Finally we reached the “main attraction” of the Symposium: Pete Sharma’s keynote presentation “New developments in language teaching and learning in the digital age”. As the founder and Director of Training of PSA, as well as being the author of the best-known book on integrating technology with language learning,
Blended Learning (written with Barney Barrett), Pete’s reputation goes before him; and yet, as a public speaker, he is incredibly down to earth and is at pains to avoid the kind of hype that is often associated with web 2.0 and technology in general.
He started by describing some of the various hats he wears (apart from his PSA one) including his work as an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) lecturer at Warwick University.
 |
| PSA Symposium 2012 at the British Consulate-General, Milan |
Referring to the difficulties earlier on in the Symposium, Pete said that there will always be technical problems, however advanced the technology gets. How we manage those problems is as much a part of the process of changing habits and attitudes as is the actual introduction of the technology itself.
Pete sketched out the main structure of his talk. Following an overview of blended learning, he would introduce a number of statements, take a critical analysis of several technologies, and then consider some current controversies concluding with practical ideas about effective, successful blended learning.
Picking up on many of the themes in the earlier talks Pete invited us to step back and take a critical look at blended learning and the use of technology in education in general. This is indeed a new era, and yet the basic needs of students (and teachers) have not fundamentally changed. While technology has brought new opportunities as well as challenges, it is very much a tool to be used to help students rather than an end in itself. The choice of technology and its implementation are key questions for any teaching and learning organisation; however, the key questions will always remain the same: how do we help our students learn, what is the most effective way of organising the language learning classroom – and how do we keep our students motivated and inspired to learn?
 |
| Technology adoption lifecycle by Bohlen, Beal and Rogers |
The increased use of technology has, though, changed and complicated the language learning - and teaching – environment. Teachers must now also be adroit in exploiting technology and yet, as was mentioned several times during the Symposium, students tend to be more familiar and comfortable with hi-tech than teachers (although Pete questioned whether the “digital immigrants v digital natives” tag is now falling out of favour). Another crucial aspect of blended learning is that technology is constantly evolving and there will always be innovators, early adopters and digital laggards (as suggested in Rogers’s Bell Curve) with the majority of people somewhere in the middle.
As web 1.0 gives way to web 2.0, user generated content (UGC) is becoming the norm (as we saw in all three of the previous speakers’ talks). Content is becoming more collaborative and social and extends well beyond the classroom.
Blended learning can be viewed from multiple perspectives: students, teachers, schools, publishes, authors and, of course, the various players in the technology industry. Who is driving the push towards the increased use of technology? Who stands to benefit most? Are we moving too fast – or not fast enough? These are questions that have to be resolved – and may never be adequately answered.
The only constant in the equation, however, is change itself: the one scenario that can be discounted is that language teaching will stay the same. Technology has already changed irrevocably the way language are taught. Just about every school is wired to a greater or lesser extent (and many, indeed, are wireless). Course books and dictionaries now depend heavily on corpuses and digital wordbanks that tell us in detail how native speakers really use the language (not just how prescriptive grammarians tell us we should us it).
With at least 32 separate definitions of what blended learning actually is, the average language teacher could be forgiven for a sense of confusion often bordering on bewilderment that often greets the term “Blended Learning”. Hardware (often in the form of interactive whiteboards) has been in the vanguard of the revolution, with virtual learning environments (VLEs) and learning management systems (LMSs) following hot on their heels. Is all of this actually necessary? How much demand is there for all this whizzy hi-tech magic? One of the most refreshing things about watching Pete Sharma talk is that he give you the feeling that you are actually in control: by shifting the focus from the hardware and the software to what students and teachers want to achieve you actually feel empowered and able to make much clearer – and better informed – choices that are right for your own teaching environment and students.
Sharma is even healthily cycnical about his own status and the business he is in. Referring to the title of his book
“400 ideas for interactive whiteboards”, co-authored with Barney Barrett and Francis Jones he muses on the figure of 400 - why that number exactly? And what about schools that aren’t equipped with an IWB? His new ebook,
Apptivities (also written with Barrett) helps the professional reader to get on top of another new buzzword technology: m-learning or mobile learning, where students can learn on mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets.
Pete has a very useful visual which crystallizes the “trinity” of the three main concepts in blended learning: it’s an iceberg with the three corners labelled Knowledge, Skills and Attitude. He asks each member of the audience to rate themselves on the their level of digital knowledge / skills – between one and five. Most people fall somewhere in the middle, but of course the most important point of all three is attitude: this is the key determining factor, rather than specific know-how or ability.
Attitude is more important than knowledge and skills because this relates most closely to the fundamental questions: Why do we teach? What’s the best way to teach? How can technology help me to teach better? This isn’t about techniques and tips (although practical expertise is significant, of course). This is about motivation – both the teacher’s motivation and their willingness to embrace new technology that they can use to deliver better teaching and content to their students.
There will, for example, be detailed questions about different types of IWB and basic difficulties: Can you use finger to move things round the board or do you need a special pen? And what’s the best type of board to use? etc). But these depend on having a positive and open attitude in which the teacher is also willing to learn. Some educators may simply be technophobic, but even among the majority there is a healthy scepticism about technology – and, as Pete points out – that’s good. It’s good to be critical of any teaching approach or methodology. Everything we do or bring into the classroom should be assessed critically and we should always be on our guard for fads or unrealistic promises.
 |
| Audience at the PSA Symposium, Milan |
The fact is that we are living through a major paradigm shift in which the teacher as the source of all knowledge is giving way to education as the activity of training learners to learn and discover things for themselves. This too opens up an increasingly wide divide between the digital haves and have-nots. (Pete points out that in Spain, for example, school equipped with the latest digital projectors still have chalk blackboards lurking behind the screens – and they are still used.)
It has taken time for technology to arrive in the classroom. IWBs for example have taken ten years to come through. But there are also some surprising facts about the distribution of technology around the world: Mexico, for example, is the country with the greatest number of IWBs.
Language courses can take various forms, for example students can learn in a traditional face-to-face setting with a teacher present; a blended learning context which involves some face-to-face lessons and interaction with a computer; and distance learning where the whole course is delivered online (possibly with some teaching over an internet connection, e.g. via a video link or Skype, etc).
How important is pedagogy in a blended learning context? Experienced classroom teachers with limited knowledge or experience of technology should never feel stupid when confronted for the first time with a blended learning environment. Instead, they should remain healthily sceptical and ask the questions they would ask about any proposed learning approach or methodology: What is it? So what? How do I use it? Everyone who uses an IWB needs training – and this should be structured into teacher training courses and in-service training. You should never just accept something just because it exists: always question the benefit of new technology and ask “How does this help me to teach more effectively – and how does it enable my students to learn more efficiently and increase their motivation?”
 |
| The way you see blended learning depends on your viewpoint |
The great thing about technology is the affordances it gives to the teacher and learner, i.e. the things it lets you do. Pete quizzed the audience to find out how many people have access to or have use an IWB – the not-necessarily representative sample (since the people present have voted with the feet and attended an event about blended learning) was about a third. Pete looked at some of the pro’s and con’s of IWBs. Firstly, a lesson on an IWB can be more memorable and engaging (if the material is well presented and appropriate). Another advantage is its “saveability”. Once you have created a lesson for an IWB you can just “pull it out of the drawer” and run it. On the down side, IWBs can have quite a steep learning curve – and, of course, they don’t come cheap. As with all types of technology in schools, there is a cost-benefit ratio and the person furthest from classroom has the cheque book.
Schools might get distracted by current debates and fashions surrounding technology (e.g. “Should we get and IWB or wi-fi?” which can end up becoming a kind of “Don’t have fish, have meat” argument). Again, any choice about investing in technology and deploying it in an educational environment should start with the basic question: how does this benefit the learning process and enable both teachers and students? All other considerations should follow on from this fundamental consideration.
Distance learning – perhaps the most “extreme” form of blended learning where the teacher is “in the machine” e.g. on Skype - can actually produce better results with students on distance courses outperforming those doing a conventional, “on-site” course. As Pete emphasises, when you put teachers and technology together you get an equation that is more than the sum of its parts (“1 + 1 > 2”).
Technology when used appropriately and in a way that respects students’ needs and expectations can be highly motivating. New platforms, such as M-learning, where students can access course material via their mobile devices – and also use these in class – can work particularly well, but again, as with all blended learning it has to be “embedded” into a course rather than simply “bolted on” as an extra. It is this ability to truly blend the technology into the learning process that represents the greatest challenge, but also opportunity, for the teaching profession.
As
Nicky Hockley of the Consultants-E has demonstrated, teachers need to be aware of the scales and dimensions involved in m-learning (e.g. depending on whether students are in class or on the move and whether they are using their own devices or equipment provided by the school as class set – e.g. tablets).
Most students no longer carry printed dictionaries around with them: they are far more likely to access an app on their smartphone. Studying on the move, e.g. listening to an IELTS test on a train, for example, is both a natural and motivating way to learn. New and exciting technologies such as Augmented Reality (AR) which allow users to view the world through the “digital lens” of their handheld device (e.g. by displaying text or playing audio when a particular location or object is viewed through the device’s camera) also opens up a whole new dimension of possibilities for educators.
 |
| Switched on to m-learning |
And, of course, there is the big question at the heart of m-learning: is it a good idea for students to be allowed to keep their phones switched on in the language class? Obviously, it will be very difficult to an m-learning activity if the phone is off; but what about if students are always tempted to check their facebook page while in class?
These questions are as much cultural and social as they are pedagogical or even to do with technology. How wired should the classroom be? Do we want “fully-enabled” classes with every possible plug and play device hooked up – or should the classroom be a sanctuary where phones remain taboo and only human communication is allowed? Pete cited
The Flipped Classroom, which takes the line that instruction should take place at home and “homework” should be done in the class: students come to the lesson having already studied the material at home.
Some of the anomalies of blended learning include the fact that productive skills (speaking and writing) have been influenced less by technology than receptive skills (reading and listening). Will this change? Should there be more “heads up” learning in class, where students interact with the teacher and each other while “heads down” activity, such as doing exercises, is reserved for homework (or should this be flipped?)
Collaborative social media such as blogs and wikis can be a great way of encouraging students to write outside of the class, but can also be the focus for in-class teaching. Response devices (such as those described by Valeria in her presentation for
SMART) can give a language class the feel of a “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?”-style quiz programme.
Overall, blended learning has gone from being a buzz word to a range of practical considerations about What? How? Who? Where? etc. Investment in educational technology has been greatest in the public (or “state”) school sector – where the “customers”, i.e. the students, have little say about whether or not they want it and how it should be organised. Universities still lag school in their use of technology for learning. And, of course, in the private language teaching sector many school still lack even the most basic equipment (e.g. IWBs) and there is little or no agreement on questions such as whether m-learning should take place in the class or outside. The debates raging around resources and funding also impact heavily on the uptake of technology in education – but at the same time new generations of students that are perfectly au fait with technology take it for granted that resources will be available online and that learning should fit in with their digital behaviour (which includes ubiquity of access, gaming, messaging and the ability to share anything with anyone). Of course, as more digital natives go into teaching, the sight of the hapless teacher staring with horror at the complex array of buttons and plugs on the desk before them will eventually become trace memory of the educational world.
..............................................................................................
 |
Open Forum at PSA Symposium, Milan 2012
From left to right: Seth Dickens, Paul Rogers, Pete Sharma,
Fabrizio Colombo and Cathy Smith |
Finally, Seth Dickens, e-learning consultant and a PSA associate, chaired the Open Forum where many of the themes raised during the Symposium were widened out to include the thoughts and experiences of the audience.
One question was “Will people still be writing with a pen?” in the future, which took us into the whole debate about the impact technology will have on the way we communicate in general, not just in the language classroom.
Attendees were also keen to discuss the platforms and content they had discovered during the Symposium. Emer Gibson, Sales and Marketing Director of
Engage Language Services (which I have founded with Emer), questioned Paul Rogers about the online safeguards of the
Little Bridge community. Paul pointed to the fact that although all messages created by users typing are monitored, messages composed by using the drop down menus are not moderated. (These can also be a good way of enabling beginners to make sentences.)
The main discussion in the Forum was how useful is technology for students? Does it help language learning? The overall feeling was that it does enable learning, but it has to be used appropriately and teachers have to have the support and training necessary to use it effectively.
The language teaching world is also somewhat behind the game in terms of deploying new technology. One speaker pointed out that if someone had been frozen 100 years ago and was brought back to life, where would be the best place to them out with inducing too much culture shock? A church, maybe? In fact, the ideal location would be the language classroom as it hasn’t really changed in over a century.
Is technology a threat to teachers? Will it eventually replace them? Seth pointed out that technology really provides a set of tools to help teacher; it’s main aim is not to replace human teachers, but to empower them. Luke from
Richmond ELT agreed that there is actually very little research about this question: we just don’t know if doing a drag and drop exercise online is better than filling in the blanks on paper, for example.
There was also some discussion about who is actually driving the push for more technology. Book publishers might seem to have the least motivation – but as Luke and Cathy from Richmond both pointed out online is now inseparable from print as media converges. Technology providers such as SMART obviously have a vested interest, but their success is largely demand-led: they are responding to the growing need felt by schools and teaching organisations for adding greater functionality to the classroom.
Chris Heron, an educational entrepreneur and the founder and CEO of
People Communicate Ltd, an innovative online learning platform, asked how will technology change the business model of the language teaching industry? This is a question that has largely been overlooked in the debates that have raged for and against blended learning, but surely one that will become more pertinent as the use of computer technology and digital media in education becomes the norm.
Finally, Pete Sharma said that new technology always has unexpected consequences and that although the current debates reflect our present concerns, no-one can say for certain what the impact will be in the future of the “digital revolution” that is currently taking place in the language teaching world (and beyond).
......................................................................................................
Following a thoroughly informative and lively morning – and having vindicated the role of technology by finally managing to get the presentations running – everyone moved out onto the British Consulate-General’s spacious and elegant terrace, where a buffet and sparkling white wine was served. The networking and discussions were both intense and highly useful.
A special mention should be made for Francesca Amami, Trade Assistant, UK Trade & Investment at the British Consulate-General Milan for her splendid effort in handling the invitations. Valeria Notari, Senior Trade Advisor and Head of E&T Unit, UK Trade & Investment Italy was also involved in the preparation for this highly successful event.
In conclusion, this was a very worthwhile and well-designed event that gave everyone present a great deal of insight into the impact of new technology on the language learning world. We look forward to seeing Pete Sharma – and everyone else involved in the Symposium – back in Milan very soon.
 |
| Buffet and informal networking at the British Consulate-General, Milan |
