Visualization of linguistic material as part of the professional and communicative competence of language teachers

Full Text

Introduction

Recently, the world is constantly being "visualized": the volume of transmitted information is growing, and, consequently, the ways of its transmission are also changing. The era of mass visual culture leaves its mark on the teaching of foreign languages. So, a good teacher of foreign languages should be able to visualize and communicate educational information for its effective perception by students.

The relevance of the given article is due to the significant spread of the use of visual means in foreign language classes. The use of visualization and, in particular, multimedia presentation in the classroom is formulated as a requirement for the teacher in the framework of general education. At the same time, there is some unsystematic use of them in the learning process, which may be due to insufficient formation of visualization skills among teachers of a foreign language.

Multimedia presentation is a learning tool that allows to combine visual and textual components in a form convenient for visual perception, as well as combine with other learning tools: audio, video, gamification, interactive exercises. According to the Cambridge TKT glossary of English language teaching (ELT) visual aid is defined as «a picture, a diagram or anything else the learners can look at which can help teachers illustrate form or meaning».  Multimedia PowerPoint presentation or its analogues (Google Slides, Keynote, Prezi, Aha Slides, Canva etc.) are one of the most commonly used visual aids. If we consider whiteboards, they can also be helpful in order to explain a sequence of ideas or a complex terminology. Handouts are useful for providing information which is too detailed for a slide.

The need to use visual means in teaching foreign languages has been proved in various studies so far. John Amos Comenius also wrote about the so-called «golden rule of didactics", postulating the importance of influencing different sensory organs in learning: "The beginning of cognition is in sensations, and there is nothing in the mind that would not have been in sensations before". Therefore, in the learning process all sensory organs of the pupil must be involved. Subsequently, other scientists, for example, I.G. Pestalozzi, A. Disterveg, K.D. Ushinsky, highlighted the principle given by John Amos Comenius, for example, demonstration to students of a sample of a thing, a layout or an image, demonstration of the rules of the subjects studied on the walls of the classroom: conjugations of verbs and declensions, the contents of books, moral sayings. And in the middle of the XX century, in connection with the widespread spread of mass visual culture in the USA, the concept of visual literacy in education (visual literacy) arose, the founder of which, J. Debes, postulated the importance of visual cognition in learning. According to the visual literacy theory, visual material is unique in its cognitive potential and the multilevel nature of the encoded information. Since then, the concept of visualization was identified. As opposed to the previous studies, visualization since then has been associated with deeper cognitive processes of perception and deployment of the image. "Visualization is the folding of mental contents into a visual image. Being perceived, the image can be deployed and serve as a support for adequate mental and practical actions".

Furthermore, the usefulness of visualization correlates with the views of J. Piaget, who identified four stages of information perception in the intellectual development of a child: 

1. Sensory-motor (perception of information through the senses and signal transmission from the sensory system to the central parts of the brain);
2. Symbolic (processing of information in the mechanisms of the acceptor of the result of actions and its transformation into symbols (thought forms) reflecting reality in consciousness);
3. Logical (processing of incoming information, comparison of the formed mental image with the existing experience);
4. Linguistic (naming of an object, object, phenomenon at the moment of its realization and its further use in speech-thinking activity, speech production) (Piaget, 1969).

Thus, the sensory-motor stage is the primary link in the process of cognition, since it is with sensory perception that the intellectual process of the child begins. However, this stage is not given due attention in foreign language education. For example, in traditional textbooks on a foreign language, the educational material is presented in the form of a text with illustrations (referring to the symbolic stage). Thus, if a teacher uses only a textbook in a foreign language lesson, he ignores the sensory-motor element of cognition which is physiologically important according to J. Piaget.

Secondly, visualization is an effective tool that activates the cognitive activity of students through direct influence on the visual channel of perception. Vision works faster than other senses, for instance, hearing. The speed of processing conscious information by the visual channel is estimated at 40 bits/sec, and by the auditory channel — 30 bits/sec, therefore, a person reads faster than he listens. And the speed of unconscious information processing is estimated at about 10,000 kbit/s for the visual channel, and 1,000 kbit/s for the auditory channel (Zimmerman, 1989). Therefore, for example, a person reacts much faster and more emotionally to a picture depicting a snake than to the word "snake" heard.

In this regard, in psychology there is such a thing as the picture superiority effect, the essence of which boils down to the fact that images are remembered more likely than words (Stenberg, 2006). This fact has been confirmed by some studies, for example, experiments on the recognition of 2500 and 10000 images (Standing, 1970, 1973). First, the participants were consistently shown images on slides, and then their memorability was tested by showing slides with different pairs of pictures. Testing in the experiment to recognize 2500 images was more difficult, because it was conducted three days after the experiment, and pictures of the same subject were shown, for example, banknotes of different denominations. As a result, the participants recalled about 90% of the images they saw. And in the experiment on the recognition of 10,000 images, the recognition rate was 80%. The results of the experiment demonstrate a unique human ability to memorize images (images).

According to E.A. Makarova, information presented in the form of a visual image is remembered better, since the image is internalized by a person, endowed with personal meaning, accompanied by emotions and experiences. E.A. Makarova defines visualization as "introjection of semantic images into the mental space of the personality", in other words, it is an unconscious process of including the image in the picture of the human world (Makarova, 2010).

The use of visualization allows you to "crystallize" information, highlighting the most important thing, and present it in a compressed form. "An effective way of processing and composing information is its compression, that is, presentation in a compact, user-friendly form, which is provided by the visualization technology of educational material" (Lavrentiev, 2002). As a result, the teacher can significantly save time on explaining new material. In addition, visualization makes it possible to form strong associative links between parts of the educational material (Polyakova, 2012).

Finally, the use of visualization contributes to the creation of a comfortable educational environment. According to psychologists, when perceiving symbols, the psychological burden on the student is lower than when reading words and syllables (Blake, 2004).

Nowadays, the use of visual tools is considered necessary due to the growing use of new technologies in teaching and the formation of a fundamentally new digital educational environment. Thus, a modern teacher has to master a wide range of modern technologies for their further introduction into the learning process and the development of professional competence in the field of working with digital devices and pedagogical technologies. This requirement is formulated within the framework of the UNESCO Recommendations "The Structure of ICT competence of teachers", on the basis of which the Russian requirements of the professional standard of a teacher (2013) have been developed. Today, in the context of the introduction of a new generation of the Federal State Educational Standard and the implementation of the program "Strategy for the Development of the Information Society in the Russian Federation for 2017 - 2030", the purpose of which is to create conditions for the formation of a knowledge society in the Russian Federation, the trends towards the development of digitalization of education are intensifying.

The concept of communicative competence, according to the Common European Competences of Foreign Language Proficiency (CEFR), is much broader than linguistic, and implies not only language proficiency, but also its appropriate application in a particular communicative situation, knowledge of the context and tasks of communication, taking into account the socio-cultural characteristics of the participants of the communicative act. Communicative competence should be well developed in a modern teacher, since it depends on the effectiveness of communication with students, a comfortable psychological situation in the classroom, timely solution of problems and conflict situations, which in turn contributes to high-quality and favorable educational interaction. However, nowadays a certain inconsistency can be observed in the use of evaluation tools to control the formation of professional and communicative competence of a teacher. A.A. Korenev, investigating the problem of development and evaluation of the formation of professional and communicative competence of foreign language teachers, points out the lack of a universal model of language use by teachers in a professional environment. This could be the reason why there is no clear understanding of what level of language a foreign language teacher should possess, and what skills are required for efficient classroom communication. Thus, there is still no universal model of professional and communicative skills for foreign language teachers (Korenev, 2016). While working on a MA paper we have decided to find a place for visualization skills within the framework of a professional and communicative competence of a foreign language teacher.

Analyzing the updated version of CEFR (2018) we have come to a conclusion that visualization of linguistic material is most likely related to mediation skills, since visualization, as it can be seen from the definition, is the result of rethinking textual information and presenting it in a form convenient for visual perception. Therefore, the teacher should be able to effectively process and present the text on a multimedia slide and can «interpret and reliably describe (in a foreign language) detailed information contained in complex diagrams, graphs and other visual forms (with text in the native language) on topics of interest» (CEFR, 2018, 2020). Accordingly, the mediative skills of working with the text include the interpretation of diagrams, graphs and other visualized information, the skills of paraphrasing the text, changing the style and level of complexity of the language depending on the needs of the interlocutor or audience, explanations through examples, generalizations, etc., summarizing, simplifying, analyzing, synthesizing, compressing and structuring the text, taking notes, translation and interpretation of textual information.  These skills are also necessary for the effective presentation of information on the slides of an educational presentation.

To conclude, we have made an attempt to distinguish different types of skills necessary for a multimedia presentation design. In the most general sense , we can mention the following skills:

• Reception (Working with the educational text: determining the information value of the source, analytical understanding of its structure);
• Mediation (compression and structuring of material, delivering it in the most comprehensible way, use of images, diagrams, graphs and other visuals, text adaptation, use of keywords and highlighting the most important ones).

In the future, we consider it necessary to create a more detailed taxonomy of visualization skills for different educational purposes, age groups and levels.

Materials and Methods

For the given study several materials and research methods were used. First, the theoretical analysis of different foreign and domestic researchers was done, such as, Zh. Piaget, J.A.Comenius, I.G. Pestalozzi, R. Arnheim, R. Meyer, A. Paivio, S. Blake, S. Pape, M. Choshanov, J. Schweller, P. Chandler, J. Richards) and domestic (E.G. Asimov and A.N. Shchukin, K.D. Ushinsky, A.A. Korenev, E.A. Makarova, G.A. Nikitina, I.N. Kovalenko, G.K. Selevko, S.V. Titova). Also, normative legal documents were analyzed in order to define specific visualization skills within the professional and communicative competence of the foreign language teacher. The documents are the following: the European Competence of Foreign Language Proficiency (CEFR), the Structure of ICT competence of teachers. UNESCO Recommendations (2018), Professional standard of a teacher (2013). Thereafter, a series of communicative tasks aimed at developing visualization skills among students of linguodidactic specialties were designed. They were included in the course «Productive skills of visualization and presentation for future language teachers» in Google Sites (URL: https://sites.google.com/view/ presentation-skills-teaching/main-page). The tasks included working on platforms Google Slides, TED Ed, Canva, Prezi, Piktochart, Genially, Mentimeter, Nearpod, Powtoon, Padlet, as well as formative and final assessment and criteria. Finally, some of the tasks were tested in the format of workshops. The workshops were attended by eleven 3rd year Bachelor students and seven 1st year Master students of the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Area Studies at Moscow State University. All the students were studying Linguistics and methodology of language teaching and their first foreign language was English.

Initially, we assumed that the workshop session would have no effect on the results of assessment of students’ multimedia presentations.

Results

In May, 2022 the experimental work was carried out so as to prove or disprove the initial hypothesis. It was assumed that the conducted workshops would not affect the results of the evaluation of the multimedia presentation created by students as part of their independent work. 

One workshop was designed for 60 minutes. In the theoretical block of each session, the features of the educational multimedia presentation were discussed at three stages of work: selection of material, processing, presentation of the audience, as well as the basic principles of slide design in accordance with R. Mayer’s "Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning" and "Universal Principles of Design" by W. Lidwell, K. Holden and J. Butler. The principles included the following:  the rule "1 idea - 1 slide", the hierarchy of text on the slide, the use of abbreviations and keywords, uniformity of design style, fonts, colors, ways to highlight the key information, the use of various types of visualization, types of illustrations (photo and icon) and various situations of their application, various online services for creating multimedia presentations, their advantages and disadvantages (Mayer, 2005; Lidwell, Holden, Butler, 2010).

In the practical block of the workshop, training tasks were suggested on the Padlet and Google Slides platforms. Right before the workshop, the students sent their multimedia presentations on a free topic in English in PowerPoint format. As an independent practice after the workshop, students had to create an educational multimedia presentation with an explanation of one of the following grammatical topics:

• Present Simple and Present Continuous
• Past Simple and Past Continuous
• Present Perfect Simple and Present Perfect Continuous
• Past Simple and Present Perfect
• Different ways to express future
• Types of conditionals.

The presentation requirements were as follows: it had to contain on average 5-10 slides and two blocks. The first one with explanations of the difference between grammatical tenses / types of conditional mood, and the second one with interactive drilling activities.

All the participants had to send the presentations which were subsequently evaluated according to the following criteria and evaluation scales (Table 1):

 Table 1. Criteria and evaluation scales for multimedia presentations

1) Task solution
3 points: the communicative task is solved: the topic is fully disclosed, the presentation includes the required number of slides and two blocks: theoretical and practical.	2 points: the communicative task is partially solved: theoretical and practical blocks are present, but the topic is not sufficiently explained.			1 point: the communicative task is partially solved: the topic is not sufficiently disclosed and there is no practical or theoretical block.		0 points: the communicative task is not solved: the task is not completed.
2) Content
3 points: a lot of interesting material, an original approach to explaining the topic. Clear grammatical rules and usage examples are given. Practical tasks effectively complement the theoretical block. The content of the presentation meets the specified target audience.	2 points: grammatical rules and examples to them are clearly presented, but there is no independence in the disclosure of the topic, or the content of the presentation does not fully meet the specified target audience, or practical tasks do not fully complement the theoretical block.			1 point: the content of the presentation partly does not correspond to the stated topic or the target audience not specified.		0 points: the content of the presentation does not correspond to the stated topic.
3) Structure
2 points: the presentation structure is clearly and consistently observed. The information is logical and consistent. All logical connections between components are present.		1 point: the basic structure of the presentation is partially reflected, but the logic of presentation is broken.			0 points: there is no logic for submitting information.
4) Principle «1 idea - 1 slide»
1 point: yes			0 points: no

 

5) Design
3 points: the slides are stylistically uniform. The fonts, backgrounds, colors and special effects used are appropriate and effectively complement the information without distorting its perception.	2 points: acceptable enough, but there are some shortcomings in the design (poor choice of background, font, colors and special effects), which sometimes distorts perception.		1 point: the design distracts from the content: there are too many colors, fonts and graphics, which makes it difficult to perceive the information.		0 points: the design was done carelessly, carelessly, a large number of violations in the design, adequate perception of information is very difficult.
6) Number of words per slide
1 point: acceptable (6x6 rule), the slides are concise.			0 points: not acceptable, slides are overloaded with text.
7) Hierarchy of the text on the slide
1 point: the text is easy to read due to the logical arrangement of the text on the slide.			0 points: not observed, which makes it difficult to perceive the text.
8) Highlighting key information
2 points: the key information is highlighted uniformly and logically: one selection option is selected, for example, highlighting in color, bold or large element size		1 point: the key information is highlighted, but several highlighting options are selected, which makes the text less readable.		0 points: key information is not highlighted.
9) Use of keywords, abbreviations
2 points: yes, the text has been reworked into an adequate form for perception.		1 point: the text is not always reworked and shortened.		0 points: no, the text has not been revised or shortened.
10) Visuals (pictures, icons, photos, graphs, diagrams):
2 points: meaningful visualization is used and effectively complements the information.		1 point: visualization is used, but it does not always make any sense.		0 points: visualization is not used.

 

11) The quality of the visuals used:
2 points: the quality is good, there are no pixels/watermarks/image distortions.		1 point: there are some distortions/watermarks/pixels.		0 points: visualization quality leaves much to be desired / no visualization.
12) Creative, original approach to the implementation of the presentation
1 point: yes, the explanation of the topic is original			0 points: no original approach
13) Language (grammar, spelling, vocabulary)
2 points: there are no mistakes (or only 1-2 small mistakes)		1 point: there are some mistakes (3-4 small mistakes, or 1 serious mistake that leads to misunderstanding)		0 points: a lot of mistakes
Total:	25 points = 100% 23-25 points: excellent: 19-22 points: good; 15-18 points: satisfactory  Less than 15 points: not acceptable.

After the evaluation of both presentations (before and after) the points were compared.

A total of 17 student papers were received. The works were evaluated according to the above criteria with detailed feedback given to all participants. 

The evaluation results were as follows:

• 11 students received an "excellent" grade (between 23 and 25 points).
• 3 students received a "good" grade (between 19 and 22 points).
• A "satisfactory" grade was given to 3 students (between 15 and 18 points).

Two students out of seventeen received the maximum score for the presentation. These presentations were marked by a high level of creativity and quality of explanation of the material. The material was explained clearly and consistently, good examples are given to illustrate the rules. The main ideas were highlighted. The rule "1 idea - 1 slide" was observed and there were clear transitions between slides, theory and practice. The text was reworked into an adequate form for visual perception.  The design of the slides was uniform, nothing distracts attention from the main content. Visual elements were used according to the content. In one of the presentations, there was a video material that encourages reflection on the topic of the lesson. Interactive tasks on platforms are also designed to work out grammar rules https://learningapps.org and https://wordwall.net.

In general, many works can be called high-quality and well-structured. There are no text-overloaded slides or raw copied text in any presentation. In terms of language, no more than two mistakes were made in all presentations, except for some cases of typos.

Meanwhile, some of the students neglected the use of visualization or it did not always deliver any meaning (for example, elements of slide decoration). Sometimes, they used visuals of poor-quality images (visible distortions, watermarks, pixels). In addition, in some presentations, key information was not highlighted, or several highlighting options were selected (bold, Caps Lock or italics), which made the text less readable. In two presentations, too small font was selected (less than pt.18).

Eight works were compared with the materials that were sent before the workshop. Positive trends were observed in all works except one (the result remained unchanged). The feedback provided to the students included the following points: the text on the slide was better hierarchized, shortened and reworked into a form accessible to visual perception, a uniform way of highlighting key information was used, the rule of 1 idea - 1 slide was observed, there were clear transitions between slides. All in all, the workshop’s participants started to pay more attention to the visual message provided by each slide. Some participants used tables, diagrams and informative blocks to more effectively represent the information, as it can be seen on the following slide (Fig. 1):

Fig. 1. Use of informative blocks to explain grammar rules

It was evident that some presentations had absorbed ideas from the book «Presentation Zen» by G. Reynolds that were discussed within the workshop (Reynolds G, 2011). The book postulates an idea that each slide must include an empty space and thus, should be as simple as possible. It can be seen on the following slide (Fig. 2):

Fig. 2. Use of empty space, visual elements and minimum of text on a slide

Some of the presentations included eliciting and guided discovery techniques instead of a simple input. For example, a visual was given on a slide followed by eliciting questions (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Use of eliciting questions and visuals on a slide.

All in all, in most works modular grids were used to arrange the elements (text blocks, headlines and images) on a slide, based on rows and columns of a specified size. Advantages of such a model were discussed within a workshop session, as it is proved that grids can introduce order and harmony into the design space and improves readability of a slide (Fig. 4). (Mayer, 2005; Lidwell, Holden, Butler, 2010).

Fig. 4. Use of modular grids on a slide.

Discussion

As can be judged by the results, the workshops turned out to be quite efficient for the target audience of future language teachers. They learned how to structure information better on a slide and make it more comprehensible and, thus, easier to remember. The students demonstrated their abilities to design pedagogical presentations during the lesson (the task was to correct a poor slide) and after the workshop as an independent work.

The given criteria was used to assess their presentations before and after the workshop. The results were compared, and in the end it turned out that all but one of the works showed a better result than before. Therefore, the hypothesis put forward by us earlier was refuted.

We can see positive changes in the following aspects of slide design:

• Structuring information on the slide: use of modular grids, graphs and diagrams instead of continuous text, so as to make a slide more coherent and structured.
• The principle “1 idea - 1 slide” seemed to be present in all the projects. Thus, presentations became much simpler and the idea much more understandable. This correlates with the principles of “Presentation Zen” by Garr Reynolds who gave a great source of inspiration for these workshops.
• Use of visuals. It was noticed that students started to pay more attention to the images they choose (an idea that visuals should provide an idea, an element of sense, as not just a means of decoration).
• Use of keywords and bold for highlighting information. The students learned how to shorten long sentences and use bold as a highlighting technique (instead of italics, underlining or CapsLock that make text less readable).

Some of the remaining mistakes could be paid more attention to in the future course testing. For instance, it could be recommended to improve the following aspects:

1. Quality of visuals and copyright protection law. Unfortunately, in quite a lot of presentations images of poor quality were used (pixels, watermarks, trademarks or other signs). This indicates that students are not aware of copyright rules or they are careless about the choice of images in their presentations. However, this is very important, not only for law reasons, but also because this shows how seriously a person treats their work. This is why it can be recommended to choose images carefully (for instance, those that are not under copyright or that are licensed for the relevant use or under creative common licenses). In any case, the image source should be indicated.
2. In some presentations a small font (less than pt.18) was used. It is recommended to take into account the classroom size and make a larger font (at least pt.20).
3. Finally, students need to learn how to use colours and their combinations in presentations. In some presentations insufficiently contrasting color combinations were used: as a result, the text became less readable (for example, light yellow and beige or brown, red and pink, grey and black). Also, it would be advisable to distinguish a colour palette that can be used for background, headings and main text, as well as for various purposes. Obviously, the choice of colours that can be used for academic presentations is much more restricted than that of educational ones.

Furthermore, it was observed that MA students coped better with the task and provided better works than BA students in terms of pedagogical design. This may be due to the fact that Master's students have more experience in creating both academic and pedagogical presentations. They already had experience of participating in conferences, defended their bachelor's work, and also have more experience in teaching. In addition, the presentation they created for the workshop can be used in their teaching practice. That could be possibly the reason why they treated the task more seriously, and thus, got better results.

However, due to the scarcity of time and resources, some limitations of the study can be observed. First of all, this is due to the fact that a small number of participants took part in the experiment (not all students submitted their work before and after the workshop). It is also not possible to assert the unambiguous effectiveness of the workshop due to the fact that one session was limited to 60 minutes, within which only the basics of information visualization were considered, i.e. universal skills that students could already possess before the workshop. Ideally, it would be possible to design a specification of the key visualization skills of the material for different ages and levels of language proficiency of students.

These limitations open up prospects for further research in this area. The skills of technical design of visual and textual parts of a multimedia presentation can be developed both within the framework of individual workshop sessions with the performance of training tasks, and within the framework of a whole course designed for one semester. An online course "Development of productive professional and communicative skills of visualization and presentation of material for foreign language classes (levels B2-C1)» created by the author of the present paper is given in the Materials and Methods section.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my scientific supervisor Dr. Korenev for his expert advice and encouragement in this MA thesis project, as well as Professor Titova for an extremely useful course in ICT tools for language teaching.

About the authors

Angelina S. Sorokina

Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov

Author for correspondence.
Email: sorokinalina98@mail.ru

1st year PhD student, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Area Studies

Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia

References

Supplementary files