Chapter 2

From implications to application

If the first step for teachers is to recognise new literacies, the second is to integrate them
into everyday lessons. After introducing two mutually supporting frameworks for
incorporating new technologies into teaching, this chapter suggests many examples of
activities under each of the four main focus points described in the last chapter (see
Chapter 1: A framework of digital literacies). While the main emphasis is on teaching
and learning English, most activities can be easily adapted for different language
learning or communication contexts. As a teacher, you can pick and choose from the
activities, adapting them to your own context and confidence level, as you begin
integrating digital literacies with your teaching of language and conventional literacy
skills.

Box 2.ι Will new technologies improve mv students* learning?

Conclusive evidence of whether new technologies improve teaching and learning is elusive. The
No Significant Difference phenomenon, established in Thomas Russell’s review of hundreds of
studies dating back to 1928, shows that new technologies generally do little harm. Actual
improvements are much harder to demonstrate. Researchers note that it all depends on what we
measure. Educational benefits may not always be reflected in traditional assessments: an exam
focused on print literacy, for example, tells us little about students’ digital literacies (see Chanter
3: Assessing digital work, for ideas on assessing other literacies).

Nevertheless, those studies which do find significant differences tend to find improvements with
the use of technology. This is the conclusion reached in Russell’s review of studies from the
past few decades, as well as in a landmark 2009 US Department of Education report, Evaluation
of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning, based on a review of over l,000 empirical
studies, which found small improvements in online learning relative to face-to-face learning,
with greater improvements still in blended learning (see Box 2.2). But it has been suggested that
improvements in technology-supported courses may be due to the enthusiasm of teachers or the
(re-)design of the courses, rather than the technology itself.

It’s apparent that new technologies can be repurposed to support very different pedagogical
approaches, but the affordances of the technologies do encourage some uses rather than others.
The informational orientation of web 1.0, for example, sat well with transmission and
 behaviourist approaches, while the interactive tools of web 2.0 sit comfortably with
contemporary collaborative, learner-centred approaches like social constructivism, inquiry-
based learning and problem-based learning. Similarly, as noted earlier, many mobile educational
apps are oriented towards consumption, being based on information transmission or drill and
practice exercises, though productive apps which mimic or parallel the creativity and
collaboration of web 2.0 are now appearing (see Chapter 1: First focus: Language, Mobile
literacy). To the extent that web 2.0 tools - and productive mobile apps - bring educational
benefits, it’s more about the accompanying pedagogical approaches than the tools themselves.

■ For more on the No Significant Difference phenomenon, see: Russell (2010).

■ For more on the difficulties of assessing the impact of new technologies on education,
see: Beins (2011); Egbert et. al. (2011);
Liu et al. (2012); Livingstone (2009); Richardson and Mancabelli (2011); Selwyn (2011).

■ For more on the fit between web 2.0 and contemporary pedagogy, see: Pegrum (2009).

The TPACK framework for integrating technology use

The best-known model for incorporating new technologies into teaching is probably
Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) TPACK (originally TPCK) framework, which depicts
teachers’ integrated Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge. Effectively,
it suggests teachers should be aiming to reach a point where their traditional content
and pedagogical knowledge is enhanced by technological knowledge. Perhaps the
most important message of the TPACK framework is that teachers remain content
and pedagogical experts; technological expertise is an additional dimension which
complements rather than replacing or superseding their existing knowledge and
skills base. This important realisation should help lay to rest some common fears
teachers hold about new technologies (see Box 2.2). Naturally, as the framework also
suggests, the optimal educational effects come from the integration of teachers’ CK,
PK and TK. Given that certain technologies sit most easily with certain pedagogies
(see Box 2.1), there is some circularity of influence in the overall teaching ecology,
but as a general rule we would argue that content and pedagogy should take primacy
over technology in curriculum design and lesson planning.
The TPACK model is helpful in framing technology integration in both pre-service
teacher training and in-service professional development courses. But because emerging
technologies are inherently unstable and constantly changing, teachers’ TK - and, by
extension, their integrated TPACK - will have to continue to develop outside formal
courses (Koehler and Mishra, 2008). To help deal with this need for ongoing learning,
PLNs are likely to become an ever more common aspect of teachers’ daily practice (see
Box 2.2).

Box 2.2 Should I be worried about teaching with new technologies?

These are some common beliefs held by teachers who are worried about new technologies. Do you
recognise any of them?

‘Digital technologies will replace pedagogy? Absolutely not. Content and pedagogy come before
technology. We must decide on our content and pedagogical aims before determining whether our
students should use pens or keyboards, write essays or blogs, or design posters or videos.
‘Digital technologies will replace face-to-face teaching.’ Face-to-face and online learning both
have their advantages. Research overwhelmingly recommends blended learning models, which
capitalise on their complementary' strengths (see Box 2.il,

‘Digital technologies will replace teachers.’ In some transmission and behaviourist educational
approaches, this is possible up to a point. In contemporary collaborative approaches, digital
learning spaces may partly replace physical classrooms, but both teachers and students are still
very much present and interacting within these spaces.

‘Digital technologies aren’t designed for education.’ That’s largely true, but they can be very
effectively repurposed for education by teachers who integrate them into their TPACK.

‘Digital technologies cause delays and glitches.’ Sometimes they do. There’s often a temporary
slowdown when we first introduce new technologies to do what we’re used to doing in an
analogue way. Sometimes, too, technologies fail - which was as true of tape recorders and
overhead projectors as it is of computers and digital projectors. Experienced teachers have back-
up plans.

‘Students know more than teachers about digital technologies.’ Despite misleading terms like
digital natives and the net generation, students’ digital skills are patchy and many of them need
support in using technology' for educational purposes (see Box ι.2). However, those students with
more advanced technological skills can be empowered to play' key roles (as technological experts)
in productive learning partnerships with teachers (the content and pedagogical experts). This links
up with what Marc Prensky calls partnering pedagogy in his 2010 book Teaching Digital Natives.
As teachers, we can model lifelong learning as we improve the technological component of our
TPACK through on-the-job experience, which may include learning about technology' from some
of our students.

‘Students want to use digital technologies all the time? Numerous surveys have shown that most
students prefer a moderate amount of technology use in their education, but they do resent
arbitrary' educational policies which shut them off from the wealth of online resources and
communication channels - their incipient PLNs (see Box ι.ιo) - which they are used to accessing
outside the classroom on mobile or other devices.

‘Teachers don’t get enough training on digital technologies? While it’s true that pre-service
teacher education has only recently' begun to focus on digital technologies, in-service professional
development courses are becoming more common. But most teachers learn about new
technologies in a variety of other ways as well: by experimenting with one tool at a time and
gradually building up a repertoire, by learning from digitally able students and, above all, by
seeking ideas and support through their PLNs (see Chapter 4: Building and maintaining PLNs).
Once they see the possibilities for enriching their classes, many' teachers begin to find these
learning experiences addictive!
The SAMR model for evaluating technology use

The SAMR model, developed by Ruben Puentedura (2011), can be used as a complement
to the TPACK framework. It serves as a reminder that some uses of new technologies lead
at most to enhancement of education, while other uses lead to real transformation.

On the lower level, enhancement, some uses of technology may involve substitution
which adds little to the task at hand, like typing an essay on a computer instead of writing
it by hand, or emailing an assignment to a teacher instead of physically handing it in.
Other uses of technology on this level involve augmentation, such as employing word
processing tools like spellcheckers, text search, or formatting options.

On the higher level, transformation, some uses of technology lead to modification, where
a task is significantly reshaped, such as through the embedding of multimedia artefacts
to complement text-based communication in a reflective diary on a blogging platform
(see e.g. Activity 35, Personal blogging). Finally, the greatest transformation is likely to
occur through uses of technology which involve a redefinition, that is, which allow for
completely new tasks that were previously impossible; one example might be the kind of
collaborative process writing - and perhaps even multimodal composition - enabled by
wikis (see e.g. Activity 40, Our city guide). (For further suggestions of tasks at different
levels of SAMR, see Gregory, 2010; Hos-McGrane, 20ii.)

The SAMR Model

Source: Puentedura,
2011
While the educational value of substitutional and augmentative uses of technologies is
limited, they may offer benefits in terms of flexibility and convenience. Indeed, such uses
underpin the recently popular notion of flipped classrooms (e.g. Thompson, 2011;
Tucker, 2012), where traditional content transmission is removed from classroom time -
students are asked, for example, to watch instructional videos or listen to lecture
podcasts in their own time - so that classroom sessions can be devoted to student
interaction and intensive teacher support. Aided by the rapid development of the Khan
Academy (www.khanacademy.org) and the growingprovision of open educational
resources globally, including free materials on platforms like iTunes U
(www.apple.com/education/itunes-u/) and TED (www.ted.com), flipped classrooms are
emerging as a valuable model of blended learning.

However, teachers who want to make creative use of new technologies to support
collaborative, learner-centred teaching and learning approaches need to orient their TK
- as well as their TCK, TPK, and of course TPACK - towards more transformational ways
of integrating those technologies. Wherever possible, the activities outlined in this
chapter use technologies in ways that modify or redefine classroom tasks. We thus
embrace a transformational approach to the development of traditional language and
literacy skills alongside digital literacies.