Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Digital technologies in language learning and teaching


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Digital technologies in language learning and teaching

  1. 1. LUDĚK KNITTL UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD JAMES LITTLE UNIVERSITY 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
  2. 2. A Short History of Technology and Learning
  3. 3. 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?
  4. 4. 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. reality  Technologies as part of pedagogy  Examples of using technologies in teaching practice  Getting started
  5. 5. 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?
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. “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
  8. 8. 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)
  9. 9. A newer concept: Digital Residents vs. Digital Visitors Not ‘Natives’ & ‘Immigrants’ but ‘Visitors’ & ‘Residents’  David White  t-natives-immigrants-but-visitors-residents/
  10. 10. 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.
  11. 11. 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…
  12. 12. What has changed?  Learning takes place the same way  Changes 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?
  13. 13. 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 teaching  Attitude towards learning influenced by the teaching style of the lecturer  Face-to-face interaction with teachers (Margaryan et al., 2011; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Hargittai, 2010)
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. The SAMR Model
  16. 16. 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.
  17. 17.  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) content/uploads/2011/05/2-Heilbroner- TechnologicalDeterminismRevisited2.pdf  Technological Determinism (Danger!)
  18. 18.  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!)
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. Designing materials with the learner in mind Morville's user experience honeycomb (
  21. 21. Examples of using technologies in teaching practice  Reading in Czech (Sheffield VLE-based course)  Varieties of Czech (Moodle-based course)  Beginners’ Czech Exercises
  22. 22. Examples of tools available online  Vocabulary learning  Quizlet  Memrise  Interactive exercises  Hot Potatoes
  23. 23. 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 content 3. Creating online activity to integrate student-generated content or participatory learning  Any tool should always be used in support of pedagogy!
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. 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
  29. 29. References  Figure Slide 2: content/uploads/2012/12/historyelearning.jpg  Figure Slide 13: JISC, 2013. Usability and user experience. 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.
  30. 30. 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: publications/books/educating-net-generation  Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1–6. Available online at: %20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf