I attended a 4-part professional development session to study the process of making iMovie digital videos. Content of the sessions included planning an iMovie video project, using a video camera, taking different types of shots, improving sound quality, transferring video to computers, editing the movie with iMovie, and transferring edited movies to CDs. I aim to utilize some of the knowledge gained here in my work with ESL student animation projects.

Here are some links to iMovie tutorials and tips on shooting good video:Apple support topics and tutorials with some videos for iLife '11,Features of iLife '11,Atomic Learning Video Storytelling Guide with Shooting Tips and Example Shots

Computer Animation: Project-Based, ICT-Rich

Language and Content Learning Animation Projects for ESL Students

These projects have much potential. As language “is learned most effectively for communication in meaningful, purposeful, social and academic contexts” (Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1989, p. 202), projects, such as “multi-skill activities focusing on topics or themes rather than on specific language targets” (Haines quoted in Beckett, 2006, p. 23), foster socialization, creativity, independence, and skills involving decision-making, critical thinking, and cooperative learning (Becket & Chamness, 2006, pg. 59).

Gary F. Hoban’s (2005) pioneering research with “Slowmation” and high school students, involving the production of slow-motion movies to demonstrate scientific processes, reveals that “translation tasks” (p. 27) require a multitude of connected processes, such as “researching information, planning and writing a story, storyboarding, designing models, taking digital photographs, using visual literacies, using technology, evaluating and, most importantly, working collaboratively as a team” (p. 27). Students can apparently create a Slowmation in 60 minutes (p. 28).

In my own ESL teacher training class at UBC, Canada, with Professor Tammy Slater, my group created a Slowmation within 2 hours. It is my hope that by implementing animation projects to teach curricular content, ESL students can practice the above skills in an English environment, while simultaneously stretching their communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980), and increasing their ICT and literacies (Duff, 2002).

There are several angles of research I would like to pursue. I would like to evaluate which available freeware proves most beneficial, such as Pivot Stick Animator or Windows Movie Maker 2 (Sanders), in that it is user-friendly and not time-consuming, it encourages communication in each process, and it can easily be implemented within a project framework (Beckett and Slater, 2005). The focus would not be on artwork or technical skill, but whether or not students communicate well enough to produce animations that teach an aspect of curricular content, such as the process of evaporation, a climactic scene from a short story, or even the essay writing process. I would also like to look at the effects of scaffolding and instruction before the students begin each part of the project. Also, by recording student speech, I could analyze which speech functions and linguistic features (Halliday, 2004) come out during each process, and where each process fits into Bernie Mohan’s (1986) heuristic, the Knowledge Framework. As there has not been a significant amount of research involving the implementation of technical projects as part of an ESL curriculum, I would like to survey the students and teachers about reactions and language-related issues before and after their projects.

According to recent statistics (Gunderson, 2007), and Baek, Jung, and Kim’s 86 reasons to use technology (2008), we must find new ways of teaching in order to more effectively help and motivate those fighting daily to conquer English. As there is “scanty research on project based instruction in general” (Becket, 2005), and even less that combines project based instruction with ESL and technology, I believe there is much to learn by researching language use through the production of curriculum-inspired animations.

Works Cited

Asselin, M., Early, M. & Filipenko, M. (2005). Accountability, assessment, and the literacies of information and communication technologies. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(4), 802-826.

Baek, Y., Jung, J. & Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use technology in the classroom? Computers & Education, 50, 224–234.

Beckett, G. H. (2005). Academic language and literacy socialization through project-based instruction: ESL student perspectives and issues. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15(1), 191-206.

Beckett, G. H. & Chamness Miller, P. (2006). Project-based second and foreign language education. Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age Pub.

Beckett, G. H. & Slater, T. (2005). The project framework: a tool for language, content, and skills integration. ELT Journal, 59(2), 108-116.

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Duff, P. A. (2002). Language, literacy, content, and (pop) culture: Challenges for ESL students in mainstream courses. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(6), 482-487.

Gunderson, L. (2007). English-only instruction and immigrant students in secondary schools: a critical examination. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold. Hoban, G.F. 2005. From claymation to slowmation: A teaching procedure to develop
students' science understandings. Teaching Science, 51(2), 26-30.

Hoban, G. F. (2003). From claymation to slowmation: A teaching procedure to develop students' science understandings. Teaching Science, 51(2), 26-30. Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Sanders, A. (2007). Free computer animation programs. Retrieved Dec. 12, 2007, from http://animation.about.com/od/referencematerials/a/freesoftware.htm

Snow, M. A., Met M., & Genesee F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 201-217.