This blog has been a bit quiet for the past few weeks due to a lot of travel, and also to the fact that I’ve been the Guest Writer over on the British Council Teaching English site. But I’ve been busy keeping up with Twitter and various blogs and now I thought I’d turn my keyboard to the matter of terminology, and making too big a thing out of technology.
Over on her blog, Marisa Constantinides has a recent posting trying to put the focus back on the pedagogy and away from the terminology, and of course she has a point. But I also think the point is over-laboured by some people with negative attitudes to technology (that doesn’t include Marisa, who is a technophile) who opt for the ‘they’ve all drunk the Kool-Aid‘ lazy attitude when talking about people who do like technology and actively use it in their classes.
It seems to me that most teachers come to technology AFTER they come to pedagogy. They learn the tools of their trade first, then they work out how technology fits in with that knowledge. This will, of course, change as more people grow up with technology firmly embedded in their lives and see (one day) decent uses for it exemplified by teachers and trainers who know what they’re doing – but I do feel that this is a lazy critique of technology: they’re dazzled by the flashing lights and forget anything they ever knew about teaching. The teachers I know who use technologies regularly do not fit into this description at all – they’re teachers (first) who like technology (second) and see a use for it in their teaching (third).
So, moving beyond this laziness and stereotyping… The teachers I know, and the teachers who I work with every year do not view technology as the ‘end‘, but rather the ‘means‘ (sometimes), and I think that most of them apply their existing methodological and pedagogical experience to the application of the tools they use. Certainly when I run workshops on integrating technology in the classroom, the focus is primarily on the pedagogy, and how that *might* be enhanced by x, y, or z technology. So let’s not get caught up in the ‘Kool Aid’ argument because it’s simply not true in most cases.
Similarly (as one commentee on Marisa’s blog pointed out), you’re unlikely to get a deep pedagogical analysis of tools on Twitter. What Twitter is good for is bringing new tools to the attention of educators. The savvy, experienced educator will then examine the tool, evaluate its potential, see if it fits into their teaching contexts, work out if it might be useful to their learners and a large list of etceteras that they are used to applying to most tools / approaches / materials they might use. The fact that it plugs in to the electricity does not remove the critical faculties of teachers, I find. You’ll find plenty of educators posting blogs on they ‘why‘ as well as the ‘how‘.
In a recent online conference there was more discussion from some old hands on terminology: is it CALL, is it TELL? Is it…? What do we call it these days? My feeling is that we’re going wrong if we’re calling it anything at all, or – as someone on Twitter recently said: “if technology is an event at your school, you’re doing it wrong“.
A long, long time ago Stephen Bax talked of the normalisation of CALL, of how it needs to become a normal part of teaching (where possible) in order for it to be useful. Ideally, technology needs to be demystified, or ‘de-specialed’, we need to end the days of marching kids to computer rooms, and instead put a computer in each room. Ideally connected to a projector and the Net. Don’t spend the money on IWBs, spend it on equipping your school properly and efficiently (in economic terms). Schools need “ubuiqitous open wireless network access” (as Nik Peachey recently wrote).
Make it normal – as has been pointed out, we don’t talk of ‘pen-assisted language learning’ [ PALL ] – so why do we insist on making technology special, so much so that it becomes like the once-a-term film showing or the ‘game of trivial pursuit’ (substitute any other ‘special’ activity you’ve seen here, no matter how rubbish or pointless it may be)?
It’s when something becomes a non-event that it loses its mystique and subsequently becomes useful. I don’t believe that teachers need to compromise (or forget) their training, experience, pedagogical or methodological approach in order to implement technology successfully in their classes. I do believe that when an experienced teacher decides to engage with technology, learns how it works, thinks about the affordances, etc., that it *can* lead to more creative and engaging teaching.
I believe that many of today’s young people like computers, like the Net, like the access it gives them to people worldwide and to the collective knowledge of the wired world. I believe it can put them in touch with other cultures, give them real opportunities to practise the language they’re learning in a real context (not with their teacher or a small bunch of people who speak the same first language as them), and help them acquire other skills such as basic digital literacy, critical thinking, etc., and I don’t believe any of this should be considered ‘special’ anymore.
And I certainly don’t believe anyone should be using the terms ‘CALL’, ‘TELL’ or anything else.
Old hat, non-event.
Ideally…
While attending a recent conference, I could not get over the amount of negative attitudes towards technology. There seems to be strong resentment and anger that some educators experience when hearing about technology. I was an audience member and noticed these conversations at nearly every presentation I attended. I am a technophile, therefore, I attended presentations with a focus on integrating technology effectively. I was surprised to find audience members who chose to attend these presentations, yet, obviously never wanted to use technology in their classes. Many educators griped that the conference focused too much on technology. Arguments broke out. It was not a pretty sight.
[Reply]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Shelly S Terrell and Burcu Akyol, Gavin Dudeney. Gavin Dudeney said: Just blogged: Non Event – http://bit.ly/6yrMym [...]
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with this post Gavin and I share your view about many of the teachers you know who “do not view technology as the ?end?, but rather the ?means? (sometimes), and I think that most of them apply their existing methodological and pedagogical experience to the application of the tools they use”. This is surely the central point – as I mentioned in a recent dogme post, if technology is enhancing one’s method and not drowning it, one has nothing to worry about as far as I can see.
I actually came to technology first and ELT second. I was in a managerial role that involved PP, online- and tele-conferencing, etc etc. This is just how much of the deeloped business world works, fact. I saw nothing odd about it therefore when moving into teaching.
Great post
Emma
[Reply]
As long as educators are using technology in favour of learning and not just to wow their students, I believe it’s a fantastic tool. The problem lies in the fact that some (I wouldn’t dare say most as I’m not aware of educators everywhere in the world) do tend to see technology as a way to avoid preparation and considering their students’ needs. I guess it’s exactly what you said in your post. If a teacher chooses to take his or her students to the computer lab, or show them a video just because it’s funny, or because students will enjoy it, and if this is done way too often in a context in which teachers and learners are together for 2 or 3 hours a week, it’s a great problem even if it’s a non-event.
It all boils down to the fact that technology is yet another tool in the classroom. Coursebooks may be effective or useless. Chalk and board may be effective or useless. Conversation in the classroom may be effective or useless. It’s not what you’re doing, but how and why you’re doing it.
I agree with Emma: Great post!
Henrick
[Reply]
Hi Gavin, completely agree, though what amazes me, is that this debate is still going on!
Our learners and ourselves are surrounded by technology everyday, everywhere, why the he’ll should the classroom be any different. Nobody objected to a whiteboard appearing in the clasroom, it was easier and less messy than chalkboards. Why don’t we all return to the days of sitting round in caves wearing loincloths and scratching runes in the dirt? ‘Cause technology has made life and classrooms nicer places to be! Change is one of the fundamental laws of the universe, all you people out there that believe it’s 1909 nor 2009, please check your calendar and just shut up.
[Reply]
Re Shelly’s comment… about the stress and the real anger erupting at the recent conference…
Apparently us technophiles don’t actually care about content, our students’ needs and concerns, nor what we’re teaching: we are simply sexing-up lessons.
I thought of you (re your sexy elt post) and happily confessed to most cheerfully sexing-up a lesson plan or two… because er, like, er, who wouldn’t want their lesson to be, er, like, ya know sexy.
I think, Gavin, this road will simply be a long one… and we will fight it from the trenches with our netbooks.
[Reply]
Tip-top post. I could really relate to what Marisa posted the other day, too, and I think you’re both spot on with the point that technology enhances, not governs, the practice of an experienced teacher (with the emphasis being placed on the word experienced).
My personal fear, as a relatively inexperienced teacher, with next-to-no I.T. knowlegde, is that I am becoming preoccupied with incorporating technology into my practice, rather than developing my pedagogical knowledge.
I also think that, among the many postings of technology-related links on Twitter,there could be greater explanation of how to actually use the tools available, rather than just point out their existence. For instance, there was a really great tweeted link last week about different ways word clouds could be used in class, which was a lot more helpful to me than a simple link to wordle – “What can I do with that?” was my previous thought.
I often feel like there is a kind of tehcnological elitism going on, and that I’m missing the obvious. Maybe I am, and all will become clearer as my career develops. Yet perhaps this is how some attendants at said conference felt and they, unlike me (who just inwardly despairs at her own incompetence), demonstrated their frustration through hostility and anger towards the inevitable developments going on.
It’s a tricky one, but, practically speaking, I think if tweeps tweet techno links it would be great if they could elaborate on exactly how they might use that tool, so the more inexperienced followers can maximise on their knowledge too.
[Reply]
Karenne’s post makes the techie fight sound positively heroic, but I think the resistance is from the other side. Technology intimidates a lot of people; teachers are traditionally overworked and underpaid (but with respectable holidays…that for many EFLers translate into unpaid time off). I suspect that the resistance comes from fear of the unknown, a sense that what is available is too big to comprehend, a lack of appreciation of HOW what is out there can help and the purposes it can be used for, a lack of resources (including time and money) and I am sure that there is more to it.
Technology has actually won the battle and is now just walking around the battle field administering coups de grace.
My own suspicion of all things techie is a reaction to the lack of sensitivity exhibited by some self-declared technophiles (thanks for that useful reality check, Gary). It’s also a reaction to the underlying problem of easily-accessible technology which gives even mugs like me a voice and convinces us that we have something that deserves to be said. It allows a bypassing of any critical examination and can create little subnests of cliques and it can result in self-obsessed spam being shat into your computer on a daily -nay, hourly- basis. All of these characteristics are what I associate with the Modern World, ie not 1909 or 2009.
However, despite some rather facile interpretations of my arguments in the past, I am not a luddite or a technophobe. I like technology – although it is true to say that I probably like it too much. Where I used to thrill to the delight of the printed word, in book form, these days I can most likely be found watching a TV series on my phone, listening to music on my phone, arguing on the internet, or playing some mindless game whilst smoking a fag.Consequently, I now look at the books on my bookshelf and a chill runs through me as I realise that I will die without having read many of them.
What I would like to see is much less aggressive promotion of technology in the classroom and an acceptance that some teachers who do not use technology in their classroom may actually be doing a very good job without it. I would also like a more critical approach to the use of technology. This might be something as simple as: “Word magnets is a good program/application [is there a difference], but it’s a bit shit the way you have to input the text actually in front of the students.”
Similarly, I think it is probably time to call a halt to the Heroic Resistance of General Ludd’s fighters. Remembering that the Luddites were not some thick-headed cave-freaks, but saboteurs with the perspicacity to see the threat of technology to people’s livelihoods, I accept that the argument at this level is so ideological as to appear baffling to many.
So, whilst I admire the irony of blogging about a non-event, I wonder what will happen if the debate dies off? How many lords and ladies of the new church will flounder without heretics to burn?
[Reply]
Folks,
I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who has commented so far. I’m holding bhack on wading in on the comments until others have had a chance (should they want to) – so, thanks Shelly, Emma, Henrick, Gary, Karenne, Callie and Diarmuid. Will get back to you soon!
Gavin
[Reply]
Hellooo all, it’s your resident old-dog London Luddite putting in his six penn’orth.
The article and comments are great, but I think you’ve all missed the point slightly with Marisa’s original post. If I read her correctly, she’s talking about basic training for new teachers.
She feels that new teachers are a little overwhelmed by the amount of information they have to absorb. In addition, the time it takes to guide them through the fantastic options open to them means a reduction in time devoted to basic information about how you TEACH stuff to students which they can then practise and develop using, amongst other tools, web-based resources.
So, of ALL the comments above, the following extract from Caroline Wilkinson’s comment is the one that, as a trainer, I would be most concerned about:
“My personal fear, as a relatively inexperienced teacher, with next-to-no I.T. knowlegde, is that I am becoming preoccupied with incorporating technology into my practice, rather than developing my pedagogical knowledge.”
If trainers have a nagging fear that there isn’t enough training time to learn great face to face engagement strategies, then I think this is a genuine fear and shouldn’t be shouted down on the grounds of technophobia.
Have a good day, everyone!
[Reply]
Right then…
Let’s start with Ken. I certainly didn’t miss the point of her original posting (and if others did, it may be because I mislead them with my post). Marisa quite clearly talks about not forgetting the pedagogy and about being blinded by the ‘means’ rather than the ‘end’
So, sorry, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Anybody who has followed the ‘tech shall we, shan’t we?’ debate running this year will have been showered by the ‘it’s all flashing lights and no pedagogy’ meme, and I think it’s worth pointing out that this is a lazy and ill-informed criticism.
As for Caroline, I do think the part of her message you quote is very valid, but it shouldn’t be one thing at the expense of another… What trainers have (in the main) is a knowledge of technology that dates back to the days of the typewriter. Most trainers stopped teaching before technology became largely mainstream and therefore still train teachers in the ‘old ways’. If anyone is to blame for the insecurity and lack of preparation of most teachers, it’s the average trainer. No bones… That’s how it is. If the trainers are still handing out their reading lists from 1994 and cutting up bits of paper, they’re really doing nobody any good at all.
Diarmuid – you and I tend to see eye-to-eye on most things, despite the odd punch up. I agree that many teachers are doing a good job without technology. Perhaps where we diverge is that I think teachers should be trained to use technology properly and to consider the proper use of it. It’s not an option (as you note elsewhere) to igonre it, so the best thing we (who have it) can do is show people how it can be used properly and to the advantage of learners. Just because our heads are turned doesn’t mean it’s going away.
Callie – if you want the ‘how’ as well as the ‘why, Google Nik Peachey, the sine qua non of technology in the classroom.
Karenne – sexy is good. See you in the trenches…
Gary – mellow… people are people…. wouldn’t it be nice? You’re my first, my last, my everything. Kick over the statues (but do it quietly and clean up after yourselves…)
Henrick: “it’s not what you’re doing, but how and why you’re doing it” – man that sums up about 80% of the pro and contra arguments this year. Thanks!
Emma: “This is just how much of the developed business world works” – sure, but hey… let’s not bother preparing our learners for the real world, eh? Let’s have them do a bit of role play in a cheese shop, a bit of reading of a Shakespeare sonnet, an interview with Tom Hanks and a gap fill about jellies of the midwater. That’ll be enough, surely…
Shell – that’s a really interesting one in termsw of conference turnout. Five years ago we were as welcome as cheesecake at a weightwatchers party, now all their bases are ours…. job done!
Gavin
[Reply]
Hi Gavin and thanks for mentioning my post here.
I don’t think you misread my intentions but I think you are right that other people may have misread yours, so I thought I should clarify that I did not intend to restart an argument which I think is superfluous.
I do believe that technology is here to stay and that it can greatly enhance our teaching and our training. I am truly excited by the richness it has brought to my own teaching and training and to lessons taught by my trainees.
And if perhaps for someone like yourself or for Nik Peachy (or even others I may not even have heard of) my blog postings examining and evaluating new tools are as superfluous as the argument of tech vs not-tech, I hope they aren’t for some of my readers who might find some use or value in (re)reading what may have been posted elsewhere. Different people respond to different voices and mine is just that – one more voice, hopefully reflective and supportive rather than lazy and ill-informed.
I do believe that a lot of people are excited but confused about what to choose and would not mind hearing another viewpoint. By discussing the various tools flashing past my eyes on Twitter in the more relaxed and less pressured time-frame of a blog, the effect can only be positive, I think, or not? I don’t see a problem with that, unless of course my comments and evaluations prove to be complete rubbish. But I am sure you will be around to point this out in whatever manner you deem appropriate.
Anyway, just to put a lid on this rather fruitless argument which I am sure you did not intend to turn into a personal one (I am a rather easy target, after all), my posts are going to be looking at various tools and applications to create a list of tools, their merits and demerits, potential value or problems and to relate those to assumptions about language learning – that’s what I want to do and will do.
And just because I am in the middle of a heavy assessment week and haven’t got much time, I will simply copy and paste the same comment over at my blog and thank you here and there for commenting and responding.
[Reply]
Marisa,
I think your idea for a series like that is spot on and will prove to be very helpful to a lot of people. The purpose of my posting was to ensure that we laid to rest the ghost of the spurious ‘they’re blinded by science’ argument which some people seem to believe is a decent justification for writing technologies off.
As you’ll note, I don’t have a beef with your posting, nor the idea for a series, nor shall I be hovering waiting to find loopholes… your experience with technology shines through in the training you do (and I know this first hand) and the writing you do and I know it will be a fine series. I was merely trying to head off another fruitless (you said it!) debate about whether those who teach with technologies do so from an air-head position of ‘if it flashes, it must be good’.
Looking forward to the series,
Gavin
[Reply]
Hmmm. I even find myself agreeing with the idea that teachers need to be trained in the ways of the Technotribe. Because it’s through this training that we can get away from the “Bright Colours and Moving Images Make It All Good” mantra. If teachers are taught to approach technology critically and with the intent of making it work for them, then all will be good.
The only thing that continues to piss me off is the arrogance of some who seek to dismiss those teachers who choose not to use technology as lesser creatures. As I have tried to argue, perhaps we should seek to understand their reluctance. It might be based on a lack of resources, a lack of experience, a lack of adventure or a lack of willingness to subscribe to the latest fad. Those among us who jump up and down and accuse them of failing their students or attempt to ridicule them are more likely to put hackles up than win people over.
[This last paragraph because whilst peace and concord is all well and good, discord and violence makes for better films).
[Reply]
Gavin,
Am really glad that’s cleared up and thanks for making these sweet comments to reassure me that all is well in the world…
Of course I was a little upset but am back to A-OK.
Diarmuid,
Your point about putting hackles up by ridiculing people is such an important one; I think as important as the point that some people are stroking anti-tech teachers’ egos just because they have built careers on being anti-something +/- technology.
[Reply]
Diarmuid,
There we go agreeing again! I do think a lot of it comes down to lack of training, experience – and those are the results of a gap in the training that most teachers receive, both pre- and in-service.
Not much one can do about a lack of resources, I suspect (unless the money is there and being spent on something less useful like BMWs for the management…). In that case, a redistribution of wealth in terms of ensuring that teachers are paid properly, given access to development opportunities, etc., is probably first on the list before buying the shiny shiny…
It’s been an interesting year, but I think we’re moving forward to a more balanced concensus in both ‘camps’, so I’d expect more films in the manner of Bambi, and fewer along the Die Hard range…
Gavin
[Reply]
Hmm.
The real problem, it seems to me, is the ‘mystique’ surrounding technology – as if IT was a new thing in teaching. But there has always been technological innovation in teaching one way or another.
The task for the trainer is to offer IT possibilities which don’t overwhelm trainees and then tell them where to go and make their own discoveries. We all come to new software options at our own speed, and i don’t see why trainees should be any different! When we teach trainees how to use coursebooks we don’t expect them to read 65 coursebooks. Same with technology. A good teacher training pedagogy with some IT thrown in. That’s the game.
But I did have a fascinating discussion last night about syllabus/course design in 2nd life. Now that WAS interesting!
Jeremy
[Reply]
Jeremy,
Agreed… the issue is (at the moment) that most of the trainers I know (and I know quite a lot) working on CELTA and DELTA-type courses don’t know a wiki from a slug, don’t model effective use of technology in their training and therefore fail to equip teachers with either the minimum comfort level to take technology into their classes, or the critical skills they might need to be able to evaluate technologies.
Trainees should not be any different – they should get some exposure, some discussion, some chance to try things out and then move on with their own teaching, learning more new things (just as they do with the rest of teaching) all the time. But it’s still not happening, not after all these years. We need (in the main) a generational change in those who train teachers, because (in the main) those people training are not people who have ever taught with technology. And it’s tricky to teach something you’ve never done yourself…
Seen your latest blog posting – very nice! Happened to me once, or twice… shan’t bore anyone with the anecdotes. You’re absolutely right though – appreciation and recognition go a little way towards making up for the (generally) low pay and stress that most teachers endure. My experience has been that ‘bosses’ are not quick to praise. In my last full-time job before I went freelance I was never really thanked for anything (including working weekends when deadlines necessitated it). Makes you want to weep, really. Luckily there are plenty of supportive people out there, though…
It is, however, pillow o’clock, so I shall leave it there.
Gavin
[Reply]
[...] 2009. Discover real stories about HIV in the UK. Understanding the fact… 5 Likes That’SLife » Blog Archive » Non Event 4 Likes Kalinago English: Conference Report: BESIG 2009 4 Likes [...]
[...] Non Event Writer: Gavin Dudeney Role in Education: Runs The Consultants-E, a company of consultants for [...]