Having watched the recent IATEFL debate between Alan Walters and Nicky Hockly[1] I feel I should post my thoughts because I think Walters’ oratory let him down (he basically just read out a speech) and Hockly used some effective rhetoric which may have won her the debate but the problem with this, and indeed with all sophistry, is the same problem you get with over-use of technology. To wit:
You can fool some people sometimes, but you can’t fool all the people all of the time.
I see technology as being a bit like ice cream: we need it sometimes otherwise things become heavy and dull. Well we don’t need it, you can live without it but it makes life a bit more pleasurable. Now you must forgive me for extending the metaphor but ice cream is rather addictive and if you eat nothing else it becomes sickly and you get fat. Which is why prefer to teach language in a lean way without much tech so that when you do introduce it you get a better effect. You can’t just use it all of the time.
Binge approach - technology in education can become a compulsive disorder
The real meal is human-to-human interaction. People haven’t really changed physiologically or psychologically for over 10,000 years. All that has changed are the tools that we use. In language teaching, technology can be a big crutch for teachers and students. Electronic dictionaries are a good example of this; many people use them but they are still very clunky and pedagogically unsound. They hinder fluency and comprehension in such an insidious way that I always feel inclined to chuck them out the window.
The technology is not responding.
Hardware is usually expensive and often clunky. Language is neither. Language is a completely elegant, natural, analogue phenomenon so I don’t see the need to unnecessarily complicate it. Learning to speak a language is not a technological endeavour and language teachers are not applied engineers and nor should we have to be at the essence of the craft. I don’t mind using technology, it should make things easier for students and teachers but it’s really not necessary if you accept how language learning most efficiently occurs. Sorry if that sounds glib but many ESL teachers require a more comprehensive understanding of SLA pedagogy so they can discriminate materials and methods more critically.
We are inextricably integrated in a technological world and it has generally made our lives better. But the classroom is a fundamentally simpler social environment than the factory or the office. Would Shakespeare or Aristotle have been better if they had our technology? They would have been more connected but I don’t think they would have been better thinkers. Connectivity is not as important as what you have to say to the people you are connected to. The Ancients were no less clever than we are. They attained their truth through applied study and constant practice – a timeless characteristic of human progress.
My real problem with technology is the gimmicky and pedagogically weak nature of a lot of language learning software. Some of the stuff I see has the touch of the emperor’s new clothes about it. The quality is gradually getting better but we have to remember that technology in education and in life is a means not an end. It is to be used as a part of a process, not to be got as a result. In second language education, the internet is for finding and creating good content, not pretty gimmicks. The urge to always turn to the internet belies a weakness and lack of confidence on the part of the teacher.
NASA spent millions making a pen to work in zero gravity. The Russians just used pencils.
My own philosophy of teaching barely includes technology because if teachers understand the proper principles of language learning, informed by psychology and other fields, then technology is mostly superfluous. It’s not that I don’t like it, it’s just that I don’t really need it. There is more immediate stuff out there in the collective consciousness and more beneficial techniques to employ than the more-is-more approach of jumping on the latest bandwagon. It’s no good being ahead of the bell curve if you just become an early adopter of all that is mediocre. When the truly revolutionary stuff comes along then its value is by necessity clear enough and the the best teachers will thus naturally use it to best effect.
1. ELT Journal/IATEFL Debate: Tweeting is for the birds, not for language learning, 14.35-15.35, Sunday 17th April http://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2011/sessions/2011-04-17/elt-journal-debate-tweeting-birds-not-language-learning
Interesting.
I’ll comment much more later but for the moment, I’d like to just ask – why do you think technology ISN’T about human to human interaction?
I’m at a loss and with this basic prejudice, the rest doesn’t make sense.
Thanks,
David
Yes, that’s a fair point David. The distinction I’m trying to make is between using language in the physical presence of other people — as we are evolutionarily programmed to do, instead of interacting with an app or a tool. An emphasis on listening and speaking rather than reading, writing and pressing buttons.
Of course telephones are good but they take the non-verbal element out of the equation and thus can be difficult and and not as engaging for learners.
Hi Luan
I wish I was as eloquent and inescapably logical as you are in your defence of tech-free teaching! I absolutely, totally agree, but have never been able to put it as succinctly or convincingly as you have. My protestations are all too emotional!http://ydnacblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/159/
That’s a very charming comment, Candy. Thank you. I’m reading your blog now.
Pingback: T is for Technology « An A-Z of ELT
I read your well-written post with interest but must admit that I disagree with most of it. To celebrate the classroom as a “simpler social environment” is to celebrate like-mindedness and a teacher-centred approach. As an online English/communication instructor for the past 8 years, I am not weak or lacking in confidence as you suggest I might be. Isn’t it weak or lacking in confidence to want to stick with a “simpler social environment” where it’s safe and where the teacher can dictate what is learned rather than embracing student-centred learning and all there is to be learned out there in the global community? I believe that if we don’t change our methods of teaching to meet the interests of the 21st century learner, we stand to lose their interest in education and our relevance as educators. The options for using technology are not limited to reading/writing or the telephone. By choosing from the numerous suitable options, learners can learn how to find information and build and foster relationships and connections as a result of interacting in authentic ways outside of the 4 walls of the classroom. What is “authentic” to today’s learner is different than what was “authentic” for use. Using methods of communication via technology IS authentic learning. Here’s a video I created in celebration of connectivism as I came to understand it after taking a course with George Siemens and Stephen Downes:
http://vimeo.com/22377259
Perhaps it will provide some food for thought. Would love to know your thoughts…
Thanks!
Hi Debbie, thanks for your post. You wrote:
“To celebrate the classroom as a “simpler social environment” is to celebrate like-mindedness and a teacher-centred approach.”
I must admit I hadn’t thought of it in quite that way. I meant it rather as a place where knowledge and skills are acquired which does not necessarily require over-analysis and wizardry to effect learning. Whereas the factory and the office absolutely require complex applications and machinery to fulfill production, the classroom doesn’t. Education is not as evolutionary as commerce – it has largely existed in its present form for hundreds of years – granted this has been enlightened by tweaks in educational theory. However, relatively small changes in how learners perceive and live in the world are not going to change the facts and the perennial need to develop a spirit of healthy questioning and good character in learners. Society needs teachers and always will, especially in skill-driven subjects such as language learning. Maybe that’s too conservative for you but it begets tangible results. In discussions like this I’m always drawn to Bertrand Russell’s excellent essay ‘On Education’. It sums up the balance between freedom and discipline perfectly. http://www.zona-pellucida.com/essay-russel.html
My point about teacher weakness and lack of confidence applies to over use of any tech including the photocopier. Tech becomes a crutch for too many ESL teachers and it’s often because they are not fully versed in SLA pedagogy.
I like your video. It is a nice piece of evangelism. But what do you think about my point that connectivity is less important than the things you say to the people you are connected to? That holds true, right?
I agree with a you say in the main, but a lot of this is based around the lack of necessity to use technology in a formal classroom setting. This being the case, could technology enable learning to break free from the physical constraints of the classroom, and would this be such a bad thing? For example, people started using the telephone because it meant they didn’t have to travel whatever distance for a face-to-face encounter. The same notion could be applied to people having to travel to a physical location for the teaching-learning encounter to take place. I know this is clearly different to the ‘convert page of coursebook to DVD-Rom’ tactic that you (and I) are against, and which is what a lot of tech in the classroom revolves around, but this does, I feel, suggest that there is a place for technology in language learning.
Thanks for a great read, by the way.
I think this is the only saving grace of technology TBH.
Unable to reciprocate your DM on twitter as you don’t follow me. Just letting you know.
Sorry mate, I did hit the follow button but you what it’s like.
Klaus Beutelspacher hits the nail on the head here.
http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/t-is-for-technology/#comment-4317
Hi Luan,
I read your post with interest but must admit that am baffled by so much and disagree with almost everything you claim. To begin with, introducing technology in the classroom does not mean that a teacher is lacking or hiding behind any “weakness” – quite the contrary. Teachers who use technology regularly do so because they have been trained, keep training and think about how a certain tool or platform will enhance the learner’s learning experience. These teachers are among the most passionate and dedicated educators I have ever encountered.
Using technology for learning is not jumping on a bandwagon – if so, why would students of so many different ages and locations, have dictionaries on their mobiles, love working with Edmodo because of its immediate similarity to Facebook, feel empowered when they create digital stories which they can share and develop their own blogs? These are activities which are not limited to only 1 institution or country. They are increasingly taking place in many parts of the world, each developing a more personalized, richer learning experience for students.
By preventing learners to use technology for their own learning process, is denying today’s students the opportunity of being life-long learners in a rapidly changing world. Technology is not going away. It is part of our lives and should be part of our classroom practices. There is no evidence in SLA theories that technology is a mere toy; but then again, which SLA do you refer to? How current are these SLA that you mention?
My last question is, how you can be so dismissive of technology as a learning tool when you yourself use technology to share your ideas and work? I find it rather strange that an educator would not want to share this type of knowledge with his or her learners; instead keeping them in a bubble where there is no engagement or practice with the endless possibilities that technology now gives us.
Hi Ana, I respect a passionate defence but I worry about people using tech just because it’s there. When the craze loses sight of pedagogical aims and underpinnings then you move backwards. I don’t think you need to write SLA research papers to notice that some teachers misuse tech, overuse it, or use poor content and programmes. It’s a chaotic movement in education which, as always, will turn up winners and losers. But the number of products that fall by the wayside will always dwarf the emergence and widespread adoption of genuinely game-changing tools.
“My last question is, how you can be so dismissive of technology as a learning tool when you yourself use technology to share your ideas and work?”
That’s a tu quoque argument. Because I use technology, doesn’t mean I can’t criticise and eschew it in the classroom. I’m not against technology as a rule. It is very good for general learning and communication, but the point is where do you delineate its use in the foreign language classroom? It just doesn’t follow that technology broadly improves learning without exception.
Hi Luan,
You raise 2 points which need to be taken into account whether using digital technology or not: firstly, whatever tool is being used needs and should have a pedagogical purpose. Secondly, using digital technology thoughtlessly will not improve learning. Just because a teacher is using PowerPoint, for example, which learners cannot see at the back of the classroom, does not enhance the learning process. Nor does using a book which learners cannot connect to nor playing games with no other purpose than to keep learners “entertained”. However, if a teacher is a real educator, and introduces digital technology into classroom practices, then there usually is a great deal of pedagogical thought as to which practices will be best suited for a particular group of students and task.
You’re exactly right Ana. Part of me chafes against the directionlessness of the proliferation of technology that we see. On Diarmuid Fogarty’s blog I posted a couple of lists that teachers can use as a guide to deciding whether the tech they are incorporating has a positive pedagogical basis. http://managementspique.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/just-say-no/#comments
Hi Luan,
Thank you for pointing out that link. As with any other approach or tool (course book, supplementary materials etc) there needs to be a sound and positive pedagogical basis for introducing digital technology in the learning process. Because there are so many great tools to engage learners and help them progress in their learning, I just find that dismissing digital technology as mindless gaming is rather simplistic and ignoring the benefits that it may bring to the classroom and learning experience.
There is a danger misdirected timewasting with a lot of the stuff I see on Twitter but I think the real problem is that supposedly professional language learning software usually displays limited interactivity, limited elicitation via context, is based on a grammar syllabus, has a declarative rather than procedural approach, and doesn’t utilse learner initiative.
Hi Luan,
I agree with everything you’ve said above; whenever introducing digital tech tasks in the classroom (e.g. a glog, a podcast, blogs etc) there needs to be a balanced and sound pedagogical reason for that. Most importantly, all tasks (whether analogue or digital) need to meet students’ needs, expectations, and means to achievement. Using tech just for the sake of throwing some digital “toys” to “babysit” learners is not really doing any service to either learners or the great potentials that digital learning brings to the learning process.
All that glitters is not gold.
You see things posted online like ’50 things you can do with Twitter in the classroom’ and it’s just rubbish that doesn’t serve any linguistic purpose and the communicative aspects of which could be better done without Twitter. I see programs by firms like Dr Eye and Auralog which are pedagogically dire. Yet they make money.
Unfortunately, making money all too often takes precedence with technology in education.
Hi Luan,
Thank you, and everyone who has commented, for a very thought-provoking read.
I was wondering whether there was another link to the lists that teachers can use as a guide to deciding on how pedagogically sound the technology they are using is. I clicked on the link that was posted [above] but sadly the website is no longer available.
Thanks,
Nikki
Hi Nikki. I can only find one of the lists I wrote. It highlights some of the faults of online courseware and language learning tech in general.
grammar translation
text-book-on-a-screen
explicit rule teaching
error-ridden and moribund idiom explanations
grammar, usage, spelling and punctuation errors
heavy use of translation
heavy dependence on L1
heavy use of text over listening
no speech recognition
crass content
lack of structure
lack of aims
There was another list of six prescriptions for using tech in class but I’d have to rewrite it. Let me have a think about it.