Having been (like most participants here) in both ‘pre-tech’ and then technology-enriched classroom settings, I find it hard to believe the obvious benefits are so readily dismissed.

In classrooms that were essentially barren little rooms (sometimes even without windows, and, in some contexts I’ve been in, not even permitted to have posters on the white-washed walls because this could ‘distract the students from their study of the language’), technology has created amazing windows on the outside world full of variety and colour. It has put faces and actions to dialogues, brought real news stories, and rich, limitless material that finally overcame the ashen pages of black and white textbooks that signalled definitive starts and ends to lessons, weeks and terms. It has saved me hours in front of photocopiers or ‘resource shelves’ in the staff room. It has enhanced my potential to make the most of ‘noticing’ and discovery learning – especially for that rather large percentage of students who are quite visual in their (preferred) learning style. Good teachers are often consumate masters with effective whiteboard use. The same teachers, with a few tech skills and the right equipment, can become conductors of pretty amazing symphonies. Of course there is the risk of overdoing things with so many options to choose from – but I’d rather that than the monotony of the same dull room with the same dull chairs and the same dull materials week in week out.

The ‘faffing about’ argument has never really held a lot of water for me personally either. Classes that I’ve seen held to ransom because the tech wouldn’t work or wouldn’t work easily number the same or less than those I’ve seen delayed or hamstrung because there weren’t enough chairs for the students, some of the desks were broken or too small, the students weren’t given the correct textbooks, or the windows or heating/air conditioning wouldn’t work properly in extreme temperatures. Sure, teachers who plan a whole lesson relying exclusively on tech are running a risk – in the same way as teachers who plan a whole lesson around a particular paper-based unit or the expectation that certain students or numbers of students will attend a given lesson (and they’ll all have red as well as black pens that day).

I know some of the opponents poke at tech from the basis of a warm vision of a simple scene with just a group of learners sitting around in a circle talking with a teacher without peripheral distractions. Well, I’ve still managed to have that in my classes – and yes, the ones that used tech as well. But learners’ needs, skills and expectations have changed, as have their modes and contexts of communication, study and work. Tech is a part of their lives just as much as chairs or tables or backpacks. Should we as teachers exclude tech from our classrooms because it hasn’t been such a formative part of our lives in the past?

As for calling for proof that tech-enriched classrooms and methodologies result in better language learning, to that I would say:

1. Where’s your definitive proof it isn’t more effective (or as effective) as a non-tech class? Tech has become such a natural part of humans’ lives, I’m not sure the onus should be completely on just the tech users themselves to prove what they’re doing is as appropriate or effective as ‘the way it was all done before.’

2. Has anyone bothered to ask the learners and base some research on that? I mean, I have a feeling the tech effect could be as affective and motivational as anything else.

3. What about teacher motivation? Teachers who feel more equipped tend to be more confident and motivated, and willing to try new things – and ‘tech teachers’ are likely to benefit from this. On the other hand, teachers who are technophobes are likely to feel the exact opposite if tech becomes an expected aspect of their teaching approach and environment.

I ask the last two questions because I think student and teacher motivation have a massive impact on the potential for effective learning to take place.

Anyway, I understand a rant like this is like preaching to the converted and probably otherwise just falling on deaf ears. I just don’t understand why an issue like this has become so divisive… One of the things I love about something like Dogme ELT is the quintessential common sense involved. That common sense would be majorly enhanced with an acceptance of the changing world we live in, and how integrated and perhaps even essential tech has become in it.

“Doctor Dudeney, PhD?”

No, that’s not going to happen in this life. I’m more of a, umm…. practitioner. And frankly I’m not brainy enough, nor do I have the dedication (or time) to do a doctorate.

You may call me ‘Doctor’, though

Gavin

As I’ve tried to suggest here, http://tinyurl.com/nd4ovm ,prioritising internet use as a homework task (where possible)can free the class up for more interactive, face to face stuff.

Best,

Nick

I really feel that the educational world would benefit from some hefty research into this. It’s likely to be the kind of social science that Sara speaks about elsewhere – but this is surely the best kind in our field – allowing people to draw their own conclusions based on a wide range of evidence.

Doctor Dudeney, PhD?

Of course, you make a good point about Socrates (although I didn’t think you were advocating a return to oracy). Postman also points out that it’s not as simple as rejecting writing: the old ways didn’t just rely on memorisation, it relied on improvisation, understanding, a deeper knowledge. Literacy introduced the possibly of memorisation of other people’s thoughts, other people’s words, other people’s feelings. As such, it carried with it the risk that people would put greater stock in the thinking of others than in their own thought processes (and here I am paraphrasing Neil Postman and Socrates).

I too am glad that Socrates lost that battle; but sad that we have lost the benefits of oracy. I’m turning into a fence sitter.

You phrased the point about using the internet in English much more eloquently than I could have.

Another point I forgot to add, is that not only is it desirable to use the internet in English, but for many people it will also be a necessity. Surely, we’re failing our students if we don’t give them ample opportunity to use English in contexts they are likely to encounter it in the future.

Welcome back. One of the issues (as with the bad science link provided by Philip further up here) is that people only quote the research that suits them (on both sides of an argument, usually).

As I said, and you seem to be agreeing, whilst certain people are surely as relevant today as they were when they wrote / researched / taught, this has to be tempered with the changes which happen as we progress. As your profession has changed, so has what technology can achieve – and measuring it against attitudes to technology from the eighties and nineties does not serve a great purpose a lot of the time.

Best,

Gavin

My personal gripe with IWBs has generally been that they cost too much for institutions who don’t get funding or who have limited funds to implement technologies. In that sense, as stated above, I’d rather see a school spend the money on laptops / data projectors and net access and then giving their teachers some training.

If institutions *can* afford IWBS then I have nothing particular against that, as long as the training is done and the support is there. And as long as the purchase of IWBs does not come before other more important things like wages, staff development, etc.

You’re asking for it by using the expression ‘wonders of the Internet’, but I’ll let others take up that particular debate as I think I’ve made my views abundantly clear here and elsewhere.

But there is a good point in there, and that is the difference between ‘tech comfy’ and ‘tech savvy’. Many learners are very comfortable with technology these days, but have no idea how to use those technologies in the service of their learning, and that’s a role we could usefully take on – showing them how to move from ‘tech comfy’ to ‘tech savvy’. In that sense I agree with your final paragraph. More on that distinction here: http://tinyurl.com/4m3dlq

Best,

Gavin