L & B: The study reveals that the main challenge regarding the use of new technologies is the teachers and trainers themselves. How can they be supported and encouraged?
Pavlos Koulouris: In my view, the same applies in language education as in all education: innovation cannot be imposed; the take-up of technology in language classrooms cannot be the result of a top-down process following a central decision. Teachers’ trust and personal investment in the innovation are prerequisites. However, there are indeed many language teachers who resist allowing new technological applications in their teaching practices.
As our study showed, there are many reasons for this. Teachers often feel daunted by the speed of technological development, which may threaten their relationship with learners who may be more skilled. And the application of new technologies in learning implies fundamental changes for the role of the teacher – changes that are not always addressed in professional training programmes. But even more importantly, language educators are often resistant to using technologies that do not reflect what they consider to be current pedagogical best practice. In my view, this is due to a tendency that has been evident in most of the history of ICT in education: developments tend to be led by technology rather than pedagogy. Pedagogical best practice and innovation simply do not keep pace with - and are not integrated into - technological innovation and change. This makes many educators suspicious of the hype around emerging new media and technologies.
So, in short I would say that on the one hand, we need better professional development opportunities for teachers, and just as important, on the other hand, we need more pedagogically grounded ICT and new media applications for language learning.
L & B: In recent years, trainers and learners have faced rapid developments and overwhelming new trends. Do you think the challenge for the teachers is a matter of generation?
Pavlos Koulouris: The distinction between “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” has become a standard component of this discussion. Digital natives are those born in the age of digital technologies; digital immigrants are people who grew up without digital technology and adopted it later.
However, we have to be careful in the ways we use this distinction as a tool for explaining the patterns of penetration of ICT and new media into the world of language learning. As our study points out, research is appearing that suggests the view that the ‘net generation’ is more technologically skilled than prior generations may be misguided. In reality, learners may be nowhere near as adept with new media as assumed. And in reality, many people, including language teachers, who are considered ‘immigrants’ in the digital world are far from technophobic. Our online survey has consistently shown a high level of ICT use in the everyday lives of some older people for various purposes, including learning and teaching and language learning and teaching in particular. Nevertheless, it is a fact that many members of younger generations are more than comfortable with the digital media. They live with them, and they even live in them for an important proportion of their time.
In any case, keeping in mind that this generation gap is not as clear-cut as it seems, I personally agree that today’s younger teachers tend to be more positive towards the use of new technologies and media in their teaching. However, I believe teachers’ trust in ICT and new media as effective pedagogical tools is a far stronger factor in determining their choices with regard to technological innovation in their professional practices, than their generation, or their familiarity and confidence with the technologies.
L & B: One other point mentioned in the results of the research was that SMEs and bigger companies do not see the advantages new technologies can bring them. Cost is the main argument that stands in the way. How can they be encouraged to use new technologies?
Pavlos Koulouris: It would be reasonable to assume that globalisation, the changing nature of employment and employability, and the “mobility of labour” would prompt language-training activity among employers. Our study reported that, although the value of additional skills and the impact of changing markets and globalisation are acknowledged by employers, it is individuals who increasingly take personal responsibility for their development, seeking to improve opportunities and life chances for themselves.
As far as the use of e-learning is concerned, in most contexts that our study looked into, we found that company language training rarely uses new technologies. The advantages of ICT and new media are often not understood. Cost is often, as you are saying, the argument against ‘experimentation’ with new technologies in corporate language training. The expectation among employers remains that any investment in language learning on their part should take place within limited time frames and with maximum effectiveness in line with commercial returns. The main concern is to optimise restricted training budgets. This is much more the case in times of crisis, as corporate and commercial organisations of all sizes tend to cut costs and especially training and updating programmes in times of economic constraint.
I think the language-learning “market players” (language content and learning-service providers) have so far failed to understand this. Concomitantly, they have failed to show and explain to employers the benefits and potential cost effectiveness of implementing technologies for language learning in terms of time and financial investment. In particular, I think, the language-learning providers have to find ways to show their potential clientele in the corporate world that the use of state-of-the-art language-learning ICT and new media can offer wider and more flexible solutions for the personal and professional development of staff.
Let’s think, for instance, of Web2.0 and the relatively new interest in personal learning environments (PLEs) emerging in the e-learning domain. This interest is motivated by the increasing understanding of learning being a lifelong personal process that extends beyond the borders of individual courses and learning providers. The strength of the PLE concept is that it intends to bring together learning that takes place in a range of contexts: at home, in the workplace, within formal learning programmes, or through personal interest. Created and developed by learners themselves, PLEs increase the learners’ control over their own learning processes, thus helping them to establish their personal educational goals.
I would ask HR and training managers in companies to consider whether such a flexible, personal way of supporting their staff’s personal and professional development is in reality as far from their companies’ policies and priorities as many think. And perhaps even more importantly, I would ask providers of language-learning products and services if they have been able to move fast enough to make use of the new opportunities arising, so as to be ready to offer, and convince potential clients about innovative language training solutions in this direction.
L & B: Did the results of the study surprise you? Which result did you find most exciting?
Pavlos Koulouris: I personally see our study as an intense but rewarding fight with time and information flow on many fronts in a field that seemed to be in continuous development. I could think of many aspects of our findings from the field that did not perfectly match with our, or, I would say, the typical presuppositions. If I had to choose one, I would say that I was positively surprised to find that there are many older people out there, primarily pensioners, who use the internet and new media a lot – and one of their main interests is in language learning! I have to say, though, that this is more common in Germany than in Greece.
L & B: How do you assess the impact of the survey?
Pavlos Koulouris: There were many positive reactions while we were carrying out the research, and these have continued following the publication of its results by the EC last January. Many agree that this was a very timely study that highlighted frequently ignored issues in the area of ICT-enabled language learning at the European level, such as the importance of informal lifelong learning in today’s world. A lot of developments were in progress in the field while we were carrying out our study. We only managed to take a snapshot of some, and I am sure we missed others. But this study is clearly opening up ways for policy making, as well as for further research.
L & B: Where do you personally see advantages of the new technologies for language learning? What do you do to keep up to date?
Pavlos Koulouris: I would like to underline that, while the term ‘language learning’ carries connotations of formal language instruction, in reality, a great deal of language learning happens incidentally outside classrooms in everyday contexts that afford the learner meaningful exposure to authentic language in use and negotiation of meaning with others. Informal language learning is an area that receives less attention in the world of language education than it deserves in the context of the contemporary focus on learning as a lifelong, ubiquitous process. While informal learning in other subject areas such as science is gaining attention, language education has been reluctant to focus on what and how language learners learn outside the classroom: I see a need to build bridges between informal and formal language-learning experiences.
At the same time, the new and emerging socio-technological realities shaped by the rapid evolution of the internet are forming an unprecedented context of ubiquitous multilingualism surrounding the user of new media. Getting involved with written or oral communication with a native speaker of another language, reading what interests you, listening to the news or to songs, expressing your thoughts in another language, comparing the text you are reading with its version in another language in multilingual portals, translating with automatic translators and ”correcting” the output of the machine, all these and much more have now become a reality for many web users, who gain linguistic competences incidentally every day, beyond and away from the traditional language-learning provision. And that includes myself too, even if I spend some of my time teaching language formally in classrooms. Obviously, informal language learning happening through the new media and in the new social-networking contexts of the internet is an area of both huge potential, and, paradoxically, of still too little attention.
Mr Koulouris, many thanks for your time!
April 14th, 2010
Quick Links
