digital technologies in language learning and teaching
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
LUDĚK KNITTLUNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
JAMES L ITTLEUNIVERSITY OF LEEDS
S H E F F I E L D , 1 7 S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 3
Digital technologies in language learning and teaching
A Short History ofTechnology and
Learning
First thoughts
What do you think could be the positives of using technologies in teaching?
What could be some of the drawbacks?
What are your experiences (if any) of using teaching technologies?
Technologies and learning and teaching
Discrepancies between discourse about technology and its use
The “digital natives vs. immigrants” and “digital residents vs. visitors” debates
Expectations vs. realityTechnologies as part of pedagogy Examples of using technologies in teaching
practice Getting started
Teaching technology debates
Literature promoting the use of technology E.g. E-learning, Journal of computer assisted learning, British journal
of educational technology, or Journal of teaching and learning with technology
Critical voices How do e-learning and technology affect students? How do they affect academics/teachers?
Critical voices
A gap between the rhetoric in the literature and how technologies are being implemented (Njenga & Fourie, 2010)
Paradoxes in the implementation of technologies (Guri-Rosenblit, 2005), e.g. preparedness and readiness of HE institutions to realise the
potential of technologies cost consideration personal issues, such as the impact of the new technologies on
students the human capacity to adapt to new learning styles
“The Digital Natives”
The generation born after 1980 find it easier to interact with digital technologies; they learn, create and even socialise differently (Prensky, 2001)
The older generation – “digital immigrants” – will never be so “fluent” in the use of technologies
Is there evidence for “digital nativness”?
A complex issue affected by factors such as Access to technologies Socio-economic background Perceived usefulness The discipline
(e.g. Facer & Furlong, 2001)
Differences in the quantity rather than the quality of use in different groups, e.g. engineering vs. social work (Margaryan et al., 2011)
A newer concept: Digital Residents vs. Digital Visitors
Not ‘Natives’ & ‘Immigrants’ but
‘Visitors’ & ‘Residents’
David White http://tallblog.conted.ox.ac.uk/index.php/2008/07/23/n
ot-natives-immigrants-but-visitors-residents/
A newer concept: Digital Residents vs. Digital Visitors
The ‘Resident’ The resident is an individual who lives a
percentage of their life online.
The ‘Visitor’ The Visitor is an individual who uses the web as
a tool in an organised manner whenever the need arises.
Current Students’ Experiences
Expectations gap between previous educational experiences (primary and secondary school)
Expectations of use but not sure how to *actually* use technology for learning
Where does learning take place… classroom or outside…
What has changed?
Learning takes place the same wayChanges in learning contexts, expectations and practices
Increasing availability of ICT (internet, mobile devices etc.)
Increasing range of places where students can learn
Expectations of greater flexibility in educational provision
What does that mean for us, teachers?
Student preferences
Online media used for looking up content and communication rather than for creating (i.e. wikies or blogs for learning)
No adoption of different learning styles by the younger generation
Satisfaction with traditional methods of teachingAttitude towards learning influenced by the teaching style
of the lecturerFace-to-face interaction with teachers
(Margaryan et al., 2011; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Hargittai, 2010)
Threat or opportunity?
Engagement with traditional printed resources
Flexibility of electronic materials
Use of dubious online sources, plagiarism, Google translate etc.
Example: Using Google translate creatively as a pedagogical tool in a translation module
The SAMR Model
Considering Technology
Considerations for ‘normal’ session/programme design aspects and technology should be the same…
Purpose of what should be achieved (aims and outcomes) is the focus
Tech as a way of enhancing/new opportunities (SAMR model).
Enabling alternatives and/or new options which can be considered for use.
Technological determinism is a reductionist theory that presumes that a society's technology drives the development of its social structure and cultural values. Heilbroner (1994)http
://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/sirg/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2-Heilbroner-TechnologicalDeterminismRevisited2.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism
Technological Determinism (Danger!)
Application to learning: Assumption that technology determines use within society Temptation to pick technology first over other considerations
We would argue: Society determines use of technology (e.g. SMS / e-mail) Educational aims should determine technology use
Technological Determinism (Danger!)
Learner in the centre?
Incorporating cutting-edge technology Social media Mobile learning
Paradigm shift - design focused on what technology can do
Technology-centred teaching and learning
Designing materials with the learner in mind
Morville's user experience honeycomb (www.jisc.ac.uk)
Examples of using technologies in teaching practice
Reading in Czech(Sheffield VLE-based course)
Varieties of Czech (Moodle-based course) www.czechandpolish.co.uk/czech/
Beginners’ Czech Exerciseswww.czech.group.shef.ac.uk/beginners/
Examples of tools available online
Vocabulary learning Quizlet
http://quizlet.com/ Memrise
http://www.memrise.com/
Interactive exercises Hot Potatoeshttp://hotpot.uvic.ca/
Getting started
What function will the tool serve in your class/teaching? Reflect on how students’ experience and your teaching will be
enhanced or changed
Common functions:1. Enhancing interaction (student-teacher, student-student)2. Creating online content3. Creating online activity to integrate student-generated content or
participatory learningAny tool should always be used in support of pedagogy!
Getting started II
Who will use the tool?
Provide how-to instructions
Explain the purpose Why you are using the tool How it will help students learn
The technology and pedagogy cycle
Set your pedagogical aims
Find an appropriate tool (or a compromise )
Teach students to use the materials
Implement the materials in
your practice
Reflect on your teaching and ask students for
feedback
Improve your materials
Give it a go!
Engaging with learning technologies will help you:
Engage with students at a different level and understand better the way they learn
Learn about the potential as well as limitations of technologies
Open new possibilities for (even) better teaching
Final thoughts
Tools in context These are a selection of tools; different generations of tools (HP –
older; Quizlet – online service) You can pick other tools once you know what’s possible Time-consuming to set up but it can be changed, developed easier
than printed materials Embedding into VLE – E.g. Blackboard – might have good functions for testing? Is it very
useful for learning? Fitting into teaching – i.e. look at your teaching as a whole and see
how this can fit in rather than thinking you have to use it for everything and all the time
Further reading
Beetham, H and Sharpe, R. (eds.) (2007) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age. London: Routlage
Ellis, R.A. & Goodyear, P. (2010) Students’ Experiences of E-Learning in Higher Education: The Ecology of Sustainable Innovation. London:Routlage.
Clark, R.C. and Mayer, R.E. (2011) E-Learning and the Science of Instruction (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Horton, W. (2006) E-Learning by Design. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Mason, R. and Rennie, F. (2008) E-Learning and Social Networking Handbook: Resources for Higher Education. Oxon: Routlage
Mayer, R.E. (2009) Media Learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pacansky-Brock, M. (2013) Best Practices for Teaching with Emerging Technologies. London: Routlage
References
Figure Slide 2: http://edtechtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/historyelearning.jpg
Figure Slide 13: JISC, 2013. Usability and user experience. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2013/usability-user-experience.aspx
Facer, K. & Furlong, R. (2001) Beyond the myth of the ‘Cyberkid’: young people at the margins ofthe I nformation revolution, Journal of Youth Studies, 4(4), 451–469.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). Eight paradoxes in the implementation process of eLearning in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 18, 1, 5–29.
Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the “Net Generation”. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–113.
References
Njenga, J.K. and Fourie, L.C.H. (2010) The myths about e-learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 199-212.
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A. & Vojt, G. (2011) Are digital natives a myth or reality? University studets’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56, 429-440.
Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: first steps towards understanding the net generation. In D. Oblinger, & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation (pp. 2.1–2.20). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE, Online: http://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/educating-net-generation
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1–6. Available online at: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf