e-language

‘Emergent Technologies in Education’ Seminar
Melbourne, Australia
23-25 November & 8-9 December, 2011

I’ve recently finished running another iteration of the Emergent Technologies in Education course, this time in compressed format for the Library at Victoria University in Melbourne. What really struck me this time is the extent to which social media are increasingly ‘thinning’ the walls of the classroom. One participant revived an old blog as a place to keep a set of hyperlinked, multimedia notes on the seminar; it’s called Librarian’s Web 2.0 Travels. Another created a Libguide called Web 2.0 Examples to showcase some of the technologies covered and to disseminate ideas to other VU educators who were not attending the seminar. Two participants set up brand new blogs – Cameron’s Space and Wiki Thoughts - to give them a space in which to reflect on the lessons they’re learning as they develop their online resources for the final presentations session in February 2012.  And, after most people had signed up to Twitter, we experimented with three live display formats - Monitter (a simple, easy-to-view linear display of the most recent tweets), Wiffiti (a dynamic display which shows the most recent tweets) and Visible Tweets (a dramatic, dynamic display showing a selection of recent tweets, one at a time) - over the last couple of days of the seminar. While the decision wasn’t unanimous, and while most people agreed that context would dictate which service was most appropriate, participants generally preferred the less distracting Monitter. So we used Monitter for backchannel feedback during students’ initial presentations on the last afternoon; you can check out the discussion under the #etvu11 hashtag.

The walls of face-to-face classrooms are getting thinner and thinner, allowing educational conversations to spill into the blogosphere and onto Twitter, encouraging the easy dissemination of ideas, promoting the building of links between course materials and the wider web, and inviting external commentary and feedback. Education is, less than ever, an isolated enterprise, but rather feeds into and is fed into by the world outside the classroom. And that, I think, is a good thing.

ICELF11: The International Conference on E-learning Futures
Auckland, New Zealand
30 November – 1 December, 2011

The key themes to emerge from the inaugural International Conference on E-learning Futures at Unitec in Auckland, New Zealand, were linked to mobile technologies – particularly smart, context-aware tools – and the associated personalisation of learning.

Trends in Technology & Education

In his opening keynote, Learning generations: Looking forwards, looking back, Steve Wheeler quoted Arthur C. Clarke’s comment that: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. New technologies are appearing everywhere, he observed, but educators don’t know how to use them; we still see them as magic. Technology won’t impress students, he went on to say, but good pedagogy and inspiration will.  Education is so important that if we get it wrong, we leave a very poor legacy for coming generations.  We need to find ways to use technology appropriately to support pedagogy, but there are many vested interests resisting it.

One issue is that: “For the first time we are preparing learners for a future we cannot clearly describe” (David Warlick). Declarative knowledge is becoming less important than procedural knowledge; it’s less about knowing that, than knowing how. New literacies are therefore important; they go much deeper than skills, because they allow real engagement. Connectivism, he suggested, is a useful approach: students need to learn how to connect with others as they build their PLNs.

Wheeler went on to list key characteristics of the future of education as follows:

• Open: we will have to share more.
• Social: people are already sharing. (Quadblogging is a good example of the application of this idea in education.)
• Personal: homogenised learning is no longer effective, as we move out of the industrial age. (A lot of past educational technologies were teacher-centric, but contemporary technologies are more personalised.)
• Augmented: Augmented reality is becoming more important, enhancing what we see through the naked eye. Context-awareness is key. It’s about “web meets world” (Tim O’Reilly & John Battelle).
• Non-touch:  gesture-based technologies will become more central.

In his presentation The new new things: Emerging trends in technology and education, Derek Wenmoth outlined key trends towards:

• mobility/portability
• miniaturisation
• convergence of technologies into a single device
• personalisation
• openness (the OER University is an example of this)
• gamification
• data visualisation
• contextualisation/location-awareness

These will impact dramatically on our behaviour as information gatherers and learners. We will need to consider how ‘desire pathways’ will take shape, and how we might use services like Yahoo Pipes and ifttt to personalise our information consumption.  Location is now an important characteristic of you as a learner – we see this, for example, with Twitter, iPad apps, or Al Gore’s “Our Choice” app. In the follow-up questions, Wenmoth quoted Neil Postman’s comment: “Technological change is not additive; it is ecological.”

In his IBM keynote, Education for a smarter nation: Changing business priorities and trends in education, Dougal Watt discussed five signposts for the future:

• technology immersion
• personalised learning paths
• knowledge skills
• global integration
• economic alignment

These trends, he argued, form an educational continuum, or single view of learning, skills development, and workforce training.  This has implications for the traditional boundaries between academic segments, educational providers, and economic development initiatives.

In her keynote, Digital ecosystems: mobile, portable, embedded and conventional devices, Judy Kay outlined emerging technologies with educational applications, including:

• surface computing: multi-user touch-sensitive tabletops
• data mining/visualisation: using digital footprints to improve learning through data visualisation, e.g., in an activity radar system which shows at a glance the amount of work done by students on a wiki

This keynote, which rounded off the conference, provided a snapshot of current and future trends in educational technology, leaving delegates a lot to think about.

In her keynote, Agnes Kukulska-Hulme outlined current mobile learning projects at the Open University, UK, before going on to talk about self-directed learning, which she argued is a natural approach to lifelong learning. She reported on the results of survey and interview-based studies which aimed to determine emerging trends in the use of mobile technologies in education, and to find out what learners’ wishes are with respect to mobile learning.

She suggested that the following areas need strengthening, specifically in foreign language curricula:

• connection with learners by supporting real needs and performance in situ
• tools and strategies for navigating and exploiting the new (increasingly mobile) ecology of digital learning resources and networks of support
• personal management of language learning across place and time

Next generation designs, she suggested, should take into account time, place, and activity.  She also noted that language use will change; “Find coffee near me” is a perfectly logical statement to a personal assistant like Apple’s Siri, though we wouldn’t say this to a friend. She concluded that:

• we need ongoing research with learners, as mobile practices and technologies evolve
• language curricula will be increasingly intertwined with ways to learn and interact with technology
• the design of learning activities will need to recognise learners’ emerging patterns and preferences regarding:
  • different types of travel
  • short periods of time
  • individual and social learning
  • ways to combine formal and informal learning

In their talk, Making the ‘case’ for the iPad, James Oldfield and Dawn Duncan described a business programme and a law programme in which students were given iPads. Students used these for a variety of pedagogically traditional activities but also for creative and collaborative web-based activities, including tasks on blogging and wiki platforms. The more creative apps used by students included iMovie, Keynote and Prezi. Collaborative tools included Dropbox, Google Docs, Mindmeister, Posterous, Twitter and WordPress. Further details of this work with iPads can be found at http://ipadnzeducation.wordpress.com/.

Language Teaching & Learning

My own paper, Tailoring language learning to a world of screens, sought to build a bridge between the broader field of educational technology and the more specific field of CALL. It outlined 4 key trends associated with the shift towards a world of screens:

• multimedia
• networking
• mobility
• customisation

It then went on to examine the implications of each of these trends for language teaching and learning. A more detailed summary and links are available.

In her presentation, A distinctive blend: Seamless integration of e-learning tools with classroom delivery in a blended learning oral skills language course, Katherine Danaher talked about the importance of redesigning a course to incorporate new technologies, rather than pasting new technologies over the top of an existing design. In the redesign process, it’s important to:

• Know your pedagogy
• Know your learning outcomes
• Know your e-learning  tools (amongst other things, declutter your course, and start small but think ahead to avoid getting painted into a corner later)
• Know the practicalities and pitfalls; issues to consider include:
  • teacher and learner training
  • teacher (and student) workload
  • too much content (it may be better to design only 70% of a course and leave the rest as whitespace, so you can work with what students bring to the course)
  • failure to integrate successfully
  • seduction by the wow factor

It’s valuable to remember that curriculum design is an iterative process; courses don’t have to be fully designed from the start, but will grow and morph over time. To integrate new technologies into a blended course, it’s essential to refer to the online tools regularly in class; to maintain a strong online presence; and to develop scaffolded activities that include both face-to-face and online components.

Danaher finished by quoting Harasim et al (2007): “Online you get to know your students’ minds, not just their faces.”

In her talk, Task implementation in CMC: How does it influence language learning opportunities?, Rebecca Adams focused on the introduction of SCMC (synchronous CMC) into a language course.  Research suggests that synchronous text chat can:

• encourage meaning negotiation
• produce a focus on form
• enhance accuracy
• foster active learning
• develop oral communicative competence (which can transfer to face-to-face contexts)

In the project on which she reported, it was found that reducing a task’s cognitive demands on students freed up cognitive space for them to focus more on grammar and form.  More complex tasks resulted in less focus on form. Not only does synchronous chat have language learning benefits, but using it in class helps prepare students for its use in real-world contexts.

So all in all …

GloCALL 2011: Globalization and Localization in Computer-Assisted Language Learning
Manila, Philippines
27-29 October, 2011

As always, this GloCALL Conference focused on the intersection of the global and the local in teaching language(s).

Technology and language

A number of talks focused on the use of technology in teaching language, with a heavy emphasis – as is usual these days – on web 2.0 tools.

In the talk The use of wikis in collaborative learning, Long Nguyen and Hoa Phan argued there is a continuum between product-oriented and process-oriented CMC, with blogs and wikis fitting around the middle of the spectrum. They cited the work of Lee (2010), who  stated that wikis increase satisfaction and motivation, as well as fostering creativity and encouraging attention to form, but noted that students may feel insecure and uncomfortable in correcting each other’s work.  They also referred to Arnold, Ducate and Kost (2009), who concluded that wikis are effective educational tools, foster collaborative writing and revision behaviours, solve equal contribution issues, and combine the writing process and final product.

They reported on a Vietnamese study where students were asked to do a peer review of each other’s writing, one group using paper, and one using a wiki.  It was found that on average students wrote more than double the number of words on the wiki, and made more than double the number of comments.  The paper group focused more exclusively on the task, but the number of task-related comments by the wiki group was much higher overall.  Students’ feedback on the wiki peer editing process was generally positive, but they noted that it could be fatiguing and inconvenient to read on the screen and to have to go to an internet café for access.

In her talk A new learning space between the course forum and the ‘walls’ of Facebook: A case study of a community of learners of Italian, Marie-Noëlle Lamy reported on a group of learners of Italian at the OU, who created a Facebook group as a way of keeping in touch and continuing to practise language between courses.  Their public Facebook group was observed over a period of 4 months, with a particular focus on the 9 participants who made use of both the institutional Moodle forum set up for the course as well as the Facebook group. Students generally used the target language a far greater proportion of the time on Facebook.

Their posts were analysed using Selwyn’s 2009 ‘Faceworking’ method for analysing text on Facebook, and were found to fall into 6 main categories (e.g., reflections on the course, exchange of practical information, use of humour, etc).  Most categories of communication appeared on both the institutional forum and Facebook, though there was a tendency to exchange more general cultural information on Facebook.

Lamy hypothesised that students might be more wary of publishing in the target language on the institutional forum because they felt monitored by the institution there (though the Facebook group was in fact open to the public). She also wondered whether the anti-/pro-FB polarisation which occurred when the FB group was first set up might have promoted more group solidarity amongst those in the FB group, in turn encouraging risk-taking in the target language. The data are still being investigated as part of an ongoing study.

In my own talk, Language learning in a world of screens:  Customising online spaces, I identified 4 key trends linked to the world of screens in which we now find ourselves, and examined their implications for language teaching and learning:

• a trend towards multimedia, which allows teachers to tailor materials to students’ varying learning styles, as well as helping students enhance their own language production through judicious use of appropriate media;
• a trend towards networking, and to the building of personal learning networks, in which there are great opportunities for language practice, especially if students are encouraged to network across linguistic and cultural boundaries;
• a trend towards mobility of smart devices, which allows just about any real-world context to be turned into a learning environment;
• a macro-trend towards customisation, which builds on the first three trends.

In their talk Digital natives or mobile natives?, Peter Gobel and Makimi Kano summarised the argument of Prensky, Tapscott, and others that there is a distinct generation of ‘digital natives’, or a ‘net generation’. They noted that numerous studies dispute the existence of such a homogenous generation.

Japan is a highly wired society, with the highest mobile phone ownership in the world.  Gobel and Kano conducted a survey of the technology use of Japanese students to find out to what extent they were in fact ‘digital natives’.  Most described their level of technological competence as ‘fair’, suggesting they were not overly confident about their skills.  Most used their phone rather than a computer to access the internet, and it was found that over half preferred to store pictures on their phones rather than computers, while many others simply stored them on their digital cameras – suggesting the photos never leave the devices on which they were taken, and that students are generally not manipulating digital media at all.  Many students made extensive use of Mixi, Google, Yahoo and YouTube, but there was little awareness of Facebook (though this has changed a little due to the recent movie), MySpace, Flickr and Twitter, or of Moviemaker, iMovie or even GoogleDocs.

Overall, the data collected support Helsper & Enyon’s (2010) conclusion that the Prensky model  is flawed, which suggests that we do in fact need to rethink digital native assumptions.  Indeed, suggested Gobel and Kano, many of today’s learners, at least in Japan, might seen as ‘mobile natives’, because of the extensive use they make of mobile phones. As pointed out during the follow-up questions, phones are actually simpler tools to use as they don’t require or offer the more complex understandings that come with operating a computer.

In her plenary, Technological advances towards enhancement of language learning, Rachel Roxas argued that language teachers should adapt to the technological and multimedia orientation of their students. She outlined recent advances in automated natural language processing software, including Popsicle, MesCH, and Picture Books, highlighting its value for the language learning of the younger generation. There is a need, she suggested, to integrate new technologies into curricula and course materials, as well as to train in-service teachers in particular.

In her plenary, Challenges of establishing virtual communities of practice for teacher professional development in a variety of contexts, Siew Ming Thang spoke about the value of CoPs (communities of practice) for teacher PD. Virtual CoPs have the advantage of not being bound by time and space. She listed the following factors which influence the success of a VCoP:

• There should be a common goal or purpose;
• There must be enough time;
• Ideally, it should be blended with face-to-face interaction;
• A traditional national or organisational culture may inhibit the flow of knowledge;
• Valuable information and knowledge must be provided (tacit knowledge, practical experience, hands on solutions – Hinkel 2003);
• Technology must be readily available.

She reported on a case study where limitations on the success of a VCoP were due to:

• Lack of trust and rapport (with other CoP members);
• Concern with suitability;
• Concern with correctness;
• Lack of time (especially if the PD does not seem of real value);
• Problems with technology;
• Lack of trust (fear of monitoring by managers & institutions).

Amongst the challenges which need to be addressed, she mentioned that there is a conflict between a designed and an emergent community – communities typically form naturally, but some degree of facilitation is vital in a CoP.  She noted, too, that because online communication is mostly text-based, the lack of paralinguistic cues can make it more difficult to build trust between community members. She suggested, finally, that teachers must be willing to engage in change, and that it is important for them to be fully involved in this process.

Technology and culture

In her plenary, Developing intercultural communicative competence through online exchanges: Focus on Asian and Pacific languages, Dorothy Chun explained the adaptations of the Cultura model for exchanges involving Asian and Pacific languages.  The original Cultura project involved French and US students comparing word associations in an online forum. The same principle has now been applied in projects involving languages like Chinese, Japanese, Filipino and Samoan.  In many cases it was found that students did become very reflective about their own and other cultures. However, there are numerous challenges in such projects.  Sometimes, for example, there may be a mismatch between teachers’ pedagogical goals and students’ desire to socialise and make new friends. Large groups may be difficult to manage, and factors like low reading comprehension levels may limit benefits for some.  It can be useful to include audio-visual materials as stimuli for discussion, perhaps particularly among students of high school age.

In summary, Chun listed the following commonalities between the three exchange projects she had described:

• Students found the experience enjoyable and were motivated to continue studying the L2.
• Students felt part of a larger language learning community beyond their classrooms.
• Students were the experts in their own culture, and the multiplicity of voices and knowledge surpassed what a teacher could provide.
• Students gained new knowledge and understandings.
• Students were able to discover culture through exploration, moving beyond study into intercultural communication.
• Students and teachers believed that making the exchange a more integral part of the curriculum would be desirable.

She concluded that the exchanges were authentic (and invaluable) intercultural learning experiences. Teachers were no longer the cultural authorities, but their role was to facilitate communication, promote reflection, and follow up on misunderstandings.  She added that careful planning is necessary to anticipate and manage technological issues, institutional issues, linguistic proficiency discrepancies between groups, comparable participation between groups, and the use of other technologies such as video-conferencing.  She suggested that we should strongly consider making a Cultura-based exchange the primary (if not sole) component of the language curriculum, with task-based interactive activities enhancing both linguistic skills and intercultural communicative competence.

In her plenary, CALL and sociocultural language learning: A reality check, Marie-Noëlle Lamy discussed reasons for the failure of online collaboration projects involving CALL tools.  She noted that early studies of the reasons for such failures focused on cultural factors. However, she went on to argue that we also need to take into account sociopolitical factors and, in particular, power relationships. She suggested that in order to empower students, there must be both explicitness and flexibility on the following three levels:

• Learning design approach
• Distributed learning environment
• Institutional policy

She presented three case studies to demonstrate how the presence or absence of explicitness and flexibility on these levels can affect the degree of empowerment experienced by students.

She also noted that when cultural differences are examined in educational courses, it is not just a case of challenging expectations, but ensuring that participants have the agency to act on what they learn. This is part of the sociopolitical dimension of courses.

In his talk, Intercultural usability of language learning websites, Jeong-Bae Son argued there are at least four kinds of usability to consider in CALL websites: general usability, pedagogical usability, technical usability, and intercultural usability. He observed there has been little research done to date on the intercultural usability of such websites. User interface design of such sites should consider:

• The source of cultural input & an effective means of interaction;
• An interface design that facilitates user interactions;
• Components of the user interface – metaphors, mental models, etc;
• Cross-cultural issues in the process of website development.

He is currently working on a set of guidelines for designing intercultural language learning websites; an example website can be seen at http://ceklser.org (a Korean resource site).

AILA 2011: The 16th World Congress of Applied Linguistics
Beijing, China
23-28 August, 2011

One of the major themes running through the 16th AILA Congress was the relationship of new technologies to language teaching.  Over the course of six days, presenters from around the world discussed changing teacher training, changing  teaching, and changing language – especially the growing importance of digital literacies.

Changing teacher training

In their presentation Language teacher education: Developments in distance learning, David Hall and John Knox reported on an investigation into institutional, teacher and student views of LTED (Language Teacher Education by Distance). Those surveyed believed there are numerous advantages of LTED, including:

• flexibility/accessibility (approx. 70%)
• situated learning (approx. 23%) (in particular the theory/practice interface when teachers study while working)
• learner control
• diversity of the student cohort
• financial issues for students
• interaction & mediation of discourse (you can take time to respond, e.g., in asynchronous discussion)
• learner responsibility
• employability

In short, the old advantages of LTED remain (such as flexibility and situated learning), but new advantages (such as diversity of the cohort and mediation of discourse) are expanding as technology breaks down barriers of time and space. Hall and Knox argued that both face-to-face and distance learning have particular affordances and advantages that in some ways balance each other out.

In her paper The development of language teachers’ expertise in exploiting the interactive whiteboard towards a socio-cognitive approach to computer-assisted language learning, Euline Cutrim Schmid noted that there is some concern that interactive whiteboards (IWBs) can be used to enhance teachers’ control of the learning environment, thereby promoting more traditional transmission or behaviourist educational approaches.

According to Warschauer (2000: 57), a socio-cognitive approach to electronic language learning activities should:

• be learner-centred
• be based on authentic communication
• make some real difference in the world
• provide students with an opportunity to explore and express their evolving identity

The question is whether and how teachers can be encouraged to use IWBs to support this kind of approach. Cutrim Schmid presented a case study of a language teacher who moved from a teacher-dominated stage of IWB use where:

• the teacher focused mainly on form and controlled practice, and overgeneralised the use of the IWB to the whole lesson, doing most activities with a full-class focus (but she felt dissatisfied with students’ level of activity)
• the teacher delivered authentic multimedia-based input (but she realised that students’ fascination for multimedia materials didn’t necessarily correlate with effective language learning)

to a learner-centred stage where:

• students had an opportunity for co-construction of knowledge (where the equipment was not the main focus but was used as necessary to support language-based tasks, and where the IWB was used as a platform to show student-produced web 2.0 materials as well as being used by students themselves for presentations)
• students had an opportunity for self-expression

The teacher developed important CALL competencies as she came to understand the strengths and limitations of the technological options, and to make informed judgements on the suitability of the tool for the task.

Cutrim Schmid concluded that IWBs can present a threat to communicative language teaching, especially as the acquisition of new competencies doesn’t occur automatically.  There is a real need for teacher development in this area, based on a sound theoretical basis and an examination of pedagogical practice.

In a talk entitled Web 2.0 for teaching and learning: Professional development through a community of practice model, Christina Gitsaki reported on a PD programme developed for  English teachers in the UAE to help them integrate web 2.0 into their teaching within a laptop programme.

The results of an initial investigation had shown that teachers reported a high level of confidence with emailing, word processing, accessing a VLE, etc, but made little use of web 2.0 and were in fact concerned about students accessing web 2.0 on their laptops, especially social networking sites. Students reported that the activities they wanted to do with the laptops were very different from what teachers did with them – they wanted to engage in more creative and collaborative activities. In other words, the way teachers were using laptops in the classroom did not reflect students’ online socialising and learning in their own time.

A PD programme, underpinned by a community of practice model, was set up to give teachers greater awareness of web 2.0 and how to use it pedagogically. It was based on the following cycle of learning:

• Introduction to new idea
• Reflection & interaction
• Challenges & negotiation
• Outcome: Adopt, Adapt, Abandon

Tools covered in Semester 1 included Edmodo, Flickr, Google Docs, Mindmeister, MyPodcast, VoiceThread, Xtranormal and YouTube, and in Semester 2 they included Photopeach, Dipity, OurStory, Prezi, Glogster and Comic Life.

Teachers found the community of practice approach valuable. They learned about web 2.0 tools, tried them out, and collaborated with colleagues on how to use them in the classroom. The more confident teachers actually tried the tools with their students and were able to report to colleagues on their experience.

Changing language teaching

In his talk The impact of digital storytelling with blended learning on language teaching, Hiroyuki Obari argued that digital storytelling can improve student autonomy as well as proficiency in English.  He observed that digital storytelling “merges the traditional art of storytelling with the power of new technologies” and can promote linguistic as well as paralinguistic skills in students. Through digital storytelling, students practise rhetorical skills as well as technological skills, with technology becoming an “imagination amplifier”.  Assessment of students’ English following the introduction of digital storytelling into his classes resulted in improved scores, and most students agreed it was useful in learning EFL.

The symposium Computer-assisted language learning and the learner consisted of a number of papers (by Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana, Bin Zhou, Hiroyuki Obari, and Mirjam Hauck) examining the effects of CALL on student learning. In the presentation The effects of games on interaction and willingness to communicate in a foreign language, Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana argued that, given the positive effects of gaming on classroom interaction and language production, we should appropriate gaming software for pedagogical purposes (rather than the other way round). The paper concluded with the following recommendations:

• Do not let applied linguists mess up game design.
• Do build on existing non-educational games as ecologies in their own right.
• Do gather evidence of game language use and attitudes to learning.
• Do make links between formal and non-formal learning.

In his paper Students’ perspectives of an English-Chinese language exchange programme on a web 2.0 environment, Bin Zou described a web 2.0-based programme for learners of English in China and learners of Chinese in the UK. Wikispaces was the platform chosen for students in these two groups to interact with each other around topics of common interest. The History function of the wiki allowed students to easily identify corrections made to their texts by the native speakers of the target language, though some students preferred to upload Word documents containing the corrections. Overall, wikis were found to be a useful and motivating platform for language education.

In his paper Integration of technology in language teaching, Hiroyuki Obari argued that social learning is the key trend of coming years. Open Educational Resources, he suggested, will be a big part of it. He noted that mobile technologies can be used to support lessons in a number of ways; for example, announcements and information about words and phrases can be sent to language students on mobile devices while they are commuting. Digital storytelling, he suggested, is also a very useful tool which allows students to demonstrate creative thinking, construct knowledge, and develop innovative products. Social learning and blended learning, he concluded, can both help students improve English proficiency and IT skills, while fostering autonomous learning.

In her paper Promoting teachers’ and learners’ multiliteracy skills development through cross-institutional exchanges, delivered at a distance by Skype video, Mirjam Hauck reported on two empirical case studies of a task-based telecollaborative learning format.  She argued that it is important for both teachers and learners to develop multimodal communicative competence, as defined by Royce (2002), and showed Elluminate as an example of a multimodal communicative environment. There is an “orchestration of meaning” in multiple modes online. It is important, she suggested, that language teachers design tasks that oblige learners to make use of multiple modalities online.  She quoted Hampel and Hauck (2006) on the need to promote the kinds of literacy required to use new democratic learning spaces to their best effect.

Changing language: New literacies

In introducing the Digital futures symposium, David Barton suggested that literacy studies research is a good lens for looking at language and new technologies. In his own paper, Creating new global identities on the web through participation and deliberate learning, he stressed that literacy studies research sees literacy as a social practice. With the advent of web 2.0, there are new spaces for writing (with writing becoming more and more important), including multilingual writing. There are also new spaces for learning.

His paper focused in particular on the photosharing site Flickr. He suggested that a typical Flickr page involves a number of different writing spaces: textual description, discussion, tags, etc. He reported on a study of Flickr use conducted collaboratively with Carmen Lee. New multilingual encounters occur online – such as when a Chinese person learning English in Hong Kong discusses photography with Spanish speakers elsewhere in the world. Comments may be left on photos in different languages.

He noted that many Flickr users write about learning, even though it’s not predominantly a learning site. He spent some time discussing ‘Project 365’ (in which people take one photo a day for a year), where it is very noticeable that many people refer specifically to learning. These are, he suggested, “deliberate acts of learning”. He listed the following key characteristics of Project 365:

• it’s social
• deliberate acts of learning
• discourse of self-improvement
• it’s life-changing (people are not just learning about photography but about life; learning, he suggested, should be life-changing)
• vernacular theories of learning (where people present their own views of how learning takes place)
• reflexive writing spaces
• a passion (something, he argued, that is often left out of theories of learning)

My own paper was part of the symposium Enhancing online literacies: Knowledge and skills for language students and teachers in the digital age, organised by Regine Hampel and Ursula Stickler from the Open University. As part of this symposium, papers were delivered by myself, Linda Murphy, Aline Germain-Rutherford, Cynthia White, Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana, and Regine Hampel and Ursula Stickler. Paper summaries, reference lists and links can be found on the E-language Wiki.

In the opening paper, Digital tools and the future of literacy, I argued that our communication landscape has shifted dramatically in a few short years. New web 2.0 and related tools, ranging from blogs, wikis and podcasts to social sharing services, social networking sites and virtual worlds, are having an increasing impact on our everyday lives – and our everyday language and literacy practices. It’s more crucial than ever for language teaching to encompass a wide variety of literacies which go well beyond traditional print literacy.

I focused on four specific digital literacies of particular relevance to language teachers and students: multimodal (multimedia) literacy, information literacy, intercultural literacy, and remix literacy. I showed how language teachers can incorporate elements of each into their everyday classroom activities. I concluded that combining traditional print with multimodal, information, intercultural and remix literacies can make the language classroom much more dynamic – and much more relevant to our students’ future lives and future uses of language.

In her paper Tutor skills and qualities in blended learning: The learner’s view, Linda Murphy argued that the difference between distance learning and regular learning is breaking down, thanks to the arrival of new technologies.  The top-ranking important skills for online language tutors, as viewed by students in a 2011 study conducted at the OU, were:

• native/near native speaker competence (due in part to a need for cultural input)
• teaching expertise in supporting grammar and pronunciation development
• strong emphasis on affective dimension: approachable, enthusiastic, encouraging, fostering group participation with confidence, catering for differing needs and styles
• well-organised, focused use of contact time
• competent IT users
• prompt responses and awareness of support systems

In a previous study conducted in 2008, IT skills had not been listed in the top five most important skills, but by 2011, 20% of respondents mentioned IT skills. The idea of IT also overlaid many of the other tutor skills mentioned in student comments.  She concluded by suggesting that teaching online is not so much about adding to one’s repertoire as transforming one’s practice for the online context.

In her paper Preparing our students for the intercultural reality of today’s online learning spaces, Aline Germain-Rutherford focused on intercultural issues. She opened with a quote from Edgar Morin, who argues against inadequate, compartmentalised learning and in favour of learning “about the world as world” in its contextual, global, multidimensional and complex reality. She referred also to Reeder, Macfayden, Roche & Chase’s (2004) description of culture as ‘negotiated’ rather than ‘given’.

Our job as language teachers, she suggested, is to design learning environments where students can co-create linguistic and cultural content through their collaborative contributions to blogs, wikis and social networking platforms. She recommended Henderson’s (2007) model of E-learning Instructional Design, which is centred on epistemological pluralism and is designed to help raise students’ awareness of cultural diversity as they engage in co-construction of a learning space where multiple cultural contexts are made visible and debatable.

In her paper Online academic literacy within user-generated content communities: Connections and challenges, Cynthia White started with the new literacies position, which sees literacy as a social practice.  There is of course a need to switch practices between different contexts. She referred to Kern (2006), who suggested that the internet has complexified the notion of literacy by introducing multimedia dimensions and altering traditional discourse.

She described a telecollaborative project involving students from Germany and New Zealand, where they interacted online, e.g. collaboratively writing on a wiki, as well as making use of tools like Facebook and YouTube which they themselves introduced.  She explored how students practised language and negotiated meaning in examining the relationship between German and New Zealand/Maori culture.  She finished with a number of questions, including:

• What are the dimensions of literacy as social practice in web 2.0 telecollaborative projects?
• What is the intersection between intercultural literacy and online literacy?

In the paper Incorporating computer games into the EFL classroom, Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana focused on gaming literacy and asked how, as teachers, we can move from an entertaining to an educational use of games. Key learning principles present in many games include:

• the active, critical learning principle (gaming environments are about active and critical, not passive, learning)
• the psychosocial moratorium principle (it’s OK to make mistakes and learn from them)
• the practice principle (learners get lots of practice which is not boring and where they experience ongoing success)

However, language learning through games is not yet well developed. Many online language games do not really exploit the capabilities of the digital medium, but essentially reproduce offline activities.

The paper reported on an experiment conducted in Thailand, where students were able to communicate in English in a copy of a commercial gaming environment. It was found that students had a greater willingness to communicate in online gaming than in the classroom.  It was also found that students produced a greater quantity of language in the gaming environment compared to the face-to-face class.

In the concluding symposium presentation, Transforming teaching: New skills for online language learning spaces, Regine Hampel and Ursula Stickler focused on teachers and how they can transform the spaces that exist online into learning spaces. Referring to their previously developed skills pyramid for online language teachers, they pointed out that the two base layers have to be taken for granted nowadays, as teachers can’t operate online without them, but the higher level skills still need to be developed.

Some of the key literacies for students are:

• Basic literacy
  • technical competence with software
• Multimodal literacy
  • dealing with constraints and possibilities of the medium
  • having basic IT competence
• Linguistic and inter-/multicultural literacy
  • facilitating and developing communicative competence
  • online socialisation
• Remix literacy
  • own style
  • creativity and choice

Online learning spaces allow:

• blending of environments – beyond time, space, and pace (making learning flexible)
• individualised learning (making learning relevant)
• authentic communication (making learning real)
• collaboration (making learning interactive)
• online telecollaboration (making learning multi/intercultural)
• creativity and choice (making learning fun)

Of course, as they stressed, there is still a need for negotiation of a number of aspects of learning spaces.  Future developments, they suggested, should include the development of new pedagogies; online communities of practice; institutional training; and curriculum planning.

Conclusion

Overall, the AILA Conference provided lots of food for thought for anyone working in the overlapping areas of language teaching and new technologies. It will be interesting to see how both teaching and technologies have continued to develop when the 17th AILA Congress takes place in Brisbane in 2014. Watch this space …

New Technologies, New Literacies Workshops
Gold Coast, Sydney, Melbourne & Perth
15, 20, 22 & 24 September, 2010

Over the course of 10 days, Gavin Dudeney and I delivered a series of professional development days entitled New Technologies, New Literacies to TESOL teachers at a variety of centres around Australia.  I opened each workshop with a broad, theoretical overview of new literacies, based on my current research on digital literacies.  Gavin followed up with two workshop sessions where, after learning about a range of technological tools, participants had a chance to try them out themselves. Gavin focused in particular on how language teachers can work with images, video, word clouds, websites, podcasts, cartoons, slideshows and blogs.  We concluded each day with a general Q & A session.  Feedback from participants indicates that although there has to date been little PD on offer in this area, there is great interest among language teachers in learning more about how new technologies can support language teaching.  For more information, see the flyer and the composite Google Doc co-created by the presenters and attendees in each session.  We are particularly grateful to English Australia and Pearson for supporting this professional development tour.

English Australia Conference
Gold Coast Convention & Exhibition Centre
Gold Coast, Australia
16 – 18 September, 2010

Amongst a diverse set of themes, the 2010 English Australia Conference included a technology strand with a strong focus on the initial implementation of technology in TESOL contexts and, in particular, how to approach teacher training.

Getting teachers excited about learning technologies was the title of the talk by Clementine Annabell, Neil McRudden and Mark Steinward, who focused on the introduction of IWBs at Embassy CES. Taking a 3-phase approach to teacher training, Embassy CES began with a seed-and-grow phase for those who were really enthusiastic about the use of IWBs. This was followed by a creative eclecticism phase involving the appointment of learning technologies staff, who were given non-teaching hours to champion the use of IWBs and to provide support.  Different needs on different campuses necessitated a range of different strategies.  A strategy used successfully in Melbourne took the form of 10-min sessions in a ‘Coffee Club’, where uses of IWBs were explained.  Participants were rewarded with free coffees and eventually a free USB after attending a set number of sessions.  The third phase was a structured program in the form of a worldwide online course called StudySmart, built in a Moodle VLE, where teachers improved their skills and had to produce lesson materials which could then actually be used in their classrooms.  Creative solutions to typical problems – lack of time and lack of funding – were discussed.

In a presentation which exemplified the possibilities of multimedia delivery, and was entitled A bite of the apple: Real life takes on e-learning, Katrina Hennigan and Lucy Blakemore  outlined key principles for e-learning which emerged from 360 degree interviews: it should be simple, collaborative, seamless, guided, and engaging.  These are the same principles, they argued, that underpin good teaching more generally.  The went on to outline a series of e-learning ‘apps’ (technologies and/or strategies that can be easily used in the classroom) under each of these headings:

> simple:

• use of iPods
• use of PowerPoint (e.g., in a Pecha Kucha format, with 20 slides shown for 20 seconds each)

> collaborative:

• Values Exchange (a web-based tool for students to debate social issues)
• Skype (text chat, with chat logs being annotated by teachers and emailed to students to improve)

> seamless:

• using sharing options included with articles, etc, available online
• use of TED talks to show how class activities have been done or researched in the ‘real’ world

> guided:

• the importance of narrowing down choices for choices for teachers & students
• “the best ‘app’ is a person” – teachers want hands-on experience with face-to-face support

> engaging:

• visuals from sites like Information is Beautiful
• visual search engines like TagGalaxy

In a talk entitled Technology integration in ESL: Teaching and learning, Adrienne Vanthuyne began by focusing on Koehler and Mishra’s TPACK [Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge] model and discussing how it might be applied in the context of training language teachers.  She suggested that we should be aiming for high-level ICT integration (involving instructional activities for higher order thinking among students) rather than low-level ICT integration (involving digitised drill and practice).

She also spoke of five Stages of Technology Integration: Entry (where not many technologies are being used) – Adoption (where new technologies support text-based drill-and-practice instruction) – Adaption (where teachers adapt new technologies to suit students and promote higher order thinking skills) – Appropriation (where there is development of new instructional patterns like team teaching, interdisciplinary projects and individually paced instruction, with teachers becoming facilitators) – Invention (where teachers invent interdisciplinary learning activities that engage students in gathering information, analysing and synthesising it, and ultimately building new knowledge). Teachers find themselves at different positions along this continuum.

It was suggested that for teacher training to be effective in this area, teachers need training that is appropriate for their context as well as a supportive environment including technical support through a community of practice, colleagues who are enthusiastic about technology, and a ‘technology positivist’ environment.

In her talk, Wiki: A support tool to assist and support homestay families, Jennifer Petrie ran through the wiki concept with the help of Lee Lefever’s video Wikis in plain English.   She went on to explain that La Trobe University has developed a wiki (on pbworks) for homestay families, in order to provide more support and easier communication, and create a sense of community.  The homepage contains key contact details, while other pages cover a range of areas such as announcements; information on incoming groups; a recipes page where host families can post recipes they cook for their students; and, most interestingly, a student feedback page where families can see anonymous aggregated feedback from homestay students, annotated with advice from the homestay co-ordinator, and where families can comment and offer advice on the issues raised.  Use of the wiki by host families has increased dramatically over recent months.  Jennifer listed key benefits of the wiki as:

• Streamlining of processes
• Efficient use of time and resources
• A permanent record
• Transparency
• Collaboration

Emerging Technologies: Mobile learning was the title of the talk by Larry Anderson from the Australia Network. Indicating that mobile phones, with a worldwide penetration around 45%, have become the number one screen in the world, ahead of computer screens and televisions, he outlined a number of English m-learning projects in different countries.  He noted, for example, that three of the top-selling iPhone apps in South Korea are for  English learning. Mobile phones, he suggested, provide  cheap and easy access to content; publishers are busy producing both free and paid apps; and schools and universities are experimenting with mobile devices inside and outside classrooms.  In short, he argued, mobile phones offer important ways of diversifying educational delivery.  This is an area in which Australian TESOL educators need to engage much more.

In his plenary address, entitled New literacies, teachers and learners, Gavin Dudeney  started with a definition of digital literacy from Wikipedia: “the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers”. One of the limitations of this definition is the use of the word ‘computers’, which doesn’t take into account the recent proliferation of mobile devices.  A second, more recent Wikipedia definition, which puts more accent on the productive aspects of digital literacy, is: “the ability to locate, organize, understand, evaluate, and create information using digital technology […] Digitally literate people can communicate and work more efficiently, especially with those who possess the same knowledge and skills.”  In addition to talking about ESL, Gavin went on, we are now hearing mention of DSL – ‘Digital as a Second Language’.

While there are some generational differences in approaches to technology, they are not as stark or clear as is sometimes imagined.  The OU has recently suggested that instead of talking about digital natives and immigrants, we should talk about digital residents and digital visitors.  The latter set of terms is more flexible that the former.

He went on to list various categories of digital literacies, based on those discussed in my 2009 book From blogs to bombs: The future of digital technologies in education and summarised in a more recent document here.  After a discussion of the digital skills possessed by audience members, Gavin went on to ask the question: ‘Why is [digital literacy] important?’  One reason is that we’re preparing students for jobs that don’t exist yet, so we need to future-proof education to some extent.  People are changing; technology is changing; there’s a shift towards mobile devices; and students are changing, becoming more digitally literate, and expecting technology use in education.  There is a great missed opportunity in asking students who come into the classroom to switch off the technologies they use in their everyday lives.  This message comes through clearly in the Engage me! video about new technologies by pupils at Robin Hood Primary School, Birmingham.

The real problem may be that teachers are not changing, mainly because they are not receiving training in the pedagogical aspects of teaching with new technologies – and, said Gavin, this is the case in every country he’s worked in over the last 10 years.  This lack of training leads to frustration and fear.  One possibility is to rely on students as a technological resource, which also helps them become invested in the success of the class.  It’s also important to use computers to open up your class to the world and to foster interaction.

The bottom line, he argued, is that the use of technology shouldn’t change our pedagogy; it should enhance current pedagogical practices.

Education Dept, AISWA & CEOWA Literacy & Numeracy Workshop
James Nestor Hall, CEOWA, Perth
02 September, 2010

As part of National Literacy & Numeracy Week, 2010, I delivered a literacy workshop for the Education Department, AISWA and CEOWA at the CEOWA’s James Nestor Hall in Perth.  Speaking to a group of primary and secondary teachers, I outlined the suite of new digital literacies I believe are essential for educators to acquire and to pass on to our students.  The flyer for the event is available here.

My workshop was followed by a numeracy workshop by Steve Routledge, who outlined the varying degrees of ICT integration in schools – ranging from the use of traditional computer labs with locked down machines to the widespread employment of computers and, increasingly, mobile devices in the classroom.  He argued that we need to be where the students are and to find ways of helping them use their digital devices not just for social and entertainment activities, but for learning.  He concluded by showing teachers some of the great, free materials now available online for maths teachers.

IATEFL Learning Technologies SIG PCE
Harrogate, UK / Avalon Learning, Second Life
7 April, 2010

Bringing together participants in ‘real life’ in Harrogate, UK, with virtual participants at Avalon Learning in the virtual world Second Life, this year’s IATEFL Learning Technologies SIG PCE demonstrated the permeability of the real/virtual divide with frequent crossovers between Harrogate and Second Life.  Participants in Second Life, where I was based, viewed videos, watched slide presentations, listened to discussions in Harrogate via an audio hookup, and carried out their own discussions in audio and text channels.  It was a great demonstration of multimodal literacies in action …

I kicked off the day in Second Life with my video and slide presentation, Digital literacies: Where do we start?, and followed up with a Q & A session and discussion which spanned Second Life and ‘real life’.  My video, slides and session photos can be viewed on the Digital Literacies research page of my wiki (see Artefacts 4A – 4D).  Scott Thornbury, based in Harrogate, followed with a presentation entitled Has the language lab failed? The third presenter of the day, Stephen Bax, was also based in Harrogate.

I couldn’t stay for the whole day, given the time difference between Australia and the UK, but the section in which I participated was a good indication of where new technologies and, more importantly, new literacies are taking us – despite certain challenges we’re facing along the way.

For more details of the whole event, plus videos of the Second Life discussions, see Heike Philp’s overview on the Avalon blog.

GloCALL 2009
Chiang Mai, Thailand
8-11 December, 2009

As always, the GloCALL Conference provided a good illustration of its own key theme – that the global + the local = the glocal – in the mix of presenters and attendees in the northern Thai city of Chiang Mai.  A major theme running through many plenaries and papers concerned the ongoing shifts in technology and its use in education.

In the opening plenary, Integrating ICT into teaching and learning English in Thailand, Thanomporn Laohajaratsang noted that because teachers tend to teach the way they were taught, they sometimes struggle with the integration of new technology into the classroom. For the new generation of students, the so-called net generation or “screen-agers” (defined here as those born in the 2000s), this will increasingly be an issue. The slogan of the screen-agers, according to Thanomporn, is: “I, me first, I-Pod, Myself, My own needs”, and their preference is for learning from the network of people surrounding them rather than from teachers.

But classrooms are changing: she presented a range of examples of technologically enabled teaching, ranging from the sophisticated use of feedback mechanisms in lectures to the use of OLPC laptops in developing areas. Citing Rik Schwier’s (2008) model of “Learning Theories Supported by Computer-based Learning”, she noted a move over time from software that supported objectivist and cognitivist educational approaches towards software that supports constructivism and connectivism, with a parallel move from individual learning to group learning. She argued that we should not overlook the power of social software like blogs, wikis and social networking sites.

In her plenary, Why the social in sociocollaborative CALL, Carla Meskill pointed out that in CALL we’ve moved from a ‘because we can’ paradigm (where pedagogical considerations were not paramount) through an ‘intrinsic rewards’ paradigm to a ‘communication with others’ paradigm. There has been considerable support from psychology and, more recently, neuroscience for the notion that human beings are socially responsive by nature and that all learning is social. Recent research suggests that humans respond to computer screens similarly to the way they respond to each other. Our responsiveness to screens has moved from text through noise, movement, simulated people and on to web 2.0, or social networking.

Teacher responsiveness has only recently been recognised as a critical component in successful student learning, especially the learning of discourse norms. Responsiveness is about instructional conversations orchestrated by a teacher – and nothing can replace a really excellent human teacher, Carla argued. We need to refocus CALL on what excellent teachers do – on the instructional conversations by which they teach, and on creating instructional conversations that render our machines and screens optimally responsive. It is the person on the other end who is responsive, not the machine.

Sociocultural CALL acknowledges language growth and learning via the recreational web 2.0. There is a lot of language, responsiveness and literacy – social literacy – on which language teachers can capitalise here. We have to get our heads around this kind of social literacy. A sociocultural view of CALL sees teacher-orchestrated instructional conversations with students, on screens, as essential. It’s not sufficient to just send students off to practise by themselves; rather, teachers need to respond to teachable moments, to who learners are, to their needs. The pedagogical implications are extensive. The machine is now at the service of human instructional interactions – and that means, at the service of really excellent language educators. Sociocollaborative CALL, Carla concluded, is about humanware and teacherware to which learners are optimally responsive. Teachers ultimately need to embrace this technology because it can amplify and extend their already excellent practices.

Carla opened her paper, The language of teaching well with digital learning objects, with a quote by Andrea diSessa: “Information is a shockingly limited form of knowledge” (Changing Minds, 2000). She then went on to discuss digital learning objects, which she described as designed to be under student control and open to exploration. They are dynamic and multimodal, so the term is not used to refer to static worksheets, pages of text or overheads. These learning objects can be seen as:

• public
• anarchic
• malleable
• unstable
• providing anchored referents

Appropriate instructional conversation involves thinking and speaking that is:

• joined in a dialectic way
• dynamic, generative, process-oriented
• cumulative with the goal of shared, mutually generated understanding

Teacher strategies might include saturating; linguistic traps; modelling; form-focused feedback; and providing linguistic/thinking tools.

Carla offered a number of oral synchronous examples. When a student is searching for a particular vocabulary item, the teacher can draw visual cues from a databank or quickly Google an image (which will become an increasingly important skill for teachers). This can be done not only in a face-to-face classroom, but in a virtual classroom in Second Life. Oral asynchronous examples can include models of physical gestures, or threaded asynchronous voice conversations where, with the help of images, the teacher provides cues and responses.

In his plenary, Tom Robb asked: Can we still call CALL CALL? Referring to Stephen Bax’s notion of normalisation, he pointed out that computers are now becoming everyday tools. Using Wordle diagrams, he showed that terms such as ‘CALL’ and ‘computer’ are no longer mentioned very often in conference paper titles or abstracts; the emphasis has shifted from the tools themselves (which are slowly disappearing as a focus) to the processes (collaboration, etc). He suggested that it might be better to change the term ‘CALL’, since people are less conscious of the role of computers as normalisation sets in; anyone can do CALL but they don’t necessarily see it as their primary interest; and often we’re not actually using computers any more but mobile technologies.

The new game in town, Tom suggested, is access outside the classroom. This is important, given the high number of hours required to progress at higher levels of language learning – especially as we tend to give students fewer contact hours as they advance. In other words, we need to increase the number of language contact hours without increasing class time. CALL outside the classroom wasn’t possible as an integral class component until recently – but universal access is now a reality in many areas and expanding rapidly elsewhere, and tracking is possible. Tracking makes the difference between making CALL material available and using the material effectively. Technology can be an ‘enforcer’, by tracking students’ use of material. If material can’t be tracked, teachers should use alternative means of keeping students accountable, like printed copies or screenshots.

There are different kinds of self-access: true self-access by motivated, independent learners; recommended self-access, where a teacher recommends that a student needs practice in a particular area; required access, where access counts for grades; and class access, where everyone is working in a lab. Only the last two are really viable with dependent learners. Tom argued that we shouldn’t try to eliminate more restricted CALL drill exercises, where the teacher steps out of the picture, suggesting these can be valuable for some students in some contexts. That means the teacher can save class time for non-CALL work in areas where teacher presence is important.

He finished with the following summary list of conclusions:

• Use of technology is shifting from a focus on the tools to a focus on procedures
• Use is shifting from in-class use to out-of-class use
• Out-of-class use requires suitable tools to monitor and encourage use
• Result: more contact with the language and improved language skills
• Need for academic societies to help teachers use effectively those aspects of technology that they are starting to take for granted.

The 3-paper symposium Meeting places for the local and the global? Telecollaboration and intercultural learning on web 2.0 focused on the advantages and disadvantages of telecollaboration, and the need for new literacies and new understandings of intercultural interaction.

Sarah Guth and Fran Helm began by discussing the need for changing definitions of culture (with the rise of online cultures) and literacy (with the rise of digital literacy) – and the need for a concept of second generation telecollaboration, involving three domains (Byram’s five savoirs, they argued, need to be complemented by the CEFR foreign language skills and new online literacies) and three dimensions (operational, cultural and critical).  They then went on to offer a practical example, the Soliya Connect Program, a telecollaboration project involving students in the West and in the Arab and Muslim world.

In my paper, entitled Web 2.0 ::: Space 3.0, I argued that in a rapidly globalising world, it is vital for educators to help students develop intercultural competence and, more specifically, epistemological humility (Ess, 2007) – essentially, the recognition that their own perspective on the world is not the only one. Drawing on the work of Bhabha, Kramsch and others, I briefly described the notion of an intercultural third space, before going on to describe an educational third space, defined as a third space purposely fostered in an educational context for educational purposes, and governed by social constructivist principles of deconstruction and reconstruction of knowledge and understanding. In the best cases, the mediated interaction which takes place in such a space can lead to intercultural learning and a growth in epistemological humility. I finished up by examining a series of web 2.0 and web 2.0-related tools (discussion boards, blogs, wikis and virtual worlds), showing how they can be used as platforms for the emergence of an educational third space, and outlining some examples of successful practice from language learning programmes around the world.

Marie-Noëlle Lamy rounded off the symposium in a paper which asked: Is ‘interculturalism’ an obstacle to telecollaboration 2.0? She pointed out that there are in fact numerous tensions and failures in telecollaboration projects, many of which are not necessarily linked to either ‘language’ or ‘culture’ per se. Reporting on a recent collection of essays co-edited with Robin Goodfellow, she indicated that three main themes had emerged:

• individuals and their self-image (which is not necessarily connected to nationality or culture in any simple way – individual psychology often comes across more strongly than ethnicity)
• the ‘imagined community’ (people are influenced by the rules of the imagined community to which they belong, as well as the understanding they construct of the online community)
• the tool: neither neutral or passive (tools carry cultural assumptions and may not be culturally appropriate in all contexts)

The overarching theme, then, was not so much how ‘to communicate’ online but how ‘to be’ online.  Conclusions to be drawn for teaching include:

• the need to move from culture-as-essence to culture-as-construction
• the need to redefine ‘local’ conditions as > 1^st click to last click (i.e., local = local to the online situation)
• the need to look out for the many, unexpected cultural strata that impact on the intercultural life of a student group.

Technologies continue to be widely explored, exploited and developed.  In his paper, Not alone: Developing a model for a new Consortium for Language Teaching and Learning, Andrew Ross described the US-based Consortium for Language Teaching and Learning, consisting of Ivy League schools and other US institutions, which existed from 1987-2009 to support language learning. A task force constituted in 2008-2009 reviewed the purpose of the Consortium, which now consists of seven members. The plan is to share curricula, courses and instruction and pool resources between institutions, especially to promote the learning of less widely taught languages. This may involve distance and/or blended learning, which is different from the traditional face-to-face model typical at these institutions. Institutions will thus be able to contribute in different areas (providing instruction, resources and/or students) in different languages.

In his paper, Developing an intelligent reading system for vocabulary learning, Glenn Stockwell observed that language teachers cannot always be aware of which vocabulary their students don’t know. He described the development of an intelligent system to create individualised vocabulary exercises for students depending on which hyperlinked words they clicked on in online reading exercises.

In Digital mentoring for student teachers, Peter Gobel focused on using technology as a mentoring tool, where mentoring is defined as a relationship where there is transmission of knowledge and experience alongside relevant psychosocial support. Describing teacher training programmes in Japan, Gobel noted that trainee teachers on school placements often find there is a clash of educational philosophies with their host teachers, and they have little peer support available. One possible solution involves peers and near peers providing feedback during placements, by using an online space to create a digital community for discussion, problem solving and general support and encouragement.

Advantages for students include: such a space is accessible (including from mobile phones), builds up an archive of material over time, and allows communication and engagement with peers. Advantages for the programme include: the space can be used for debriefing, teacher trainers can use it for monitoring and trouble-shooting, and because an archive is built up it can be used to better tailor the programme for future students. A useful strategy involves students recording thoughts in a daily diary, reviewing their diaries, and reflecting on their teaching in groups and as individuals. Results of a pilot project have been positive, with trainee teachers exchanging and analysing ideas as a group.

In the paper Improving English language and computer literacy skills, co-authored with Jeong-Bae Son, Henriette van Rensburg spoke about developing language and computer literacy skills for refugees, with particular reference to Sudanese refugees in Australia. At the start the refugees in the pilot group had no idea what kinds of activities they could do with computers and needed instruction in basic functions, but they were extremely keen to learn and made good progress both in computing skills and associated key language. Internet images were extremely helpful for deciphering vocabulary. The participants were particularly interested in images of Sudan, around which they were able to share stories and memories. Rensburg concluded that the net provided authentic materials that enhanced language learning and computer skills, and noted that the researchers were impressed by how participants improved their computer literacy in a short space of time.

In the closing colloquium, participants commented positively on the mix of presenters and presentations at the conference, but also reflected on the need to find additional ways to reach out to greater numbers of local teachers in conference locations.  Next year’s GloCALL venue has been announced as Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.

Course: E-learning
Hong Kong, 30 June – 5 July 2009

I’ve just finished teaching a Master’s level unit on e-learning in Hong Kong for third year running.  There can’t be a better place to talk about digital technologies in education, with such a technologically wired population inhabiting such a technologically wired urban landscape. Of course, I’m continually reminded that using technology for social and entertainment purposes in everyday life is not the same as using it for pedagogical and professional purposes, so that there’s still always a lot of ground to cover in such courses.  But what really struck me this year, looking back to the first course I taught here two years ago, is that around 50% of my teaching material is different now from what it it was then.  That in turn is a reminder both of how fast the technology is developing, as well as how fast our understanding of the technology is having to develop to keep pace with it.  Perhaps more than any other courses, e-learning courses can necessarily only provide a base level of understanding and familiarity with key tools, on which participants can continue to build as technology, and our underrstanding of it, keeps evolving at breakneck speed.