith" power enables him to confirm a response to a test by asking the professor. In addition, students earn points by answering questions, participating in classroom activities or helping another teammate or even the teacher (Sanchez, Young, & Jouneau-Sion, 2017).
Through a variety of activities, students acquire experience points and improve the level of the hero they have chosen initially, thereby improving their own cognitive ability and behavior.
It is a tool based on behavioral learning theory as learning through classcraft aims to modify the student's behavior. Additional features that classify it in behavioral learning tools are the specific activities to achieve objectives that activities are designed from the beginning by the teacher (Learning Theories, n.d.). Thus the student is not in control of the application since the teacher is the creator and the one who moves the strings and directs all the parameters of reward or punishment within a course context. As far as the assessment of the learner is concerned, it can be said that it follows the behaviorism model as well since the teacher attributes the possible positive or negative reward with the experience points.
Within the framework of classroom management strategies and actions, teachers build a positive ethos within the school unit by recognizing and commending positive behavior and discouraging the unsatisfactory and unacceptable. According to Bretherton, Sim, & Read (2016), Classcraft plays the role of a new behavior system, transforming the traditional responsibility of the teacher.
The positive effects on the learning process include the encouragement for learning, cooperativity and student-to-student communication and effectiveness (2015; Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2017; Bretherton, Sim and Read, 2016). Worth mentioning is the flexibility the students have and the freedom of decision-making given due to the fact that the information that is provided to the users about the consequences of their choices can alter their way of behaving (Sanchez, Young, & Jouneau-Sion, 2017).
Finally, with the adoption of classcraft as a regulator of the appropriate behavior, students' performance is expected to reach higher standards, aiming not only at the optimal learning culture but also in the improved social life and the extended teamwork that follows (Bretherton, Sim, & Read, 2016). Two different elements are extremely worth mentioning regarding Classcraft. On the one hand the tool is shaped in such a way that it contributes to the improvement of an individual level of the pupil and on the other it introduces social skills and interactive actions, which encourages the establishment of learning communities that can help in achieving common goals.
All in all Classcraft, cultivates the development of critical thinking in students, underlining those who believe that games are not just a tool for mere entertainment but they also have huge educational potential (Sanchez, Young, & Jouneau-Sion, 2017). Applications of this type transform the traditional classroom into a learning environment where activities make sense to the pupils and thus create a sense of pleasure under fun situations.
Gamify your own classroom by visiting https://www.classcraft.com/
Analysis of factors affecting user acceptance of the implementation of ClassCraft E-Learning: Case studies faculty of information technology of Tarumanagara university. (2015). 2015 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS), Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS), 2015 International Conference on, 73.
Bicen, H., & Kocakoyun, S. (2017). Determination of University Students' Most Preferred Mobile Application for Gamification. World Journal On Educational Technology: Current Issues, 9(1), 18-23.
Bretherton, W., Sim, G., & Read, J. C. (2016). ClassCraft in the Primary School Classroom. Proceedings Of The European Conference On Games Based Learning, 167-74.
Γιαννούτσου, Ν., Μπούνια, Α., Ρούσσου, Μ., & Αβούρης, Ν. (2012). Αξιοποίηση των ψηφιακών τεχνολογιών με στόχο τη μάθηση σε χώρους πολιτισμού: μία κριτική θεώρηση επιλεγμένων παραδειγμάτων. Θέματα Επιστημών και
Τεχνολογίας στην Εκπαίδευση, 4(1-3), σ.131.
Θεωρίες μάθησης. (n.d.). Ανακτήθηκε από https://economu.wordpress.com/%CE%B5%CE%BA%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%B4%CE%B5%CF%85%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C-%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C/%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B5%CF%82-%CE%BC%CE%AC%CE%B8%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7%CF%82/
Naismith, L., Sharples, M., Vavoula, G., & Lonsdale, P. (2004). Literature review in mobile technologies and learning.
Sanchez, E., Young, S., & Jouneau-Sion, C. (2017). Classcraft: From Gamification to Ludicization of Classroom Management. Education And Information Technologies, 22(2), 497-513.
Games in education are the teacher’s weapon to try and involve students in activities that combine the element of fun and learning with a meaning. Mobile devices have reshaped the way of teaching and have created new opportunities towards this approach.
This article will present one of the most useful tools, Kahoot! which combines beautiful graphical representations and sounds, turns the classroom into a playroom, with the teacher being the "show" coordinator and the students to be the contestants (Fotaris, Mastoras, Leinfellner & Rosunally, 2016). Students are asked to give the appropriate answer to the current question they are dealing with using their mobile devices and according to their responses they earn points that rank them in a rating scale (Wang, 2015).
A Kahoot! is a collection of questions on specific topics. Create a fun learning game in minutes – called ‘kahoot’. The format and number of questions are entirely up to you. Add videos, images and diagrams to your questions to amplify engagement and make learning so fun that your students will literals beg to be assessed
The benefits that Kahoot offers! in the learning process are many, but in summary, one could claim that it transforms the learning process into a more efficient and productive one (Katyshev, n.d.). The ease with which students receive feedback individually on their devices promotes self-evaluation, while the teacher's report on the distribution of student responses gives him the opportunity to identify potential gaps, make further analysis as well as explanation of the right choices (Katyshev, nd; Wang, 2015; Dellos, 2015; Fotaris, Mastoras, Leinfellner & Rosunally, 2016). Besides, as Dellos (2015) points out, creating the conditions for a comfortable environment for feedback in their responses without the stress of evaluation is critical to assimilation of knowledge. The user-friendly interface is also enhanced by the fact that there is no need to download a separate application, although there is such a possibility, since the game can be played through any web browser (Katyshev, n.d.). Even the existence of the scoring system exploits the innate tendency of man to compete, effectively giving players an incentive to improve the position on the ranking board (Katyshev, Wang, 2015; Fotaris, Mastoras, Leinfellner & Rosunally, 2016)
Being a system of responding to student choices in a pre-created game of questions by Professor (Dellos, 2015) and according to the foregoing, it is concluded that this application is largely a behavioral tool in which the right options have been set beforehand and students are asked to identify them, ultimately leading to the reward of this desirable option. Of course, if used in ways other than the above, it has the potential to become a tool of social constructivism
If used properly, It has the potential to create a social, fun and game-like learning environment.
Visit http://create.kahoot.it to make your own quizzes using Kahoot! or discover Kahoots! made by others
Dellos, R. (2015). Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12 (4), 49-52.
Fotaris P, Mastoras T, Leinfellner R and Rosenally Y (2016). Climbing Up the Leaderboard: An Empirical Study of Applying Gaming Techniques to a Computer Programming Class. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 14 (2), 94-110.
Katyshev, V. (2005). Effective Educational Use of Kahoot. Retrieved October 13, 2017, from https://meantechtools.wikispaces.com/file/view/Kahoot%20description%20of%20use%20new.pdf/541271970/Kahoot%20description%20of%20use%20new.pdf
Wang, A. I. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers & Education, 82, 217-227.