Faculty Publications and Conference Presentations

This paper proposes the design of a course which integrates ChatGPT into Project-based Learning (PBL). It is a 12-hour Chinese language course which aims to cater to the diverse learning needs of the students in the formal Chinese language courses at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST). The design of the course empowers learners to set their own intended learning outcomes and to determine a topic for a group project which leads to a product based on their learning needs and interests. They can achieve the intended learning outcomes through exploring and accomplishing the project with the guidance of the teacher and the utilization of ChatGPT. The course objective, content and sequencing, format and presentation, and assessment are illustrated based on Nation and Macalister’s (2010) model. Through the analysis of the findings, we have identified the various roles of learners, teachers, and ChatGPT in the course. This paper provides insights into the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in language education and a useful reference for future AIintegrated course design. 本研究旨在提出一个将 ChatGPT 融合到项目式学习中的短期汉语课程设计框架。该课程共 12小时，旨在满足香港科技大学学生多样化的学习需求，尤其是他们在正式课程中无法实现的个体需求。课程初始阶段，学生可以自主设定预期学习成果，并据此确定一个小组成员皆感兴趣的项目主题及最终产出成果。此后，学生会运用 Chat GPT 进行内容和语言方面的探索，并在教师的指导下完成项目。本文基于 Nation 和 Macalister（ 2010）的语言课程设计模型，详细论述了课程目标、教学内容与组织、学习活动，以及评估方式。在研究发现中，本文总结了学习者、教师和 ChatGPT 在课程中所扮演的角色，据此分析了人工智能（ AI）工具在语言教育中的潜力，并为未来整合 AI 的中文课程设计提供了参考建议。

This paper examines a new first-year EAP course in a Hong Kong university. It utilizes teacher and student reflections to understand the course’s strengths and weaknesses, aiming to enhance its design and delivery. The study employed a qualitative approach whereby textual analysis was used to interpret the data collected in the form of written teacher reflections, written student reflections, and notes of teacher reflective dialogue. The thematic categories for coding the data were established based on the course’s main learning outcomes: Effective Learning, Spoken Language, and Written Language. Findings reveal that teachers were more critical of the course compared to learners. Teachers expressed dissatisfaction with the pedagogical approach to Effective Learning unit, insufficient time provided in the course to teach solo speaking, and the inability to cover too many organizational and linguistic features in the writing unit. Students, however, did not have much to reflect on about Effective Learning, had mixed views about Spoken Language with some worried about reading from notes, and wrote extremely positively about their learning of Written Language. Nonetheless, their views provide valuable insights for course improvement. Consequently, the paper advocates for a reflective pedagogy approach to EAP that considers both teacher and student reflections to enhance teaching and learning outcomes. © 2024 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Kirkpatrick and Lixun (2021) maintain that two significant morphosyntactic processes have been at play in early Englishes. These are simplification and regularization. Simplification refers to the relatively simplified inflectional morphology in English today. Kirkpatrick and Lixun (2021) provide an example for the word stan (i.e., stone in Old English) that showed great differences in the singular and plural form in nominative, accusative, genitive and dative case in Old English. Another process is regularization, through which some of the strong verb forms for past tense in English have changed to take the weak or the regular form. To illustrate, the past tense of work was wrought but over time, it has changed to worked.

Background and Problem Statement:

With the advancement of science and technology, the way we learn and teach has been evolving over time. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the digitization of education, leading to the widespread adoption of online classes and e-learning. Both face-to-face and e-learning approaches have their merits. When considering future educational activities, a design that integrates the strengths of both approaches is increasingly sought after. It is within this context and problem statement that this practical implementation began.

Progress of the Study:

Year 1: Subtitle - "Fostering Self-directed Learners"

  During the first year, I focused on constructing the overall course design and implementing practices that fostered self-directed learning through e-learning. The goal was to empower students to take ownership of their learning and make progress independently.

Year 2: Subtitle - " Connected, Functional, and Expansive"

  In the second year, my focus was on implementing group learning practices that fostered connections between "instructor and students," "students and learning materials," and "students and other students." The aim was to create a learning environment where collaboration and interaction facilitated the functioning and expansion of knowledge.

Year 3: Subtitle - "A Case Study of Facilitating Deeper Learning as a Facilitator" (Current Year)

  As the enrolled students change each semester, I have focused on practices that can be more customized and flexibly adjusted to meet their specific needs. The emphasis has been on serving as a facilitator to deepen learning experiences and provide tailored support.

Methodology and Information Gathering:

  For e-learning, I conducted regular Student Feedback Questionnaires (SFQ) to gather student feedback and conducted iterative analysis. Additionally, I prepared a Chatbot specifically for the course, monitoring individual usage patterns.

In the classroom, I incorporated various group projects and tasks to enrich the learning experience among students.

Research Findings:

The findings of my study include:

1) Understanding the significance of group dynamics: Students developed an understanding of the value of group work and took initiative in forming their own groups.

2)Support as a facilitator based on group dynamics: The facilitator provided support tailored to the needs and dynamics of each group.

3)Insights from regular SFQ feedback: Valuable insights were obtained from the regular SFQ feedback, which informed instructional adjustments and improvements.

4)The true value of AI tools: The use of AI tools demonstrated their effectiveness in enhancing the learning experience and providing personalized support.

5)The fundamental importance of building trust: Regardless of the era, establishing trust remains a fundamental aspect of the teaching and learning process.

Research Contribution:

These findings contribute to the understanding of effective course design, facilitation, and the integration of technology in language education, providing valuable insights for instructors and researchers in similar contexts.

I hope this contributes to the understanding that even tasks that anyone can perform can foster better learning experiences with students. The time spent in creating such learning environments nurtures instructors' professional growth. It is crucial to have an environment and colleagues with whom one can discuss and share ideas, even if they involve practices that others may already be implementing. Research should not solely focus on novelty but rather on practices that promote student learning and growth. If the implemented practices lead to the flourishing of student learning, they become a valuable subject of discussion and a practical research endeavor to be shared.

Key words:

IT utilization, Empowering groups, Understandable instruction, Trust relationship

2024 年度 国立台中科技大学応用日本語学科国際学術シンポジウム VUCA 時代における日本語学習者の未来を考える

-人文社会×経済経営×デジタル技術からのアプローチ-

Abstract for the presentation in this conference

 

Recommendations for CLE Website (Scholarship) 

This paper recommends changes and updates to the CLE website in two main areas: 

1. Scholarship 

2. About us -> Staff --> Scholarship 
   These changes are made or recommended with the intention of providing more accurate, clearly worded, and up-to-date information about scholarship at the Center to people visiting the site.  

CLE Website → Scholarship 
Up until now, the Scholarship category had 5 main categories:  

1. About Scholarship,  

2. Funded Projects,  

3. Digital Platform, 

4. Conferences and Scholarship Series, and 

5. Publications and Conference Presentations.  

 Below we detail changes which have been made as these required minimal modifications to the Scholarship site. Following this, we provide a list of changes we recommend to the site along with the reasons why these are needed. 

 Changes Made (January, 2024)

 

1.  Hidden ‘Digital Platform for Scholarship’ as its intended purpose was for it to be an internal facing platform until we have reviewed the DPS and its way forward (see image 1 below). 

 

2.  Rewritten ‘About Scholarship’ section to present better what scholarship is at the CLE (please see image 1 and appendix below).  

 

3.  Renamed Conferences and Scholarship Series to ‘Professional Development and Scholarship Series’ to accurately represent current scholarship activities. Additionally, this change avoids the repetition of the word ‘conference’ in the next category too.

 

Changes Recommended 

 

4. PIs of externally funded projects to update their projects on the CLE website 
   At the beginning of every semester, staff involved in externally funded projects will be asked to update their ‘Funded Projects’ (if any). At the time this paper was written, no projects could be seen for 2022 on the CLE website and only one project was displayed for 2023. To do this, a walk-through has been created for staff to easily and promptly enter their project information on the site.  

 

5. Scholarship outputs from SPD to be reflected in ‘Publications and Conference Presentation’ page 

Ensure that CLE members’ published scholarship outputs are reflected in the ‘Publications and Conference Presentations’ section through data synchronization with other departments in charge of the University’s ROS (Research Output System). This change is unidirectional, i.e., while the changes made in the ROS/SPD system will be reflected in the CLE website, it cannot be done the other way around. 

  
Ensure that most recent outputs (last 3 years) are shown by proposing that the cut-off date be set as 01.01.2020. Published works before this date will be shown as archived on the CLE scholarship page. 

 
As this recommendation required follow-up on pending work related to the Scholarship Activity section in CLE FORS in Aug 2023, AD(Scholarship) convened a meeting with AL (Scholarship Advancement), Manager (Admin), IT team and relevant GO persons. The highlights of the meeting are as follows: 

 

1. FORS is updated in Mar/early April, which means that most staff input their scholarship outputs for the year during this time when FORS guides them to ROS to submit their conference presentations and publications.  

2. However, ROS is updated approximately between July and August every year. Staff should pay attention to the email reminders asking them to update their outputs on ROS to keep their conference presentations and publications up to date. A reminder could also be sent in July/August through the Bulletin.  

 

2. CLE Website → About us → Staff  -> Scholarship

 

Change Recommended (Feb, 2024)

 

2.1 ALL scholarship outputs to be reflected in ‘About Us-Scholarship’ page 

2.1.1 To be more consistent in how different academic staff choose to display their ‘Scholarship’ profiles in the ‘About Us’ site, we recommend that all staff display their scholarship outputs where interested parties can view a scholar’s outputs. 

 

2.1.2   It should be noted that many scholarship outputs stated on FORS such as academic blogs, podcasts, certain working papers etc., are not reflected in the university’s SPD (Scholar Profile Data/Depository Therefore, these will be hosted on DPS and synced to the ‘CLE Staff – About Us –Scholarship’ site. Once the FORS is completed, the latest outputs from both SPD and DPS will both be visible on the ‘CLE – About Us – Scholarship' site for staff. 

 

3. Tentative Project Timeline and Resources Needed (Feb 2024)

in a meeting with the IT team, the technical feasibility of implementing these recommendations was discussed. An estimated number of manhours needed for the IT Team to update our CLE site (Scholarship) is given below. 

 

3.1 Synchronizing the CLE’s ‘Publications and Conference Presentations’ site 

      with the ROS/SPD site would take approximately 3 months due to possible 

      paperwork and approval needed beyond CLE/IT team’s control, and 

      negotiations on technicalities involved with IT staff who manage the research 
      output system centrally at the University.  

 
The technical work required for CLE IT team would take about 14 days in total. 
CLE - sync from SPD (14 days in total)  

1. Request API access from RO (2 days) 

2. Clone current CLE website to dev (2 days) 

3. On development server  

1. Implement data sync (5 days) 

2. Modify display (2 days) 

4. Bug fixing and apply changes to the production server (3 days)  

 

3.2 CLE Staff - link to SPD pages (1 day)  
      The technical work required for CLE IT team would take about 1 day in total 

 

Revised ‘About Scholarship’ 

 

At the CLE, scholarship is driven by our dedication to language teaching and learning. We strive to contribute to our field through our work by embracing multiple perspectives on language education and relying on evidence-based teaching.  

 
Through scholarship, we collectively define, explore, and enhance our understanding as teaching practitioners and aim to foster an ethical, collegial, conversational, collaborative, and critical environment at the Center. 

 
Our scholarship is self-directed and initiated, guided by principles of active inquiry and inclusivity. We value not only success stories but also experiences that are less successful because we acknowledge that scholarship thrives when we learn from both our triumphs and challenges.  

 
Our ultimate goal is to make a meaningful impact on our colleagues, students, policies, practices, and the wider community. 

 

CLE About Us Scholarship Site: Decisions & Procedures

Procedure 1: If a publication is removed from SPD, which is not caused due to technical problems, we follow SPD and remove it from the CLE website as well.

Procedure 2: SPD data from different endpoints may have some inconsistency, from example: X has 9 publications if we search in “ProfilePub” endpoint but we can’t get their publications if we search from “SearchRecords” with “deptcode=LANG”. Therefore, we will go with the data from “SearchRecords” as it contains all CLE publications (even the ones whose authors have left CLE). If a staff sees incomplete publication list in their profile page after the revamp, we shall recommend them to consult SPD staff.

Procedure 3: All previous DPS categories have been subsumed under new categories and the extra ones have been deleted. Therefore, we will not implement the “2020.01.01” cutoff, as mixing current data and the data from SPD and DPS will make the content structure complicated. After the revamp, we will completely use data from SPD and DPS for display, and we will get the data for all the years. This will simplify the data structure.

Procedure 4: The current data will be displayed in a less prominent “Archive” page, unless instructed by the ExCo to remove it. The current data will still be available internally (visible to CLE members after login).

Presentations, talks and workshops will not be synced from DPS to CLE in phase 1. Their data needs manual adjustment (such as adding a dropdown “Speaker” list) so that they can be precisely mapped to CLE’s staff profile) before syncing to CLE. This can be implemented in phase 2.

Data that are synced from SPD and DPS to CLE will be stored in one unified content type.

Procedure 5: All CLE publications on SPD will be synced to the CLE website. No exclusions.

Procedure 6: The new CLE Scholarship content type will contain the following fields:

• • Title*
  • Author(s) / Presenter(s)*
  • Description: from SPD’s abstract and DPS’s body
  • ISBN: if SPD has more than 1, we will take the first one.
  • Link: generated from SPD’s DOI field, synced from DPS’s newly created Link field.
  • Press: synced from SPD’s publisher field
  • Location: synced from SPD’s conf_loc field
  • Type*
  • Year*: synced from SPD’s year field, generated from DPS’s date field.
  • Date
  • Citation
  • DOI

Procedure 7: The DPS - Blogs will add a “Link” field. When syncing to the CLE website, the following fields will not be synced:

• • Is this content a deliverable of …
  • Observation of teaching
  • Extra fields for “Scholarship’s Brew”

Procedure 8: The new CLE Scholarship outputs will have the following types:

• • Book (same with SPD)
  • Journal Publication (SPD: Article)
  • Chapter in Edited Volume (SPD: Book chapter)
  • Working Paper (“Peer reviewed” and “Not Peer Reviewed” combined, data from DPS)
  • Book Review (same with SPD)
  • Conference Presentation and Paper (SPD: Conference paper)
  • Scholarship Talk (Reserved for Phase 2 from DPS)
  • Workshop (Reserved for Phase 2 from DPS)
  • Academic Blog (from DPS)
  • Podcast (from DPS)
  • Reviews (e.g., of teaching materials, conferences) (from DPS)
  • Other Output (SPD: Others)

Conclusion

The purpose of updating the CLE Scholarship website is to:

• Enhance the appearance of the Scholarship site and revise the description that appears on the site.
• Ensure that the diverse range of scholarship outputs produced by CLE staff and available through different platforms such as the Digital Platform for Scholarship (DPS), HKUST’s Scholarly Publications Database (SPD), and CLE FORS (Faculty Online Reporting System) can all be synchronized with the CLE About Us Scholarship site and appear under one online location for internal and external stakeholders to see.

  In May 2024, all the recommended changes were made and the CLE Scholarship website update was completed.

  Work duration: November 2023 - May 2024

  Team: Aditi Jhaveri, Felix Li, Bronson So

 

 

Revitalizing Scholarly Engagement: Redesigning and Enhancing the Digital Platform for Scholarship at HKUST's Center for Language Education

Aim: This working paper charts the redevelopment of the Digital Platform for Scholarship (DPS) at the Center for Language Education (CLE) at HKUST in 2023-2024. It starts by recommending changes to the original platform, proposes more diverse scholarship output categories and the formation and gamification of scholarship hubs, describes the nature of the different categories and hubs, explains the submission criteria for the various outputs, and presents the results of the pilot test along with the IT Team’s feedback on implementing the suggestions received from academic staff at the Center.

Recommendations for DPS Revamp

 1. Why is the revamp necessary?

·      To promote further engagement and participation with the DPS

·      To facilitate collaboration between staff

·      To encourage sharing of scholarly works and ideas

2. How did we seek stakeholders’ views on the DPS?

To promote engagement with the Digital Platform for Scholarship, the following CLE stakeholders’ views were sought to revamp the site:

·      A call was sent via the Bulletin for staff to send their suggestions.

·      Staff who sent their suggestions were approached for one-on-one interviews and discussions.

·      The feasibility of the suggested changes was discussed with the IT Team.

·      The AMS was consulted at every stage of the process.

3. Recommendations to revamp DPS

3.1 Recommendation 1: Introduce a dual category system

3.1.1 Based on type of output, i.e., reflections, project proposals and progress, podcasts and videos, working papers, publications

Each category will be maintained by DPS team members responsible:

a.    Academic blogs - AL (SA) and DPS team

b.    Project proposals and progress – AL (T&F) and DPS team

c.     Podcasts and videos – A (PI) and DPS team

d.    Reflections – AL (SA) and the DPS team

e.    Reviews (e.g., teaching materials, conferences) - AL (SA) and DPS team

f.      Working papers – AL (SA), AL (PD) and DPS team

g.    Publications (synced automatically from SPD)

 Current categories – Scholarship at the CLE, Scholar’s Journey, Scholar’s Brew, Scholarship Snippets, Scholarly Project Proposals, and Scholarly Reviews and Papers – will be subsumed under the above 5 categories.

 The new categories are easily distinguishable from each other, which may consequently offer more clarity to staff about where to post different DPS items.

It is suggested that for item b) - Project Proposals and Progress - the following online form be included to capture the different types of projects which have been carried out at the Center:

 Q1. Is this content a deliverable of the IIS / Internally Funded Project/ Externally Funded Project? (can only choose one option)

□ Yes, for IIS

□ Yes, for Internally Funded Project

□ Yes, for Externally Funded Project 

□ No

Q2. (This question shows if the above answer is “Yes”) If so, which type does your project belong to? (can only choose one option)

□ Course Revision (e.g., revise materials for GenAI,  revise assessments per students’ feedback, etc.)

□ Course Development (e.g., AL work plans, supplement the existing curriculum with interdisciplinary materials, etc.)

□ Teaching and Learning (any course-related projects not belong to Course Revision and Course Development, e.g., GenAI Literacy Module for the CLE, multimodality, iLANG activities, etc. )

□ Administrative Activity (e.g., creating Other Duty List, Timetabling Project, etc.)

□ Staffing Activity (e.g., streamline the recruitment processes, create a sustainable mentorship programme, etc.)

□ Scholarship Activity (e.g., prepare for or attend conferences, write papers and make presentations, etc.)

□ Professional Development Activity (e.g., attend courses for professional development, conduct PhD work, etc.)

3.1.2 Based on theme, e.g., assessment, multimodality, blended learning, AI in teaching and learning, intercultural communication

 These thematic categories will function as scholarship hubs.

 Staff can join these themes/hubs anytime based on their interest.

·      Staff belonging to a theme will be notified when there’s a post or comment.

·      Staff belonging to the theme will be responsible for replying/commenting (as necessary)

 3.2. Recommendation 2: Set up a notification function

AMS members will be notified when there’s a post/comment on any of the output categories. Members belonging to a theme will be notified when there’s a post/comment on any of the thematic categories. Group members will be notified when new group members join. Users can opt to choose not to receive notifications in settings.

3.3. Recommendation 3: Link DPS to Bulletin

Interesting items on DPS or posts that receive recognition can be mentioned in the Bulletin from time to time to interest more staff to visit the platform.

3.4. Recommendation 4: Include features speakers/ articles/presentations

For example, external speakers can be featured or posts with highest engagement can be featured.

3.5. Recommendation 5: Gamify DPS to Recognize & Reward Staff

3.5.1 Social Recognition

Celebrate achievements through featured content

·       To begin with, we will feature the scholarship output with the highest likes / comments from different academic staff per month

·       Each month will feature a different scholarship item based on likes / number of staff commenting, and the past featured items will become ordinary.

·       In the second phase of the revamp, thematic groups may be included for social recognition too.

 3.5.2  Contests and Challenges

 This can be introduced later after examining the success/shortcomings of the social recognition approach. This will include:

·      Participants showcasing their work.

·      Staff upvoting entries they like and/or peers evaluate each other’s work.

 3.6. Recommendation 6: Discontinue SCPD Category on the DPS

Since the information is already in the Staff Dynamic Handbook, this could be omitted from DPS.

3.7 Recommendation 7: Provide feedback & support

We can include channels for users to provide feedback, report issues, or seek support. Implementing a responsive support system to address user inquiries promptly can also boost engagement. Here is one way in which this could be done:

·      Liaison and contact persons in-charge of each category (from AMS/DPS) could respond to concerns, check and moderate comments that fall within their areas. Their emails could be provided on DPS.

3.8. Recommendation 8: Test and pilot DPS

·      With 10-15 staff (including AMS members and scholarship team) in the spring semester

Note: CPD/Scholarship Series and External Events

CPD/Scholarship Series and External Events site will remain as they are currently.

4. Stages for updating DPS

·      Update output categories

·      Set up thematic categories / scholarship hubs

·      Set up notification function

·      Set up rewarding features

·      Set up Feedback and Support Mechanisms

 IT team has confirmed that SPD consent can be obtained immediately to sync CLE ‘About us – Scholarship’ website. 

4.1. A Phased Approach

Due to the complex nature of these changes, it is suggested that the changes be made in phases.

- The first phase can include changes to the ‘CLE About Us – Scholarship Site’ as well as the DPS categories based on scholarship type (i.e., reflections, project progress and updates, podcasts and videos, and working papers) and thematic groups (i.e., assessment, multimodality, AI in teaching and learning, blended learning, intercultural communication).

- The second phase can include adding more gamification features to the DPS. 

5. Summary

·      Dual categories of DPS – type of output and thematic groups

·      Gamification of DPS

·      Test and pilot changes to DPS

·      Sync SPD and DPS to CLE About Us – Staff – Scholarship Website

 

Fostering Collaborative Scholarship: Introducing the Scholarship Hub Categories on DPS

1.0. Introduction

The online scholarship hubs within the DPS are set to fulfill crucial functions in fostering interaction, collaboration, and scholarly growth among CLE teachers within the Center. These hubs are thoughtfully tailored to align with the Center's primary areas of scholarly focus, enabling staff members to join based on their own pedagogical and scholarly interests and areas of expertise. By becoming members of these specific hubs, academic staff members can actively engage in meaningful conversations, share their valuable ideas, seek constructive feedback, and contribute to the collective knowledge and expertise of the Center.

2.0. Scholarship Hubs

Currently, the DPS comprises seven distinct scholarship hubs, each with its own scope and purpose, which are described below:

2.1. AI in teaching and learning

The AI scholarship hub focuses on the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in language teaching and learning including assessment, material design, curriculum development and related areas. The hub serves as a collaborative space for teachers to exchange knowledge, share insights, and advance scholarship in this field. It encompasses publications in the field, pedagogical applications of AI, use of data-driven approaches, the ethical implication of AI in language pedagogy, and professional development. The hub aims to foster innovation, disseminate research findings, support professional growth, and contribute to policy discussions and ethical considerations surrounding AI in language education, ultimately driving the advancement of the field.

2.2. Assessment

The Assessment hub serves as a centralized online platform dedicated to the function of assessing language proficiency and evaluating language learning outcomes. The hub's scope encompasses a wide range of activities, including the development and sharing of assessment materials, discussions on assessment methodologies and best practices, collaboration on research projects related to language assessment, and the dissemination of assessment-related resources and findings. It provides a collaborative space for language educators, researchers, and assessment specialists to exchange knowledge, explore innovative assessment approaches, and contribute to the advancement of assessment practices in language education.

2.3. Blended Learning

The Blended Learning hub serves as a comprehensive online platform with the aim to promote and support the implementation of blended learning approaches in language education. The hub's function is to facilitate collaboration, knowledge sharing, and resource development for language educators interested in integrating online and face-to-face learning modalities. Its scope encompasses a wide range of activities, including sharing best practices, discussing pedagogical strategies, curating and developing digital learning resources, providing professional development opportunities, and fostering research on blended learning in language education. The hub serves as a medium for CLE teachers to exchange ideas, explore innovative techniques, and collectively enhance the effectiveness of blended learning models in language teaching and learning contexts.

2.4. Discourse Analysis

The Discourse Analysis hub serves as a specialized site focusing on the study and examination of discourse in various contexts (including but not limited to Conversation Analysis, Pragmatics, Critical Discourse Analysis, and Systemic Functional Linguistics) to understand, deconstruct and construct texts for language teaching and learning. The hub's scope encompasses discussions on theoretical frameworks, methodologies, and applications of discourse analysis in language and communication pedagogy and scholarship. It provides a space for CLE teachers to exchange knowledge, share insights, and explore emerging trends in the field. The hub facilitates the sharing of research findings, the development of analytical tools and resources, and the dissemination of discourse analysis-related publications. It aims to advance scholarship and deepen understanding of discourse structures, language use, social interaction, and cultural implications in diverse linguistic and communicative contexts.

2.5. Intercultural Communication

The hub's function is to facilitate knowledge exchange, foster dialogue, and provide resources for CLE teachers interested in intercultural communication. Its scope includes examination of the language-culture nexus, discussions on the different theoretical frameworks, evaluation of the best practices in the field and building awareness about Intercultural Communicative Competence. Members of the hub will explore cultural differences and their impact on communication and examine intercultural communication in various disciplinary and professional contexts such as in STEM and business. The hub aims to provide a collaborative space for teachers to share insights, exchange experiences, and contribute to the advancement of intercultural communication theories, pedagogies, and practices while advancing the work of the CLE ‘Intercultural Communication Task and Finish Group’.

2.6. Multimodality

The Multimodality hub serves as an online community focusing on the study of multimodality in communication and meaning making. The group's aim is to foster collaboration, research, and knowledge sharing among CLE teachers interested in multimodality. The hub’s members will use theoretical approaches to visual grammar to understand multimodal analysis and apply it to language teaching and learning. They will analyse the different modes of communication such as written and spoken language, visuals, gestures, and spatial arrangements to show how multiple modes combine to create meaning and shape communication practices. Ultimately, the group aims to advance scholarship and contribute to the evolving field of multimodality.

2.7. The Postgraduate Study Group

The Postgraduate Study Group Hub, specifically designed for teachers pursuing MPhil, EdD, or PhD degrees, provides a supportive online platform that serves as a central space for group members to connect with fellow researchers, share experiences, seek guidance, and engage in scholarly discussions. The hub aims to facilitate the doctoral journey of members by providing them with opportunities for a) engaging in dialogue with peers about their experiences (e.g., setbacks and successes) in research and writing work, b) consolidating a pool of resources on conducting research to enable successful completion of the postgraduate degree and c) offering mentorship and guidance from experienced faculty members. It also provides members an avenue to share their study (in the form of research proposals, methodologies, findings, and results) with other CLE teachers during workshops and seminars on research-related topics. This can help hub members disseminate their research outcomes for application in language teaching and learning, receive feedback, and network with peers and experts in their respective sub-fields within language pedagogy.

3.0. Gamification of Scholarship Hubs

The scholarship hubs within the DPS incorporate gamification features to enhance engagement and encourage active participation among members. These features include liking, commenting, and posting, which can contribute to a dynamic and interactive scholarly community. Members can engage with the content shared on the platform by liking posts that resonate with them, expressing their appreciation or agreement with the ideas presented. This feature not only provides positive reinforcement but also helps to highlight valuable contributions within the hub. The commenting feature will allow members to engage in meaningful discussions, provide feedback, and ask questions related to the posted content. This can foster a collaborative environment where diverse perspectives and insights can be shared, leading to enriched scholarly conversations. In addition to liking and commenting, the posting feature can empower members to share their own ideas and resources with the community and initiate discussions around their areas of expertise. The posting feature thus encourages members to showcase their work, seek feedback, and engage others in their area of interest.

To further incentivize engagement, the scholarship hubs implement a monthly feature that highlights the post with the maximum engagement. This recognition provides additional motivation for members to actively participate, contribute high-quality content, and foster meaningful interactions within the community. By featuring the most engaging post, the hub acknowledges and rewards valuable contributions, encouraging continued involvement and knowledge sharing.

4.0. Summary

In summary, the online scholarship hubs on the Center’s Digital Platform for Scholarship (DPS) site can facilitate discussion, collaboration, and knowledge sharing among staff members. Based on teacher / Center needs and teachers’ engagement and participation, new hubs can be added, and inactive ones deleted. This will keep the hubs current and relevant. By providing a platform for interaction, recognizing scholarly contributions, and promoting user engagement, these hubs will serve a crucial role in enhancing scholarship at the Center and fostering a vibrant scholarly community.

 

DPS Scholarship Outputs: Distinguishing Academic Blogs from Reflections and Reviews

Background

As we piloted the DPS, AMS members suggested clearer explanation of the academic blog, reflection, and review categories be provided to ensure staff upload their scholarship outputs to the appropriate category. This document aims to clarify the differences between the three scholarship output types.

Features of Academic Blogs

Academic blogs typically focus on sharing scholarly knowledge, research, and insights in a public and accessible manner. They often involve a more structured and formal approach, incorporating evidence, references, and critical analysis. Academic blogs serve as a platform for scholars, researchers, and educators to share their knowledge, insights, and findings in a more accessible and informal manner than traditional academic publications. Key features of academic blogs include the ability to engage in ongoing discussions and debates within the academic community and beyond, fostering collaboration and knowledge exchange through comments and feedback. They often cover a wide range of topics, including research updates, critical analysis, and practical advice, providing a space for researchers to showcase their expertise and engage with a broader audience. Academic blogs also offer a more timely and agile medium for sharing information, enabling rapid dissemination of research and scholarship and encouraging dialogue.

Features of Reflections

Academic reflections are a form of scholarly writing that focus on the personal and subjective experiences, thoughts, and insights of the author. They provide an opportunity for individuals to critically analyze and reflect on teaching and learning activities and processes. Some key features of academic reflections include introspection, self-awareness, and self-critique. They often involve a thoughtful examination of one's biases, assumptions, and limitations, and an exploration of the broader implications and significance of the experiences or ideas being reflected on. Academic reflections may or may not incorporate theoretical frameworks and concepts but generally provide the context for reflection. They serve as a means for scholars to engage in metacognition and deepen their own understanding of an educational issue.

Features of Reviews (e.g., of teaching materials, conferences)

A review, whether of teaching materials or conferences, typically encompasses several key features. Firstly, it offers a critical evaluation of the subject matter, assessing its strengths and weaknesses. In the case of teaching materials, a review may analyze the content's relevance, accuracy, clarity, and effectiveness in facilitating learning. For conference reviews, the focus may be on the organization, quality of presentations, networking opportunities, or overall value to attendees. Secondly, reviews often provide an objective and balanced perspective, drawing on evidence, examples, or comparisons to support the evaluation. They may also consider the target audience or intended purpose of the materials or conference and evaluate its suitability in meeting those objectives. Additionally, a comprehensive review may address the potential impact or implications of the materials or conference within the relevant field or educational context. Lastly, reviews can serve as a guide or recommendation for others, offering insights and suggestions for improvement or highlighting noteworthy aspects that make the materials or conference stand out.

Summary and future direction

The above DPS categories were approved by AMS but may continue to evolve based on feedback and comments from users.

 

DPS - Scholarship Output Revised Categories and New Submission Guidelines

Academic Blogs

This is the place for you to share your own unique take on a topic you have spent some time researching in our field. Do not hesitate to use evidence and analysis to support your ideas and write in a conversational, informal language.

Submission guidelines

Submissions should focus on language teaching and learning, including but not limited to theories, methodologies, pedagogical approaches, classroom practices, assessment, technology integration, and language acquisition. The content should be informative and offer valuable theoretical insights or practical applications to readers.

Blogs submitted must be original. If they have been published elsewhere, please provide link to the site to share the blog with others. If any part of the submission has been previously published or is based on previous work, proper attribution and references should be provided.

Submissions should be well-organized, coherent, and easy to read. Use clear headings, subheadings, and paragraphs to structure your content. Ensure that your writing is concise, engaging, and accessible to both academic and non-academic readers.

Support your arguments and claims with relevant references to scholarly sources. Use appropriate citation styles (e.g., APA) to provide accurate references and citations within the text and in the reference list.

Submissions could range anywhere between 300 to 1,500 words.

Use clear and concise language. Explain jargon or technical terms. Write in a professional yet accessible style to engage a broad audience of language teaching and learning professionals. Proofread your work carefully to ensure grammatical accuracy and coherence.

When possible, include relevant visuals to enhance the presentation of your ideas. Ensure that all supporting materials are properly credited and have appropriate permissions for use.

Reflections

This is where you share critical reflections of your own teaching practices. This is also where you share your observations of teaching reflection.

Submission guidelines

We invite critical reflections of your own teaching practices, learning from your own or others' practice /teaching contexts at the classroom, course or curriculum level. These reflections may also include how you have used the learning to enhance your own and others' teaching.

This is also where you share your observations of teaching reflection.

We are particularly interested in what you learnt dialogically with a colleague(s).

Outline briefly the context to the observation event(s): date(s), other teacher/s involved; course code and section; approach you used [e.g. observing others/ lesson study/ peer observation/self-observation with other(s)]; and observation focus(es).

We encourage you to reflect on one or two area(s) of focus and support these with evidence. The reflective process may include showing awareness of something you feel is not as it could or should be; critically thinking of what is happening based on your knowledge and experience and suggesting different/ new / more effective ways of teaching that content.

If applicable, we are also interested in knowing how the evidence you use for reflection may guide the thematic focus and approach to your scholarship. 

We prefer short, semi-formal and semi-academic style to make your texts more accessible and engaging.

Submit your critical reflections using any of these formats:

1.     written, spoken (e.g. audio recordings)

2.     visual (e.g. images, video recordings)

3.     multimodal (e.g. links to apps)

 If reflections and/or outcomes of the reflections have been made public for e.g. in a scholarship or continuous professional development event, feel free to include a link here.

The length of your reflections can be 250-700 words (written)/ 5 mins of audio recordings/narrated PPTs/video recordings

Project Proposals and Progress

This is the place where colleagues can share their project proposals/ideas and progress.

Submission guidelines

If you would like to submit your project ideas or a brief proposal of your project applications, you can write about:

Working Title of the Project Proposal

The Funding Body (if any): Specify the source(s) of funding.

3-sentence Project Description: Provide a brief description of your project, highlighting its key aspects in three sentences.

Purpose, Goals, and Objectives: Outline the purpose of the project, its primary goals, and specific objectives (what you aim to achieve).

Collaboration Opportunities: Highlight any potential for collaboration or assistance from colleagues.

Feedback Requests: Specify areas where you would like to receive feedback or guidance from colleagues.

Estimated Budget and Resources: Include an estimate of the budget required, manpower needs, and outline any physical resources necessary.

If you would like to share your project progress, you can write about:

Current Status: Describe the current phase of your project and any milestones recently achieved.

Challenges and Solutions: Discuss any challenges you have encountered and the strategies you used to overcome them.

Upcoming Goals: Outline the next steps and objectives you aim to achieve in the coming period.

Resource Needs: Identify any additional resources or support needed to advance your project.

Collaboration Opportunities: Highlight any potential for collaboration or assistance from colleagues.

Feedback Requests: Specify areas where you would like to receive feedback or guidance from colleagues.

Working papers

This is where you share papers on language education that you are working on. As this is an internal platform, your input can facilitate a scholarly discussion among colleagues, and you may even get some valuable feedback from your peers or a potential project partner.

Submission guidelines

The working paper should present novel ideas, ongoing scholarship, or work in progress, rather than finalized and fully polished studies. They can be anywhere between 2000 – 5000 words in length. Authors should:

Clearly state the objective or purpose of the working paper.Provide a concise background and/or literature review that situates the paper within the current context.

If applicable, clearly outline the methodology, research design, or theoretical framework being used.

Present preliminary findings / data analysis / or initial insights derived from the work.

Discuss limitations and challenges in the area and directions for future scholarship or practical work.

State if the paper has been peer reviewed (blind or otherwise) or not.

Submissions should be original works that have not been previously published elsewhere. If any part of the working paper has been previously published or is based on previous work, proper attribution and references should be provided with a link/DOI.

Podcasts / Videos

If you have produced or hosted a podcast on language teaching and learning or have been invited as a guest for one, please upload them here for knowledge sharing. Similarly, if you have made interesting and engaging video content for academic staff or students, this is where we can share it with others at the Center.

Submission guidelines

Podcasts: Submit an audio recording in MP3 format. The audio should be clear, well-produced, and free from excessive background noise or distractions. Aim for a duration of approximately 30 minutes, although longer episodes can be submitted.

Videos: Submit a video file in a widely supported format (e.g., MP4). Ensure that the video has good visual and audio quality, and it is well-edited and engaging. Aim for a duration between 5 to 15 minutes, as shorter videos tend to maintain viewer engagement. However, longer videos may be accepted for more complex topics.

If applicable, provide additional resources, references, or links related to the content discussed in your podcast or video.

Include captions or transcripts for accessibility purposes if you can, especially for video submissions.

Submissions should be original works created by you or appropriate permissions should be obtained for any copyrighted materials used.

If you reference or discuss the work of others, ensure proper attribution and provide relevant citations or acknowledgments.

Submit your podcast or video file via a designated file-sharing platform or provide a streaming link.

Include a brief summary or description of the content and any accompanying visuals (e.g., cover image, video thumbnail).

Reviews (e.g., teaching materials, conferences)

Here you can share different kinds of reviews (except book reviews). You can upload reviews of teaching materials, or written reviews of conferences you have attended or presented at.

Review of teaching materials

Submission guidelines

Choose course materials that you have taught and have extensive knowledge about. The materials can be for online or offline teaching, self-paced or instructor-led, short or long, and belong to core or elective courses.

Provide a concise overview of the material/s, including the title, language(s) taught, target audience, and any relevant prerequisites.

Describe the content and learning objectives.

Evaluate the teaching methodology, instructional materials, and resources used.

Assess the effectiveness of the course in terms of engaging learners, promoting language skills development, and meeting the stated objectives.

Discuss the level of interactivity, feedback, and support provided to learners.

Present an unbiased and balanced review, considering both positive and negative aspects of the course.

Support your claims and opinions with specific examples and evidence from your experience.

Avoid personal attacks or derogatory language towards course designers, instructors or course providers.

Structure your review with headings and subheadings to enhance readability.

Aim for a review length of approximately 500 to 1,500 words, providing sufficient details without being overly lengthy.

If possible, include relevant visuals such as screenshots or course materials to support your review.

Ensure that any supporting materials are properly credited and have appropriate permissions for use.

Conference Reviews

Submission guidelines

Share with us:

·      which conference it is.

·      how the conference relates to what we do in terms of teaching and learning or the professional work at the CLE.

·      purpose of your review.

·      what the review is about e.g. themes, organizers, speakers etc. including overall effectiveness of the conference.

·      your overall experience i.e. if you'd recommend this conference (to whom and why).

 We prefer a short submission in a semi-formal style to make contributions more accessible and engaging. Submit your review using any of these formats:

·      written, spoken (e.g. audio recordings, narrated PPTs)

·      visual (e.g. images as in posters/infographics/concept maps, video recordings)

·      multimodal texts

These can be as long as 500-2,000 words (written)/ 2 to 7 mins of audio recordings/narrated PPTs/video recordings.

 

DPS Pilot Study & IT Team’s Feedback

1.0. Background

The Digital Platform for Scholarship (DPS) has undergone a complete revamp to include revised scholarship output categories, the introduction of scholarship hubs, as well as notification and gamification features to facilitate engagement with the platform, enhance collaboration, and contribute to scholarship at the Center. 

To test the output types, scholarship hubs and other features of the new DPS, 8 colleagues were invited to test the site. The section below provides a summary of these suggestions:

2.0. Summary of Suggestions

2.1. The following under 'Teams' to no longer be included: 

-      Video-enhanced observation team (project completed)

·      Social media team (no longer in operation)

·      SCPD funding and grants team (information in the Staff Handbook)

·      Project proposal team (information is under ‘Project proposals and Progress’)

2.2. Scholarship series team link is duplicated on the site.

IT team's response:

a)    This tab on the top of the site ensures that it is visible on every page so that staff can click on it right away.

b)    But if they scroll down, they will see the detailed information about Scholarship Series.     

2.3   CLE website to delete link to DPS if there are no plans to make DPS visible to an external audience. 

Team's response:    D/CLE’s approval is needed (later obtained).

2.3.1 Currently, the site states “something awesome is in the works”. AL (SA)’s suggestion is to change it to: “Sign in required”. Once staff sign in, they can access all DPS content. (Done).

2.4.  Additional guidelines for project proposals and progress (added)

2.5. Email address (lcdps@ust.hk) can be placed at the top of the page.

IT team's response:

a.    The IT team notes that contact information is always provided at the bottom of the page. They point out difficulties of putting this information at the top.

b.    Therefore, AL (SA) suggested the contact email address be made more conspicuous on the page for staff to see it easily.

2.6.  Filters for each category be provided (IT team examines feasibility of the suggestion).

a.    This has been done.

b.    AL(SA) encourages AMS to test the function.

2.7.    Some suggested that staff may not exactly be familiar with academic blogs / reviews / reflections. AL (SA) provided descriptions of each category (see above).

 3.0. Comments from individual participants

1.    The site is easy to navigate and user-friendly.

2.    The new layout looks good to me!

3.    It is good to see that there are mainly six tabs on the main page, with one for reflections including teaching observations, one for project progress, one for reviewing teaching materials and conferences, one for podcasts / videos and two for sharing papers and your own insights on a specific topic. They all have a distinct focus. I do not have any difficulty navigating the site.

4.    I have found that on the landing page of the CLE's website, there is a link to the 'scholarship platform', but this link seems to have some problems. If 'Digital Platform for Scholarship' here refers to DPS, maybe the status can be changed? (Done)

5.    Thanks for this. I am overall good with the layout and hubs. After closely reviewing the 'Projects Proposal and Progress' section, I would like to suggest the inclusion of additional guidelines (DPS updated with revised guidelines).

6.    In the 'teams' section, the 'scholarship series team' is mentioned, but I do not think this will be used by the team. (It's been removed).

7.    Add filters for every category (done).

 

Conclusion

The redevelopment of the Digital Platform for Scholarship (DPS) at HKUST's Center for Language Education (CLE) marks a significant step forward in promoting scholarly engagement and fostering a vibrant academic community. Through the recommended changes to the original platform, the introduction of diverse scholarship output categories, and the implementation of gamified scholarship hubs, we hope to lay a solid foundation for enhancing the scholarly experience.

 The submission criteria for different output categories have been clearly defined, enabling scholars to showcase their work effectively. The pilot test results and feedback from the IT Team and academic staff have provided valuable insights into the platform's strengths and areas for improvement. These insights will guide future modifications and refinements to enhance the overall user experience and ensure the platform aligns with the Center's objectives.

Although careful attention has been given to ensuring user friendliness and engagement throughout the DPS revamp process, we acknowledge the importance of monitoring the site's performance and actively seeking feedback from users. By incorporating their valuable insights and suggestions, the DPS will continue to evolve and adapt to meet the ever-changing needs of the Center.

Moving forward, we remain committed to maintaining an ongoing dialogue with staff and stakeholders to gather feedback and suggestions for further improvements. The iterative nature of this redevelopment process ensures that the DPS will continue to evolve as a dynamic platform that supports the Center's mission of promoting scholarly engagement and collaboration.

By embracing the principles of user-centered design and actively incorporating feedback, the Digital Platform for Scholarship at HKUST's Center for Language Education will serve as a catalyst for fostering a vibrant academic community and advancing scholarly pursuits. With constant monitoring, continuous refinement, and a commitment to meeting the Center's needs, the DPS aims to serve as a valuable resource for scholars at the CLE.

Work Team: Dr. Aditi Jhaveri, Mr. Felix Li, Ms. Mandy Tsang

Work duration: November 2023 - June 2024

 

Background 

To build on the newly adopted intelligibility-based approach to pronunciation in our Centre, John, Venus, and Yin wished to explore the notion of the intelligibility threshold, addressing these three questions: 1) What is the intelligibility threshold; 2) How do you measure it; and 3) Are those existing intelligibility thresholds applicable to our context? A systematic analysis of five studies apparently could shed some light on the three questions. Hopefully, the results of this study will help teachers understand descriptors related to pronunciation, and ultimately improve inter-rater intelligibility. 

 

The premise underlying the notion of the intelligibility threshold (IT)

The concept of intelligibility (IT) or the intelligibility threshold could be challenging to grasp as listeners or teachers may determine the intelligibility of a speaker while assessing comprehensibility and/or acceptability as well. In fact, the analytic scale proposed by Issacs et al (2018) addresses comprehensibility from the listener’s perspective, whether the listener has to put in little effort, some effort, enormous effort to understand the speech or not.  Therefore, in order to explore the notion of the intelligibility threshold and to ensure that all teachers are on the same page, we could first of all examine three related terms – acceptability, comprehensibility, and intelligibility, and how they are commonly defined in the field or context of pronunciation assessment.  

• Acceptability is defined as “The degree of annoyance and irritability experienced by listeners” (Kozlowska, 2014, as cited in Thomson, 2017, p. 25).
• Comprehensibility (Gass and Varonis, 1984, as cited in Munro and Derwing, 1995, p.77) is defined as “ease of interpretation”, or viewed as “a measure of the processability of speech” (Thomson, p.24).
• Intelligibility refers to “the extent to which a speaker’s message is actually understood by a listener” (Munro and Derwing 1995, p.76) or “actual level of understanding” (1995, p.92) 

 

What is the intelligibility threshold (IT)?

Depending on the context and the purpose of communication, the index or percentage varies. According to a study conducted by Okim et al (2020), the intelligibility threshold can be expressed by an index, or a percentage of the total number of content words understood by a listener, that is, a ratio of the total number of content words understood by a listener and the total number of content words spoken by a speaker. The researchers proposed an index as high as 96% (in other words, a divergence rate of 4%) as they were looking for speakers who would play role as speakers reading aloud passages for a listening comprehension test, that is, the TOEFL listening paper.

Measuring the IT focusing on content words has limitations, one of which is that the importance of prepositions in phrasal verbs (verb + preposition) and other function words (conjunctions, pronouns, determiners) that may carry special meanings or enhance understanding is ignored. Other researchers may also investigate various aspects of the individual listener such as accent familiarity, topic familiarity, listeners’ voluntary and deliberate efforts to decipher speech when determining one’s intelligibility (Hardman, 2010; Munro & Derwing, 1995).

Another study carried out by Kosheleva and Kreinovich (2013) attempted to quantify the intelligibility threshold. In their investigation into dialects and languages, they argued that if 70% or more of words spoken by a person from one region are understood by other speakers from another region, then it is usually considered a dialect; however, if less than 70% of words are mutually intelligible, they are usually considered as different languages. The researchers mathematically demonstrated that this equation p > p2 def = √ 0.5 or 70.71% could suggest the intelligibility threshold.

 

Other methods of collecting speech data for measuring the intelligibility threshold

There are at least three ways to collect speech data. 

1. Subjects read aloud a script usually consisting of various grammatical and syntactic structures such as relative clauses, complement clauses, prepositional phrases, and so on.
2. Subjects write their scripts and read them aloud. (e.g. SIPE and oral presentations; usually scripted, some improvisation may be required if a speaker forgets some part of the speech) 
3. Subjects are engaged in a spontaneous conversation. (e.g. mock job interview, improvisation is usually required when answering unprepared questions) 

  

Are those existing intelligibility thresholds applicable to our context? 

Arguably, our IT should not be as high as the one identified by Okim et al’s. Their purpose was to select speakers for reading aloud passages for listening comprehension purposes in the context of developing test papers. Similarly, the IT for a platform manager working on a train station will not be as high as the IT for an air traffic controller working at the airport. Further research into alternative methods may be needed for determining whether our descriptor “pronounces quite clearly and accurately; and uses rhythm and intonation quite appropriately in general” or whether other qualitative statements can serve as our intelligibility threshold for our Center.

 

References 

Hardman, J. B. (2010). The intelligibility of Chinese-accented English to international and American students at a U.S. university (Order No. 3428659). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global A&I: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection. (758452801).

Issacs, T., Trolimovich, P., & Foote, J.A.  (2018). Developing a user-oriented second language comprehensibility scale for English-medium universities. Language Testing, 35(2). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0265532217703433 

Kang, O., Thomson, R. I., & Moran, M. (2018). Which features of accent affect understanding? Exploring the intelligibility threshold of diverse accent varieties. Applied Linguistics, 41(4), 453–480. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy053

Kosheleva, O., & Kreinovich, V. (2013). Dialect or a new language: a possible explanation of the 70% mutual intelligibility threshold. International Mathematical Forum, 9(4), 189-192.

Munro, M. J. & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign Accent, Comprehensibility, and Intelligibility in the Speech of Second Language Learners. Language learning, 45(1), 73-97.

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2015). Intelligibility in research and practice: Teaching priorities. In M. Reed & J.M. Levis (Eds). The handbook of English pronunciation. Wiley Blackwell: Malaysia. 

Thomson, R. (2017). Measurement of accentedness, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. In O. Kang & A. Ginther (Eds). Assessment in second language pronunciation. Routledge: NY.