Analysing the benefits of techno-tools

A series of questions, rather than answers, but an interesting short video nonetheless. Are there any real benefits to playing around in virtual worlds?

In the video, Dave White questions the use of mature philosophy students swimming with sharks and having seminars as spacemen or blue dragons in a fairy-tale castle. I'm not sure I can see the validity of this, but if the students were learning a language and taking the opportunity to practise by interacting in the virtual environment then I can see the potential, particularly if there is a lack of opportunity to interact in their personal non-digital context.

All in all, I suppose it's like evaluating any tool, whether digital or not. We should always ask ourselves: What are the 'affordances' of this tool? How can it help my learners and I? Is it the best way there is, or at least better than what I'm doing now? Or is it equally useful yet through it's difference could provide a motivational opportunity?

I think asking ourselves these questions is a helpful antidote to any polemical argument as to whether technological tools should be added to our teaching toolbox.

Lang8 - A language learning community

Lang-8, which I found here, is an interesting new piece of social media that could be very useful for encouraging learner autonomy and giving students the opportunity to engage in personalised writing practice. You can type journal entries in the language that you are learning and the idea is that native speakers will provide correction - 'social correction'! Also, as it is an interactive, cooperative environment, you can play the teacher and correct other learners' writing. 

I haven't had a chance to try the site out myself, but it immediately struck me as a fantastic idea, bringing social interaction, journal writing and peer correction together. 

LetterPop - Simple Newsletter Creator

Here's one I made earlier.

I have found a simple, free tool for creating newsletters - basically a magazine-style page with a background theme and space for text and pictures to be included. I think it could offer a creative option for a writing project with young learners or adults as well, for that matter. It's called LetterPop. 

Users need to register, but it's easy to use and there's not much that can go wrong, which is a good start. Also, there are a number of background themes to choose from. Fonts can be altered, but the options are not limitless and photos can be uploaded - either your own or from flickr, or your own from flickr I suppose!

I don't think that anything done on LetterPop would be too difficult to (more or less) replicate with software such as Powerpoint or Word. However, with LetterPop the work can be published and viewed by others. The site also has a social element through its inclusion of a commenting feature and a link is provided so the work could be accessed from a class blog or wiki.

I think it is a good thing that the design options are limited. Kids will mess about all day with visual tools and although these things are important and motivating in such a design project, it's the text itself that the teacher is trying to focus on. So, it offers creativity, but is controlled. The text itself can be written in Word or notepad first and then copied into the design page on LetterPop.

The page can be saved and published (although the default setting is private) which allows other LetterPop users to comment. This could be done by the teacher, classmates or perhaps another class - in another country even, if a link-up has been arranged. As with many things, I suppose there's the possibility of weirdos posting comments and it seems that comments can't be deleted, but then I believe kids should be taught about these dangers rather than just being banned from the open web. All in all, considering you have to be signed up to comment and that there's no search function on the site, it would seem unlikely that anyone other than those directed to the page itself would even find it, let alone comment.


In the free option, up to 10 pages can be saved. This would allow students to create a number of these mini-projects during a school year and then review them to analyse their previous work. In fact, one of the key affordances for me is the fact that even after publishing the page can be revisited at a later date to be edited. Also, I almost forgot, there's a print option too, if you want a paper copy for a portfolio or a wall display, or whatever. You can watch some short introductory videos here.

There you go! I reckon this is certainly worth having a look at, particularly if you're worried about using some of the more complex web tools in class, or maybe if your students are low level techies, then this could be the thing for you! 

Are native speaker models so important?

How important is it for students to be learning from a so-called native model of English speaking? It's something that Henrick Oprea raises in his blog, and it provoked this piece from me; far too big to include as a comment on Rick's site! He writes about being unsure about not following a traditional native speaker model, which is fair enough, as debate continues. I've been thinking about this recently though and would like to share some thoughts.

Students all over the world have been following different native speaker models for years, depending on the origins of the teacher. I think it's important to raise the students' awareness of a variety of accent possibilities, including those of other non-native speakers. Research suggests that most learners of English will be communicating with other non-natives, rather than native speakers. So, in terms of teaching, as usual, it depends on the context, and students planning to live in English L1 environments might need a greater focus on 'natural' English, though what exactly this natural English is leads to another debate. Which country will they live in? In which specific area? Let's hypothesise: the UK, in the north. Whereabouts? Perhaps Newcastle, York, Leeds, Carlisle, Manchester, Liverpool, or Hull?! If you don't know these places, just ask anyone who does and they'll tell you that there's a difference between each one! In comparison with the rest of the native English speaking world this is a tiny part, yet it contains a wide variety of accents, just ask the English southerners. Popular jokes and comedy suggest they can't even understand northerners properly, so how exactly can a foreigner be 'trained' to? Have a look at this native speaker model!

Also, it's not just about accents. The teaching of phrasal verbs, idioms and slang, as Rick mentions, is often considered to be the domain of the NEST, something a NNEST doesn't have the knowledge to teach. This attitude informs students' preference and institutions' recruitment. However, what's the point? Which of the following would it be worth teaching, in their slang sense? Plonker, divvy, tool, pillock, cool, sick, rad, bogus, raging, mental, out of it, geezer, dude, chick, babe or minger. In fact, the significance of slang words is not only geographical, but temporal. Merely by listing these words I'm possibly betraying my age as well as 'slanguistic' knowledge! By the way, with regard to idioms, we never say 'raining cats and dogs', really! It's rubbish!

Phrasal verbs are in much more common and standardised usage than idioms and slang, so their importance is greater. However, idiomatic English, including slang, is so diverse, regionally and internationally, that I just don't really see the purpose of focussing on it; raising awareness at higher levels, yes, or explaining if a student notices, but otherwise there are more important things to focus on, despite the fact that some students may think it necessary.

Such a focus on the specifics of accent and dialect surely must wait until a learner has actually gone to live in a particular place, then they can try to immerse themselves in the dialectal specifics of the region. Of far greater importance in my opinion, would be ensuring that the learner has the intercultural competence to cope with their interactions in this new environment. Furthermore, they should have been guided in the use of relevant conversation strategies that will enable them to negotiate understanding in difficult linguistic situations, during which their basic listening abilities may simply not be enough to fully understand the native speaker.

I think that with regard to native accents, slang and idioms, while they make a language truly what it is, the ability and the need to teach them is of little importance in the grand scheme of things, therefore further undermining the relevance and importance of a NEST teacher. So, I guess what I'm saying is that the perceived advantages of being a NEST are really not that advantageous at all. As Rick says, it's about whether or not you are a teacher, and all real teachers know what they're doing and what their students need. What's more, they're always on the lookout for ways of improving. These are the factors that recruiters should be looking for, not what it says on someone's passport.

A quote that I had to share

I came across this yesterday while reading a thoroughly engaging book that some of you may have encountered if you have a liking for applied linguistics, I'll reveal the reference later, but first the quote:

"...learning an additional language is about enhancing one's repertoire of fragments and patterns that enables participation in a wider array of communicative activities. It is not about building up a complete and perfect grammar in order to produce well-formed sentences. Speakers are able to regularly shape their communicative artifacts to fit their own meaning-making needs. Grammar is at their service not the other way around." (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006:17, highlighting is my own)

I was going to write a few things about how this is such a great explanation of grammar, but I don't think I need to add anything, though I would love you to comment below, obviously!

Do you agree? Is there something you'd like to take issue with? Is there something missing? 

Lantolf, J. P. and Thorne, S. L. (2006) Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development Oxford: Oxford University Press

Grammar - is it a dirty word?

The #eltchat discussion today was about grammar - if, what, how, when etc etc.

It never ceases to amaze me how many differing opinions there are amongst teachers on every single argument regarding grammar. However, read up on the subject academically and many of the same points reappear, with research to support opposing beliefs. So who's right? Well don't look at me for the answers, sorry!

Here in no particular order, are some tweets that caught my attention today. Like I said, I certainly don't have answers to the big questions surrounding grammar teaching, but I am always full of questions that I like to ask myself, so I'm going to think out loud, as it were, on this post. I want to stress that I'm not trying to suggest anyone is wrong or right, I'm merely contrasting, questioning and reflecting upon my own experience and sharing it here so that it's open to feedback.

It what context? Are you sitting there now? Are you the director of a play demonstrating to an actor? Are you using the modern sense of the tense to talk about the past while putting the listener in the present? Let's go with the last one.


For me, this is an example of colloquial English of a modern variety that would be considered incorrect by many native speakers. It could be said to have an element of 'chav' about it. I can almost hear Vicky Pollard. Do we need to teach this? Are these learners living or going to be living in an English environment or interacting mainly with other non-NSs? Will it help them pass their exam? Will it confuse them?

I think so, yes. It has been proven with research based on people who have migrated to different language environments and acquired the language without any formal instruction. But then again, what is 'knowing grammar'? Even without formal instruction a learner recognises the grammar of his or her L1, despite perhaps not being able to explain its structure. A learner will naturally compare and contrast one language with another, notice patterns, employ deductive reasoning, translate and transfer from one to another, in order to make sense of the new language. While not necessarily 'teaching' grammar explicitly, surely we should be guiding the students through these processes of cognition and developing their metacognitive strategies in order that they can acquire the language more rapidly. I think this must be of even greater importance when the learner is not in an English speaking environment.

While I agree that this is perhaps the ideal, the problem for me here is that in most teaching contexts there simply isn't any possibility of any exposure, let alone 'massive' exposure. Interestingly, the teachers on my MA course whose beliefs seem most heavily reliant on grammar teaching are those who teach in contexts where there is little possibility of exposure outside the classroom, so for them, grammar is compensating for this deficiency.

Obviously not, but then can we compare the learning of L1 to L2? It's surely a dangerous comparison. Also, young learners and adults have very different learning processes. Adults have pre-existing knowledge and attitudes that can get in the way, or support learning. I'm pretty sure that grammar in isolation doesn't work, but I'm not sure there are many teachers suggesting such an approach.

I disagree, I think. 'Give me a fish' is fostering learner autonomy, an ability to learn for oneself. A knowledge of grammar can't possibly do this. Learners need much more than grammar, particularly well developed metacognition, thus giving them the ability to reflect on their learning and make informed decisions as to how they can overcome difficulties.

I am more inclined to agree with the quote below, regarding the function of grammar in learning.







Here's a good one!

In the ideal world, in the classrooms and schools we'd probably all like to teach in communication would be number one. But what about those pesky exams?! State education is commonly blamed as being a big problem here. There was reference during #eltchat to the German grammar oriented system, but what about the ESOL/EFL world - the Use of English paper in the Cambridge exams, for example? As mentioned by @bcnpaul1 during the chat.

The things is, again, I don't think anyone is saying that there is an argument of grammar versus communication. I would perhaps agree with this: @efl101 As an L2 learner who became fluent, I felt grmr was like gaining strong bones – flesh came later

With this, I totally agree. The idea that grammar is boring is entirely false; it's not 'what' it's 'how'.

I recognise Gavin's ideas from the dogme debates, but I reckon that he's talking about doing this while living in the L2 environment. If this is not the case, then can grammar translation really help? If the students want it, should the teacher persuade gently against or accept this opinion and work with it? If so, how would you try to bridge the gap between this method and communicative fluency? It's a tricky question!

In contrast to Gavin, this is a more unplugged approach, which I tend to agree with. Scaffolding the language as it emerges rather than imposing grammar upon them just because it comes next in the book. Of course a difficulty is that with groups the students all have a different interlanguage and are ready for different things making it more challenging to ensure all the different students' needs are met.

I disagree, but I would agree that when non-native speakers use archaic grammar from an out of date coursebook, or formal grammar in the wrong context then that's possibly the issue here; it isn't grammar, it's appropriacy.

Here I'd say that the learner has acquired this grammatical structure, but it has not become automatic. However, she probably believes that in order to acquire the structure she needs to learn the grammar first, so she can monitor its use, which through practise will lead to acquisition. Of course Krashen suggests that is is never going to happen. I quite like this overview of Krashen's theories here.

Arch-dogmeist Karenne Sylvester makes a great point here, which to me highlights the danger of an over-reliance on grammar and also demonstrates why grammar is not the be all and end all of language teaching. Unfortunately, a dependence on grammar is something that occurs in some teachers, learners, parents, coursebooks, exams and institutions.

To conclude this public brainstorm, in my humble opinion, grammar is just a bunch of rules that can sometimes be used to help make sense of a language, which to be honest, after all that, I'm reminded of this.




Here is the link to the #eltchat transcript for the grammar discussion.

Can children teach themselves?

If you are not aware of him yet, Sugata Mitra is a professor who has been carrying out some extremely interesting research in the field of educational science. I must admit that I came across his latest TED talk via the dogme yahoo group, where I am a lurking reader and very much enjoy the informed debate that occurs there.

jscreationzs / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The research is all about children learning to do things by themselves and the progress that the children make in the research experiments is extraordinary. The only adult involvement has been Mitra's presence for some projects as a questioner and some volunteer grandmothers helping in a support and motivation capacity! I remember watching him talk about his 'Hole in the Wall' research in a Delhi slum last year sometime and found it absolutely fascinating. He has now carried the research further and has received some astonishing results, which, as he admits, seem unbelievable. In this research project, groups of children in the Delhi slum, who had never used or even seen a computer, learnt how to browse the internet, download files and play games in only a few days, with no help or training and no adults even present, let alone teachers. Mitra quotes the late Arthur C. Clarke, who was interested in the project and stated powerfully that "children learn very quickly to do things that interest them, and when you've got interest, you've got education".


There is already some debate within the dogme group concerning the reliability and relevance of this work and it is only right that we should react critically to information we are exposed to, the man himself even admits that one of his peer-reviewers commented that the results were difficult to believe. At face value though, his results provide insights that have the potential to initiate major change in the world of education. The video is embedded below and I urge any teacher to watch this and also the talk on the original Delhi project above. I have started reflecting on how autonomous group tasks could be used in a young learners English classroom and I suggest you do too!