Sara’s right – you posted it here:

http://slife.dudeney.com/?p=225#comments

It was added immediately and I responded to it…

Gavin

I could swear I posted a brief message saying something like: How come that in this discussion so far no-one has focused on what seems to me to be a set of related crucial questions for SL.

Can one learn foreign languages effectively on SL?
Where is it strong, in this context and where weak?
Are their accounts of effective learning in SL?
Is there any, for example, action research into this?
Are there any accounts of appropriate pedagogical approaches and practices?

I could have missed my original posting, but I don’t spot it. If I’m overlooking it – apologies.meekness – 1,750

Dennis

Glad to see the productive way this dialogue is now going. We all have a lot of learn from each other and speaking personally I love blogging for that reason as it is an essential input of ideas from different perspectives.

I think CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis)and critical approaches to Language Teaching are important. If it’s OK I’d like to refer a bit to the whole DOGME movement in film making to explain why. I hope this won’t prove too boring for everyone but I guess that people can choose not to read! But as the DOGME language learning movement draws its central ideas from there (the vow of chastity)I think its relevant.

DOGME film aimed to expose the superficiality of Hollywood films by stripping the process of film making to its bare components – right? There was a belief, from Van Trier and other directors, that this would ensure a more firm attachment to the raw reality (and inquality) of the world as it really is – that this would help the viewer to “see” more clearly the circumstances of their own existence as well as how they are implicated in these processes of inquality in their own life. This is nothing new – it follows in a long tradition of similar artistic movements. The problem, for me, is that what is being created in that process is still artificial and art, in itself, cannot achieve the process of enlightenment. Indeed, as a viewer of Van Trier’s films, whilst I see their strengths and am moved by their dynamic quality (I think they count as brilliant contributions to audio-visual art), I find some of the angles of representation really limiting e.g. the women in Dogsville, Dancing in the Dark – really questionable roles and disempowering in their final message. So the camera that seeks to reveal can still be guilty of blindness as well as representing only one version of reality. Probably because they are not deeply questioning enough really of the structures produing the very alienation that form the content of the films. They value representation over structure using postmodern jargon. All the emphasis is placed on offering something “different” from the main stream, and in the process certain things are overlooked.

OK,arty fartsy analysis over – moving forwards into DOGME language teaching. Same principles apply for me. If the questioning approach to the world and language teaching (including position of teacher/student – economic reality of both – cultural biases of both – blind spots of teacher – etc etc) are not absolutely key in the approach, the approach itself cannot really claim to be critical. Recognising that the approach has been generated from a position of privilege is surely important? In a previous post I said that a teacher could “do” DOGME whilst still remaining blissfully unaware of the assumptions they may be making about a whole range of things going on in the classroom, and they cannot always be certain that students will speak up about these things themselves, as DOGME or not, the teacher still holds power in that situation that cannot simply be overlooked. Conversely, I have seen critically orientated teachers make a success of the DOGME nightmare lesson i.e. coursebooks, gadgets etc, precisely because they started from communicating a shared belief to the students regarding questioning the nature of the interaction going on in the classroom from a deeper perspective. This can be a unifying process in itself when done well.

So…CDA which aims to deconstruct and examine the assumptions people make in their use of language with the aim of revealing how ideas and versions of truth circulate in our society, can certainly prove useful in that process.

I’d like to finish with a couple of comments about technology. I am open minded about approaches to teaching, and certainly see a firm place for technology in my classroom. I guess the reason is because my approach to teaching is something that comes directly from my view of education as a *potentially* transformative process. To put it in other more articulate words, Brecht (you know the famous one who wrote plays that also tried to get the audience to question) said “the enemy does not always wear the same mask, and sometimes we have to strip the mask off in different ways”. Well, as an educator interested in criticality, this means being open to lots of ways/means of creating the “space” for students to express their views and explore their circumstances.

I do not impose *my* views on them, I allow them to form their own and in my expereince, in each classroom, there are students who represent all the rich and varied positions that you get in all walks of life and who, when given the chance, like to talk about those things. Whether they do it F2F or virtually, through film clips or with a chalk board – these are factors that I tend to adapt when I know who/where I will be teaching/training. It is not fixed or written in stone.

Finally – vows of chastity were a bad idea the first time round, so why restrict classrooms (and teachers) with such inflexible rules.

Thanks for this – I reckon your time would be better spent having a word with Sara above, because it seem that’s where some of your interests realy lie – and I mean that sincerely, please note.

I’m more of a French Symbolist poetry fan myself – I like a bit of nonsense in my poetry, but that one will work this early in the morning.

No, not a case of white flags – there are not supposed to be ‘winners’ in online debates, but rather discussion that leads us to understand the other’s point of view a little. I am merely posing for one side, though, like many others, I could – if pushed – pose for the other side too. That’s part of the interest of debating issues, at least for me.

Thanks for your time and your words – everything contributes to the discussion.

First of all, I’d like to welcome you to the Dogme ELT listserv and thank you for posting there. Somehow I’d thought you were already a list member. Glad to have you with us.

You know, Luke posted this poem over on the dogme list:

I know the truth
by Marina Tsvetaeva

English version by Elaine Feinstein

I know the truth – give up all other truths!
No need for people anywhere on earth to struggle.
Look – it is evening, look, it is nearly night:
what do you speak of, poets, lovers, generals?

The wind is level now, the earth is wet with dew,
the storm of stars in the sky will turn to quiet.
And soon all of us will sleep under the earth, we
who never let each other sleep above it.

Sorry if it seems sappy, but I like poetry, and this one says a lot to me. As is likely the case with you, I’ve got much better things to do than play tit for tat in the blogosphere. I accept full responsibility for getting myself here in the first place, but now, I think it’s best for you, your readers, and certainly for me, to stop the bickering. If you’d like to see this as me waving the white flag ’cause I can’t come up with any cogent arguments or rebuttals, that’s fine. I;m willing to just walk away and let you have the last word.

I haven’t read the Dogme ICT post yet, but it sounds exciting. I’d rather concentrate my efforts on ways to work together, each of us using Dogme as we see fit, with respect for each other as colleagues. I’m sure you care as much about learners’ success as I do, and I can see that you’re a valuable asset to the teacher training community and ELt at large.

Frankly, I’ve had enough. While I’ll never back down from what I believe in, I can make a more positive contribution that what’s been offered here, I’m sure of that.

Cheers,
Rob

Your question is interesting. I’ve never really thought about it. At the end of my dissertation, I became more interested in Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA) than CDA. I have thought about Dogme as critical pedagogy, and now I’ll have your question to ponder. Maybe you’ve given it some thought?

Thanks for asking.

Rob

I note your interest in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) – how do you see that fitting in with DOGME?

Sara

Sorry – just one other thing. The admin account on the blog gives me control over my own posting, etc…. Never got round to changing it, sorry.

Gavin

Sorry I didn’t see your posting beforehand – no idea why it ended up being ‘awaiting moderation’, but I did find it eventually. I’m not going to go right down the list of points, but a few little things:

1) Second Life (like the first one we’re so fond of) has various conventions and non-conventions. Brandishing a non-lethal cartoon popgun is not considered threatening or insulting, generally – though YMMV…

2) I was not taking the piss out of SL beginners, I was having a laugh with an old friend and colleague (Scott). We’ve known each other for years and tend to disagree (in good humour) quite often. See our recent Twitter war on IWBS. If you ask around you’ll find I’m pretty good with SL beginners, having trained up over 100 teachers and run regular ‘introduction to…’ courses. But you’d have to ask around, of course – rather than drawing conclusions, something of which you accues me often.

3) It came to a clash because it was always going to. When one ‘side’ of an argument makes a comment about something having been proven to be usless in the research, the other ‘side’ has a right to ask for research to support the other view. That’s fair debate, that is…

4) Yes, as I noted, those teaching ESL are in a different context. There’s no need to make my point for me again – I thought I made it ok in the first place…

5) I never said DOGME was Scott, or vice-versa – but we were there to talk to him and Luke, after all.

6) If you’re going to pick over my language, you may want to spell-check (or ‘concept-check’) ‘descent’ – I believe you may have meant ‘dissent’. Which gives that sentence much more meaning. I’m sorry to get picky, but you started it…

7) Do people really say ‘in the With Man’ in the year 2009? And isn’t that sort of rebellious, ‘hey, the system ain’t gonna rule me, man’ attitude a little old?

No look, please tell me – if you’re teaching in a secondary school in Vietnam, and you’re being watched and monitored closely and you have to ‘do the book’ and not stray from the page – where does DOGME fit in? You can’t simply say ‘You bet your bippies there is’ (whatever that means) a place for DOGME. Just tell me how it would work, that’s all I ask…

9) Yes, you make the same point as me, really (or half of it) – you can’t stray from the CELTA message, not really. There lies a fail and a session of self-castigation post-class. But still I say there’s a difference between ‘wanting’ to do something and ‘being able’ to do something. Perhaps that lies with experience, repertoire, confidence, character…

10) I’ll see the holes in my argument if you’ll see the holes in yours…

11) Sure, a DOGME teacher can do whatever she wants, but isn’t it more difficult to do anything related to technology when you’re not really supposed to be taking even listening material into the classroom (cf Luke and Scott in SL)? Won’t it be frowned on? I just don’t see hiw it fits together, but am happy to be enlightened…

12) You’re missing the point when you say ‘they’re so focused on their language learning that I leave the PowerPoint training to the IT teacher’ – those of us who use technology in teaching or training don’t usually ‘teach’ technology, we use it. There’s a huge difference there. For us it’s invisible, for you it seems to be a beardy barrier…

13) I look forward to hearing about all the teachers in resource poor countries who would gladly turn down the chance to have high-speed Internet access in exchange for a chalk board and ‘them as resource’. As I travel around for the remainder of this year I shall ask them “Look, I’ve got a stick of chalk and some top anecdotes, or high-speed Internet and a data projector. I’m prepared to give you one or the other” I can see them now, the sleepless nights, the tossing and turning – decisions, decisions…

14) Everything in the ‘real lives’ sentence was about real lives (read it again, it’ll make more sense the second time around)

Thanks for the flower!

Gavin

I love your list! “Thou shallt not use IM chat. Leave the environment settings alone.”

I’m doubly interested because, within SL, Nergiz has set up a challenge (not a competition) in which participants, alone or in pairs or groups have to create a holodeck (let’s say ‘object’, but it can be a room, a place, several places) which is to be designed for a specific teaching point/lesson. Rashly, I said I would produce a Dogme holodeck and there can be no attached lesson plans because Dogmeists don’t write lesson plans, certainly not before a lesson. Retrospective accounts of what happened are allow.
Any suggestions for a Dogme holodeck on a postcard, please, to………

Thanks for the comments. I think we’re mixing up two things here: my original posting was about how possible it would be to break the inevitable ‘shackles (however gentle they may be) of a course such as the CELTA and plow on with a DOGME lesson, either on the course or soonish afterwards. I hadn’t intended to discuss CELTA and technology, but since you do, here goes…

Yes, a lot of the trainees will be tech-comfy, as you point out. But let me ask you this: how many of the qualified, experienced, regular CELTA tutors working at your place of work are at all comfortable with technology? How many of them use it in their teaching, and how many of them use it in the teacher training?

In other words, who’s doing all these technology sessions on IWBs, internet-based content, iPods, SL, etc? And what percentage of the total course input is technology-related?

And do the trainers successfully integrate technology on a daily basis in their teacher training, or is it as it was when I was invited to do the ‘one hour non-obligatory welcome to technology’ session not so long ago – and by than I mean an extra, a throwaway…?

I’m interested to hear if things have changed, if teacher trainers have upskilled in technology and are now at ease with it, and naturally incorporate it into their training – thus effectively modelling appropriate use… or if it’s still the man with the beard from the dark room in the corner who’s dragged in every once in a while to talk of cables and buttons…

And if it is the case that technology has finally achieved a level of integration on the CELTA course that gives it the same level of importance as other skills, tools and techniques, then I doff my hat and I’d really like to come along and see that in action if possible. And I mean that most sincerely.

Not sure – not interested, to be honest… Rules, however ‘dogmetic’ just don’t cut it with me. I reckon we should all be left alone to explore SL as we see fit. These are early days and we’re gradually working towards some ideas of best practice, but a list might just inhibit that.

However, Howard Vickers is interested in DOGME 2.0 or similar, so if you’re set on exploring this (and I have to admit to a failure in my irony antenna on this comment) then I would suggest getting in touch with him.

1. Teaching must be done on location. Objects, scripts and textures must not be brought in (if a particular object is necessary, a location must be chosen where it is to be found).

2. Sound clips cannot be used. (Only voice and ambient sound may be used – all other audio settings must be switched off).

3. Avatars may only walk or run. Flying or other unreal forms of movement (apart from teleporting) are forbidden.

4. Environment settings may not be overridden – region default must be used. (If there is too little light a single lamp may be used to illuminate the scene).

5. Default avatars must be used at all times. Non-human avatars are forbidden.

6. Communication must take place on a single channel – that is using either text chat or voice. IM chat or group calls are forbidden.

7. The lesson must not contain superficial action; games with weapons or vehicles are forbidden.

8. The use of camera controls is banned.

You may have been a little disappointed where the discussion went, but surely, not least as a dogmeist, you can accept that conversations go where they have to go – otherwise they are being directed.

See how your tech addiction has you identifying more with your machine than with you birth name? Sorry if I got off topic in my first post to your blog. I’m surprised you’ve moved on from the research thing, for you were quite stuck on it in the SL discussion. Well, anyway, way to take your life back – the first life,that is. I’d hate to have you go all postal, brandishing your neon rifle again (as you did in our SL discussion). Dancing in the EduNation Club was much more fun. But, my brief interactions with you tell me you thrive on conflict, so maybe we have something in common. Perhaps we can reform ourselves together? Let’s start from the beginning of the post I so cruelly neglected, shall we?

“But there are certain things that grate with me…”

Now that’s the spirit!

“Time and time again during the discussion we came to a clash of ‘what’s the point of technology in the classroom when we have all we need right there: the teacher and the learners?‘ “

And why did we come to this clash, Gavin? Who started it despite being asked not to? I’d much rather have discussed the book, which is why I came in the first place. I’d encourage readers of this blog to listen to the discussion on blip.tv and judge for themselves whether Gavin, amidst taking the piss out of poor SL beginners – hate to be a student in Gavin’s Beginner class – provoked a discussion about IWBs and technology. Just go here http://blip.tv/file/2096841/

Granted , Scott was sure to take the bait. Luke was definitely not as enthusiastic about the topic.

“Indeed, both Luke and Scott ventured that learners get so much exposure to other sources of English outside the classroom that there was really no need to use listening materials and the like inside it. But I’d beg to differ – teachers I know (working the state education system here in Spain, rather than private language schools, etc.) regularly tell me that their learners don’t enagage with English at all outside the classroom. Indeed, a research project carried out peripherally by the British Council last year concluded that learners don’t often use their ‘downtime’ for such pursuits.”

Well, I teach in an ESL context, and you are citing EFL contexts, so that makes for a considerable difference, I believe, in terms of downtime activities and exposure to English (or whatever the target language may be).

“And then there’s the whole point of technology to discuss. Scott would be the first person to admit that much of his professional life revolves around technology: from writing books, to research, online corpora, online teacher training with Blackboard, booking flights for speaking engagements, buying books… perhaps even listening to music, or whatever. Yet – and considering that it is as much a part of a learner’s life as it is of his – DOGME would deny learners the right to engage with something that is so embedded in their real lives, in the language classroom. And that strikes me as artificial at best, condescending at worst.”

Let’s be clear: Dogme is not a person or even a group of people, so what Dogme would deny or support remains up to the individual teacher. Please don’t lump everyone who disagrees with you together and call them Dogme, then claim to know what individual teachers would do, say, or think. If you’re referring to the Dogme ELT discussion list members, you’ll find plenty of descent and not much deference to the Grand Kiwi (ie Scott) there. See for yourself: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dogme/

“And what of the assumption that the teacher and learner can construct interesting and meaningful learning opportunities on a regular basis?”

Yes, what of it? Who made that assumption? Uh, you did. We all know that “[t]here are boring teachers with not much to say – I’ve met quite a few during my professional career. There are also large groups of sullen teenagers who simply don’t want to know (and I’ve taught a few of them in my time too).”
Yeah, I think most of us have there. In fact, I remember being a sullen teen myself. Whoa, now I teach some of them! It’s that age thing, right?

“Perhaps the DOGME approach would have me believe the teenagers are only unwilling to engage because of my lack of something or other”

Again, you’re writing to an approach. Better to stick with people. Dogme isn’t a club, it’s a resource for teachers like you (used to be) and the rest of us who are still trying to make a living AND get a Master’s at the same time. What was your excuse again?

“So sometimes this simply will not work.”

Please clarify WHAT exactly will not work. Is it having and facilitating interesting conversations with the people in the room? Hmm… yes, that might be down to the teacher’s lack of something or other, but not necessarily.

“If you’re lucky enough to be teaching adult ESL in England, then you may well have a class full of interesting and interested people. But if you’re like a lot of people I know, you’re more likely to be dealing with a group of hormonal 15 year old Spanish kids whose last desire is to be in English class when there are joints to be rolled and people to be flirted with.”

Flirting and joint rolling sound like relevant topics of conversation to me. It could get you in trouble with the institution, but do they have to know? Maybe it’s a good thing you’re no longer teaching if you are in with The Man.

“I’m reminded of a lesson plan I saw in an august teaching journal once. It started with the instruction: elicit any 18th century vocabulary items your students many know. As you can imagine, that class didn’t go with a bang. And I got to wondering who wrote that, and when they’d last taught that lesson. Rose-tinted spectacles, anyone?
Yet learners (at least under 25) are often interested in movie clips, music, exchanges with other countries… or perhaps playing with audio files, or recording themselves, or making video clips for later broadcast on YouTube, or watching YouTube videos. And technology, of course, can facilitate all those things.”

Brace yourself, I think we agree… Oh the humanity!

“And then again, doesn’t DOGME (like technology) disenfranchise plenty of teachers?”I’m thinking of the teachers I met two years ago in Cyprus whose surveillance by head teachers and local education bods is so strict that they can’t go off message. Or the Indian teachers I met last year, who spoke of the ‘tyranny of the textbook‘, or the teachers in Vietnam in January, who are obliged to use government approved coursebooks and stick to them, going page by page. Where does DOGME fit in for them – is there any hope for them as teachers?”

How do I say “You bet your bippies there is” in Vietnamese? Dogme is all about empowering these colleagues. I will admit there is debate – we’re not all on our knees, bowing to that Dogme Approach you keep citing, whatever that is – debate, that is, over the extent to which Dogme should be, or must be, a critical pedagogy. And then comes the whole question of what constitutes “critical pedagogy”.

“And what of the beginner teacher? Some will claim that DOGME is for everyone, even beginner teachers – but what beginner teacher (groomed on well-crafted lesson plans à la CELTA, trained to tick boxes and jump through assessment hoops and endless self-chastisement at the latest crap demo lesson) is going to feel confident enough to go off-message so quickly? Doesn’t it take time, a repertoire of tricks, confidence and character?”

This is getting long, so I’ll give you the short answer: Uh-uh (read: ‘Nope’). In fact, many teachers complain that they wanted to teach à la Dogme from the beginning but felt they wouldn’t pas their CELTA and Dips unless they taught against the grain of their soul. How about Dogme teacher training? Er, I mean, training camps, where we indoctrinate unsuspecting pre-service teachers with The Dogme (insert evil laugh audio file here).

“So whilst I love the idea (and am very sympathetic to the core values) of DOGME, I can see flaws and inconsistencies in it.”

Please cite those core values. No really, it’ll help you see the holes in your own arguments.

The biggest issue for me is this insistence on throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Is this possibly the favorite idiomatic expression among British folks in ELT. I hear it a lot from my British colleagues. Oh well, it;s much more colorful than whatever those bloody Americans are always spouting off… Dude.
“Where some people see DOGME as empowering both teacher and learners, I see it as hamstringing them, of denying them the rich variety that other tools can bring to the classroom, of condescending to the learner by refusing to acknowledge the tools and media she enjoys in her real life, tools and media which are now so much a part of her life that she can’t for one moment understand why she’s unable to use them in the 5% that makes up her weekly foray into English learning…”

Tell it to Sylvia Ashton Warner (The Roaring in the Chimney), my friend. I think you’re arguing with Scott throughout much of this, and that impending Dogme thingy (I prefer not to capitalize EVERY letter of it). My point: A Dogme teacher can do whatever she sees fit. Only you, dear Gavin, have put her inside this neat little box.

“And, as it happens, using technology in our classes would actually be a very good thing – because we have something that often our learners don’t, because we ARE ‘tech-savvy‘ (at least some of us), whereas they are usually ‘tech-comfy‘ – and one thing we can do is help them to see the educational value in technology.

Look who’s proselytizing now? I do like your suggestions, elsewhere in this blog, for training teachers to be more creative and handy with technology. But, shouldn’t we have a choice? Shouldn’t learners? I’m sure you think so.

“For whilst they usually (at least those under, say, 25) know how to use technology, they often don’t know of the benefits that it can bring to their learning. And that’s a role we could usefully take on.”

The Man becomes The Preacher Man! We’ll get their tech-comfy butts into high gear, eh? No, it’s a good point. Many of my learners are like the ones Helen refers to in her comment to this blog post, so no bones to pick there. I find the students and I so focused on English language learning, however, that I leave the PowerPoint training to their IT teachers. A luxury, to be sure.

So I say this – DOGME is good, of that I am quite sure.

“Thank God, he likes us, he really likes us.”

“So are IWBs (when used by creative, interested and trained teachers), so are computers (when used as part of a balanced diet), and books (in moderation) and audio (on occasions) and dictionaries (in certain contexts). But don’t ask me to buy into something that should be part of a whole, to pigeonhole me into an artificial construct that makes some sense only.”

Okay, I won’t. And, uh, don’t imagine someone out there is either – that would be paranoid.

“I wonder how many teachers in certain parts of the world reading about the luxury of going ‘materials light‘ feel aggrieved by this middle-something conceit and would like the luxury of being in the position to try ‘materials heavy‘? Wouldn’t that make an interesting study?”

Yes, it would. I think it’s been done, at least in part, but I’ll have to dig to find it.

“Surely we should be helping teachers critically examine all sorts of tools and approaches – helping them to find the use in many different things, helping them gain the confidence and training and support to be able to use a variety of tools in their classes? Let’s not be blinded by simplicity – the world is not a simple place, our learners’ lives are not simple and we should not treat them as simple either.”

The profundity here deepens the depth of my profoundest thoughts. After seeing Forrest Gump, I’d really thought life and people were simple. Consider me shaken to the core. C’mon, Gavvy, who ever said otherwise, and who treats students that way? Huh, who? Me? You twakin’ ta me?

“Real DOGME acolytes are now invited to comment on this outragous tirade and include the following:”

the teacher and the learners are the most valuable resource in the class (I don’t disagree)”

DOGME lets teacher and learner construct meaningful learning opportunities (I don’t disagree)”
More agreement – this is so FUN!

technology gets in the way of that (here is where we part company)

you’re wrong because my learners love my DOGME classes (I don’t doubt they love them at all)

And anything else that springs to mind…”

Uh, you mean like research? (hehehe).

“Just to remind you however – I have enormous sympathy with the DOGME approach, I have enormous respect for the work Scott has done over many years (Scott and I worked together for quite some time, and I was the one who first plugged his modem into the wall in the dark ages of 1996, thus leading him down the road to perdition!), and I have respect for all of you using and enjoying the DOGME approach. I’ve even got the book, and have enjoyed reading it, and see a lot of good in it – good that I also see elsewhere with other tools and approaches…”

Long reminder judiciously noted.

“What I do not respect is the blanket writing off of other tools and approaches, the ‘technology is the devil‘ attitude or the denial that other tools, media and approaches can also achieve similarly good and engaging classroom experiences.”

Boo, bad blanket writers! Pfooey. Okay, we agree again (me clapping madly).

“I say live and let live”

Unless there’s a rifle in your SL inventory!

“let’s do some DOGME, and let’s take them into Second Life too, because at the end of the day, they’ll do DOGME in their real lives (chatting to friends and family, learning in informal fashions from colleagues, etc.) but they’ll also do hi-tech too”

‘also’ and ‘too’ make strange bedfellows, but now I’m nitpicking

“and we should respect their right to bring their normal lives into our classrooms.”

Helen’s questions is relevant here: “Who are they/them?” You see, Dogme respects the local context of the learners, the teacher, the people in the room. So your assertion really depends on the learners and their particular interests, from this teachers view of Dogme.

It’s very interesting to me how you segregate “real lives”, “high-tech” and “normal lives” in the above paragraph. My research (sorry, but it was) into critical discourse analysis has me catching stuff like that. It’s become like a tic since I finished up the MSc program – did I mention I was working full-time all the while? Anyway, aren’t they all one life?

“And I suspect their hi-tech lives are slightly more important to them, and more intrinsic to their everyday lives, than many might care to consider. Let battle commence…”

If you ever confirm your suspicions, let me know. Battle? Before you gird your loins, let me place this flower in the barrel of your neon rifle.

Hope you see you n the dance floor again sometime.

Rob

A heartening report from the coal-face. Thank you for it.

(The text to pove I’m human is: groins Francisco !!!)

Rob said : “why not let them decide which technology enters the classroom? ”

Part of my problem with this remark is : who is “them” ?
My “them” for the past ten years are the hormonal, sullen teenagers who live on one of the worst housing estates in my city. Enthusiasm is not on the menu. As they come from very deprived backgrounds if I don’t take the first step and introduce them to some of these digital tools – then who will ?
They all have mp3, mp4, crappy blogs full of awful photos of themselves imitating rap singers, and they can find vile stuff on youtube “just like that”.

I feel that as an educator it is one of my jobs to help them to get a little nearer to digital literacy. There are already a lot of barriers in our society (Western and quite affluent in my case) keeping these kids outside.

Without research, I would stick my neck out and say that it does create enthusiasm for English and fight boredom for my pupils. They actually pull their fingers out and show some interest in the classroom (and outside when they check the class blog ) – but this is without a textbook and using materials made with them in mind.

I’ll keep the baby, the bath and my laptop please !