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