777318

research-article2018
REL0010.1177/0033688218777318RELC JournalHockly and Dudeney

Article

RELC Journal

Current and Future Digital

2018, Vol. 49(2) 164­–178
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
Trends in ELT sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0033688218777318
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688218777318
journals.sagepub.com/home/rel

Nicky Hockly
The Consultants-E, Swansea, UK

Gavin Dudeney
The Consultants-E, Swansea, UK

Abstract
Anybody who has lived through the past decade of technological developments will know how
quickly our world is changing. And what happens outside our teaching contexts, out there in the
real world, will inevitably – at least some of it – end up having an impact on what we do inside
our classrooms, lecture halls, schools and colleges. Some of the technologies we mention below
will assuredly come to have an impact on some teachers and teaching contexts, others may simply
burn brightly and disappear, as so often happens in the field.
We start this article by looking at the bigger picture of technologies in society and in education
– the context into which technology fits, with a focus on how the digital divide affects the
implementation of educational technologies (or ‘EdTech’). We then consider different and new
ways and approaches to teaching and learning, before focussing on some of the new technologies
which are – or will be – having an impact on what we do on a daily basis. In each case we reflect
on how these new developments will continue to affect English language teachers and learners.

Keywords
ICT, educational technology, EdTech, learning technologies, CALL

Introduction
It is always somewhat difficult, when writing about technology, to make accurate predic-
tions of where we might stand in five, ten, 15 or more years from the time of writing. As
the great Chinese poet Lao Tzu wrote, ‘Those who have knowledge don’t predict. Those
who predict, don’t have knowledge’, and it is in this spirit that we approach this chapter,

Corresponding author:
Nicky Hockly, The Consultants-E, 4 Vivians Row, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Email: nicky.hockly@theconsultants-e.com
Hockly and Dudeney 165

writing about what we see happening – and its potential impact – rather than what is yet
to come.
Anybody who has lived through the past decade of technological developments will
know how quickly our world is changing. And what happens outside our teaching con-
texts, out there in the real world, will inevitably – at least some of it – end up having an
impact on what we do inside our classrooms, lecture halls, schools and colleges. Some of
the technologies we mention below will assuredly come to have an impact on some
teachers and teaching contexts, others may simply burn brightly and disappear, as so
often happens in the field.
We start this article by looking at the bigger picture of technologies in society and in
education – the context into which technology fits, with a focus on how the digital divide
affects the implementation of educational technologies (or ‘EdTech’). We then consider
different and new ways and approaches to teaching and learning, before focussing on
some specific new technologies which are – or will be – having an impact on what we do
on a daily basis. In each case we reflect on how these new developments will continue to
affect English language teachers and learners.

The Digital Divide

Access is often considered to be one of the greatest barriers to the use of digital technolo-
gies in language teaching and learning; a term often associated with this unequal access
to technology is ‘digital divide’. This term is most commonly understood to refer to a
geographical division between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ – that is, between those that
have access to digital technologies (usually assumed to live in developed countries), and
those that do not have access to digital technologies (usually assumed to live in develop-
ing countries).
In fact, the reality is far more nuanced. Although access to digital technologies and
infrastructure is linked to economic issues such as purchasing power, this is not the only
factor. Increased access to mobile devices in low resource contexts has enabled previ-
ously underserved populations to access cheap or freely available digital English lan-
guage learning materials. For example, the English in Action project in Bangladesh,
supported by a range of national and international stakeholders, aimed to provide English
language materials delivered via print, radio, television and mobile phones to 25 million
people by 2017. The Learn English SMS project, funded by the British Council working
with local mobile network operators, delivered vocabulary, grammar and study tips to
English language learners via affordable SMS messages in Sudan and Libya (see Pegrum,
2014, for a description of these and other mobile-device based projects). By 2016,
Duolingo, a popular primarily mobile-based language learning app, had 122 million
users in 194 different countries across all continents, studying a range of languages, with
English and French the most popular choices (see http://making.duolingo.com/which-
countries-study-which-languages-and-what-can-we-learn-from-it). Clearly, language
learning via mobile apps is today a viable option for many learners globally.
Indeed, the digital divide has as much to do with socio-economic status, rural versus
urban contexts, gender, level of education, and how digital media are used in the home,
as it has to do with purchasing power and access to hardware (Warschauer and
166 RELC Journal 49(2)

Matuchniak, 2010). In Canada, a high resource context, a study examining the inequal-
ities in internet access and use of social networks found a clear digital divide between
individuals with lower or higher levels of income and education, as well as between
rural and urban communities, between older and younger internet users, and between
immigrants and Canadian born residents (Haight et al., 2014). Perhaps unsurprisingly,
in each case, the former group had less access to the internet and social networks.
Studies carried out in the USA have found similar trends (e.g. Parker, 2008; Rideout
et al., 2010).
A digital divide can also exist between schools within a single area or city (see
Warschauer et al., 2004), as well as within classrooms, depending on whether learners
have access to technology at home or not, and how technology is used in the home – for
example, whether primarily for entertainment and shopping rather than for family learn-
ing (Grant, 2009). Yang and Egbert (2004) highlight that teachers and learners do not
necessarily need access to the latest digital technologies in order to carry out effective
learning tasks. Yang and Egbert (2004) also suggest that any definition of the digital
divide should include the difference between effective and ineffective uses of technol-
ogy for language learning, regardless of the technology available. In addition, there is a
potential divide between teachers and learners who have the necessary skills to use
technology effectively and those who do not (Warschauer, 2011). Finally, attitude may
affect the use of technology in learning. Even when teachers have access to digital tech-
nologies and infrastructure, not all teachers are willing to use those technologies to
support their classes, and this resistance can create another division. Finally, socio-
political considerations such as internet censorship or surveillance may hinder some
teachers’ and learners’ access to online learning materials and websites (Pegrum, 2009;
Yeok-Hwa Ngeow, 2010).
As we have seen, there are a multitude of factors that can help or hinder teachers’
and learners’ use of technologies, access to the internet and by extension access to
online English language materials. However, it is important to remember that simply
having access to hardware, software and the internet does not automatically lead to
better learning. Indeed, Warschauer (2002) warns that the term ‘digital divide’ risks
simplifying the issue, and can lead to technological solutionism – that is, the belief that
technology is in itself a solution to social problems, or to learning. In summary, we
would be as well to keep in mind a more nuanced and complex understanding of the
digital divide. Unequal access to digital technologies operates across a range of macro
and micro contexts, from countries and geographical areas to individual classrooms
and homes, and a wide range of social, political, and economic factors affects this
access. The implications for English language teachers are clear. Even teachers work-
ing in supposedly high resource contexts cannot simply assume that their students will
have access to the necessary technologies outside of school, or indeed possess the
necessary digital skills to carry out internet-based homework, or to take part in blended
learning activities. Through teacher training, school directors and academic managers
should address the potential skills gaps that may exist between more and less techno-
logically confident teachers working within the same institution, and who have access
to the same technology resources.
Hockly and Dudeney 167

New Ways of Learning

Blended Learning
Developments in digital technologies, and their application in English language teach-
ing, can cause teachers to worry about what their role will be in the future. Although it is
unlikely that teachers will be replaced by robots, it is a fact that some of the processes
and content traditionally managed by the teacher are now being managed by software.
For example, there has been a substantial uptake of blended learning, particularly in the
K-12 context (that is, in primary and secondary schools) in North America. As one exam-
ple, Carpe Diem high schools in the USA use a ‘flex’ model of blended learning in the
delivery of core subjects like mathematics and English. In this model, students spend a
substantial part of lesson time in computer rooms, working individually through subject
material delivered through adaptive learning software (see the section titled ‘Big Data
and Learning Analytics’ in this article). Paraprofessionals (non-experts, usually high-
school graduates) help students with the software when necessary, overseeing these peri-
ods of self-study. After working with adaptive learning software for 30 to 60 minutes at
a time, students move into classrooms with trained teachers, who carry out whole class,
group and pair work. The classroom periods provide an opportunity for teachers to work
with students on higher-order skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, and pro-
ject work. This model of blended learning is seeing an increasingly widespread uptake in
the USA: other K-12 schools that follow a flex blended learning methodology include
Rocketship Education schools in California, New Classroom schools in New York,
Matchbook Learning schools in Detroit, and Ednovate schools in Los Angeles.
The blended model of learning offered by these schools has been criticized on several
counts. Firstly, replacing some school hours with adaptive learning content delivered via
computers and overseen by paraprofessionals means that schools can pay qualified
teachers for fewer contact hours with students; over time, costs can be significantly
reduced. However, the quality of adaptive learning content can be questionable.
Methodologically, the flex blended learning approach reflects a traditional view of learn-
ing, in which content is bundled into small chunks to be digested by the learners in a
linear fashion (although at their own speed, and in differing amounts). This content is
then reproduced by students in standardized tests, which frequently take place online.
Research into the effectiveness of the flex blended learning approach shows mixed
results. On the one hand, students’ test scores appear to improve initially, but over the
long-term there can be a significant drop in student achievement (Lafer, 2014). Students
can become adept at taking online tests, but less proficient in critical thinking and prob-
lem-solving skills. Despite the caveats, the flex blended learning approach is a trend
which is likely to make inroads globally over the long-term (see Hockly, 2016).
Blended learning has also grown significantly in English language teaching over the
last decade. One driver for this is economic, specifically the perception that blended
learning can lower tuition costs for educational institutions. However, it is worth noting
that well-designed tutor-supported blended learning does not necessarily lower costs
(Horn and Staker, 2012). A second driver for the growth of blended learning is techno-
logical, as hardware and software become increasingly accessible and affordable. Other
168 RELC Journal 49(2)

reasons for adopting blended learning given by English language teachers and institu-
tions include: large class sizes; a lack of classroom space; teacher dissatisfaction with the
impact of face-to-face teaching; and the limited exposure to English that learners get in
scheduled classes (Aborisade, 2013). In addition, political instability may influence an
institution’s decision to adopt blended learning, when learners are unable to physically
attend face-to-face classes due to political unrest (Fleet, 2013). Finally, blended learning
is often perceived to be a ‘superior’ choice to fully online learning because, as Osguthorpe
and Graham suggest:

Those who use blended approaches base their pedagogy on the assumption that there are
inherent benefits in face-to-face interaction (both among learners and between learner and
instructor) as well as the understanding that there are some inherent advantages to using online
methods in their teaching. Thus the aim of those using blended learning approaches is to find a
harmonious balance between online access to knowledge and face-to-face human interaction
(2003: 228).

Despite a growing number of blended language learning studies, overall the research
findings are mixed. In a literature review of blended language learning research, Mendieta
Aguilar notes:

Some researchers contend that language learning is enhanced through the exposure learners
have to the blended learning model, while others indicate that there is not significant
improvement in comparison with more conventional (F2F) means of instruction. In terms of
levels of satisfaction, different opinions have also been reported (2012: 173).

In addition, cultural considerations can affect the implementation of blended learning.

For example, in some contexts, learners may be reluctant to engage in written online
forum discussions for fear of making mistakes (Zhu et al., 2009).
Despite these caveats and the mixed research findings, blended and online learning in
English language teaching will be with us well into the future.

Big Data and Learning Analytics

Related to the rise of blended learning, one area which continues to grow, despite some
more recent resistance, is the area of analysing, quantifying, measuring and examining
how people interact with ‘learning’, in an attempt to draw conclusions about the learning
process itself – on a big picture scale – and about learners, on a smaller scale. Many
publishers, app developers and educational organizations are actively involved in the
collection of enormous amounts of this data – data mining for the ‘Big Data’ we so often
hear about in the media – and the analysis of this data to draw out over-arching trends in
digital-based learning and to establish where points of difficulty or challenge arise.
The putative end point of this work is to apply the results of these learning analytics
to the (re)design of both the learning materials and the learning experience to provide,
ideally, a more personalized service to the learner. This goal is often referred to as adap-
tive learning, described by Kerr as:
Hockly and Dudeney 169

a way of delivering learning materials online, in which the learner’s interaction with previous
content determines (at least in part) the nature of materials delivered subsequently. The process
is automated, dynamic, and interactive. Its purpose is to generate a personalized learning
experience (2015: 88).

Adaptive Learning has become somewhat of a Holy Grail in much of the education
world, and is being touted vigorously by many of the major players in the sector as one
of their unique selling points when it comes to materials, learning platforms and other
forms of content delivery.
Adaptive Learning, and the apps, platforms and web services that facilitate it, aims
primarily to tailor learning content to individual learners, based on the way they have
interacted with the content up to any given point. As such, these tools measure not only
interactions with the learning content itself, but also with the environment which con-
tains it. Currently, almost everything is measurable, and almost everything is collected,
whether it is useful or not: the way students access the platform, app or website; how
they log on; where they go after they log on; interactions with content; navigational deci-
sions; responses to questions and exercises; the time spent considering an answer; the
number of right and wrong answers, and so on. Everything is recorded, analysed and the
resulting insights applied to future learning for each individual student.
In its simplest form, adaptive learning has been present in the language learning world
for quite some time, in the shape of adaptive placement tests which would tailor test
items based on the respondents’ answers to previous ones. If one or two questions were
too difficult, the level would be reduced. This kind of test has been used for over 20 years
with a relative degree of accuracy in measuring a potential student’s starting level.
Learning Analytics, however, takes this to a much higher level, and we are already seeing
the results of this new sophisticated data collection and analysis process being incorpo-
rated into supplementary electronic learning materials from major publishers. As the
economics of language education continue in their current challenging phase, the reli-
ance on technology, and therefore on these semi-intelligent automatic systems is set to
increase.
It is not only publishers, app and service providers who are interested in the collection
of data. More recently we have perceived a trend towards the incorporation of them into
state and national education systems, with schemes mandating the use of data to tailor
learning to individuals. This is most visibly evident in the United States where, as one
example, the state of South Carolina runs a data-driven project called ADEPT, which
obliges teachers to use collected data to inform their classroom teaching. In keeping
with many nascent projects, there is little detail of what this might actually entail. As
Stallard and Cocker note, ‘Exactly what data, and how to use it, are not explained’ (2014:
122).
It is this rather loose approach to data collection and use which has led to a certain
degree of backlash, not only in education, but in the wider context of global news, and
more recent stories on the use of big data to manipulate political contests and other
events with more wide-ranging consequences. Data can not only be collected, but it can
be sold, and re-used for other purposes, and this is a cause for concern in today’s con-
nected world.
170 RELC Journal 49(2)

It seems logical to assume, however, that despite privacy concerns, this deep analysis
of the learning process, and the concept of adaptivity and personalization are here to stay,
and that the processes for capture and use will become more refined. As with all perva-
sive technologies, this inevitably has an impact on the teacher and the role of the teacher.
Whilst machines may well come to understand how individuals learn, and be able to help
them in that journey, the understanding and empathy of the teacher, a teacher who really
knows their students, will hopefully always have a place to play in the process. Our cen-
tral role may evolve, but our presence will always provide a layer of guidance which
machines will be hard-placed to emulate.

Flipped Learning
Flipped Learning may well provide a beneficial meeting place for human and machine to
work together to provide the best possible learning opportunities for students. One of the
earliest and most widely-quoted proponents of the method must undoubtedly be Salman
Khan and his Khan Academy, although the overarching philosophy behind it is older
than this online incarnation (see Mazur, 1997; Lage and Platt, 2000). However, it was
Khan who brought the idea to the attention of the wider world with his simple and acces-
sible version online. Talking to The Wall Street Journal in 2011, Khan described the
philosophy behind his work as ‘giving students and teachers power to “flip” the tradi-
tional classroom: students can hear lectures at home and spend their time at school doing
“homework” – that is, working on problems’ (Khan, 2011). Originally designed to
increase the study of mathematics among children, the website now offers a variety of
subject areas, all along the Flipped model lines.
It will perhaps not be immediately obvious how this model might apply to language
learning, given that current pedagogical approaches such as Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) or Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) place little emphasis on the
lecture and more on pair and group work, communication and collaboration, but it is
certainly true that the concept of Flipped Learning has prompted a re-examination of
how language teachers use class time. Starting from a seemingly obvious question:
‘What is the best use of my face-to-face class time?’ (Bergmann, 2012), we may be
drawn to conclude that certain activities teachers traditionally carry out in class may be
better done outside class, freeing up time in class for activities where the teacher is a
central part of the process, and the teacher’s skills come to the fore.
Watching learners read texts, do exercises, or write passages may not be the best use
of the limited time students have with their teachers on a weekly basis. Watching a pres-
entation of a grammar point at home, and then coming together in class time to work
through issues, engage with the language and use it might be a model which would work
for some teachers. In many ways, Flipped Learning works well with (still popular in
many contexts) models such as Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP), where the
Presentation and Practice phases are carried out in a Flipped Learning model, at home,
and Production happens in subsequent class time, where the teacher’s skills can help to
diagnose issues arising, and offer meaningful opportunities for Production.
Although Flipped Learning as a term is relatively recent, writers in the field of lan-
guage education have long pushed for moving some activities outside the classroom
Hockly and Dudeney 171

(Kerr, quoted in Cook, 2014), but the approach itself, in the digital age, has some inher-
ent issues which are difficult to overcome. These issues may include access to technol-
ogy outside the class environment, connectivity issues, motivation and more. The biggest
issue, however, is that the Flipped Learning model relies on students doing significant
amounts of homework as preparation for the classroom time, and nobody has yet man-
aged to solve this issue successfully. The Flipped Learning model remains, however, an
interesting approach to issues of agency, time and contact hours, and with highly-
motivated learners and a skilful teacher, it has a fair degree of potential. Even on the
basis of exposure to language, the Flipped Classroom should have a measurable impact.
As Johnson and Marsh note:

The literature and the research demonstrate that the ability to extend student access to course
content outside of the classroom through the technology (and in so doing increase opportunities
for meaningful student-to-teacher and student-to-student interaction in the classroom) does
offer a potentially exciting model (2016: 62–63).

Massive Open Online Courses

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are another example of how digital technolo-
gies can offer students additional exposure to English outside of the classroom, and in
their own time. Some of the earliest MOOCs appeared out of Athabasca University in
Canada in 2008. These so-called ‘connectivist’ MOOCs (cMOOCs) reflected a connec-
tivist approach to course design and learning, in which the course content is fluid, and
knowledge is created by participants through the connections they make, as well as the
conversations they have across multiple digital platforms. Indeed, cMOOCs see the
learner as an autonomous and motivated individual within a digitally connected learning
network. cMOOCs contrast with MOOCs that came to public attention via the media,
when what is often wrongly credited as the first MOOCs appeared out of Stanford
University in 2011. Known as xMOOCs after the EdX MOOC platform, course content
is pre-selected and delivered to course participants via a virtual learning environment,
with regular quizzes incorporated so that learners can check their own progress through
the learning materials. xMOOCs are underpinned by a transmission-based pedagogical
model and a more traditional approach to learning, where the learner receives expert
content via video-recorded lectures or selected texts. cMOOCs tend to be conversation
driven and position the learner as central to the learning process, whereas xMOOCs are
content driven and prioritize the teacher as expert.
In the field of English language learning, well-established educational organizations
like the British Council have experimented with English language MOOCs, and publish-
ers (e.g. Cambridge University Press) continue to offer a range of English language and
teacher training MOOCs. Universities too (e.g. the University of Oregon, and the
University of Arizona) have offered English language teacher training MOOCs. MOOC
numbers are impressive. The first iteration of the British Council’s ‘Exploring English:
Language and Culture’ MOOC was offered in 2014 and attracted over 122,000 enrol-
ments from more than 190 countries. Sixty percent of these enrolments started the course,
19% of these fully participated in the course, and half posted at least one comment on the
172 RELC Journal 49(2)

course forums. During the six weeks of the course, there were more than 350,000 com-
ments posted, with one particularly popular forum thread (‘How do you feel when you
speak English?’) attracting over 30,000 responses (Chris Cavey, British Council Open
Learning Manager, English and Exams, personal communication).
However, MOOCs have received criticisms (for example, Jackson, 2013), and one of
the main challenges remains that of evaluation and measuring learning outcomes. At
present, because of the sheer numbers involved, most MOOCs rely on peer or self-eval-
uation, which raises issues of reliability. In addition, although ostensibly offered as free
courses, MOOCs have struggled to come up with a viable business model. Some institu-
tions have introduced paid certificate options into MOOCs to ensure a source of revenue,
whereas others see it as a lead generator where MOOC participants might go on to take
paid courses with the institution. MOOCs also face high rates of attrition (dropout).
Whether MOOCs will be with us in the long term is difficult to say. However, after the
initial frenzied rush to produce MOOCs that began with the appearance of the first
xMOOCs in 2011, there is now a range of language learning and teacher training MOOCs
available; the most popular language MOOCs offer students the chance to learn English
and Spanish (Bárcena and Martín-Monje, 2014).

New Technologies
Mobile Learning
It is often said that mobile devices have democratized access to technology, and to an
extent this is true for a variety of reasons: they are relatively inexpensive, they are easy,
quick and cheap to recharge, data connections are often inexpensive, and they are rela-
tively hard-wearing and good out in the field where other more delicate technologies
might perish. But we would do well to remember that not everyone has a mobile device,
not everyone can charge them, and not everyone can access online services with them. In
this respect, the digital divide discussed earlier in this article is as relevant to the mobile
context as it is to any other technology.
It is almost certainly the case, however, that there are more mobile devices in the
hands of learners worldwide than any other type of technology which can be brought to
bear on learning and teaching, and it is for this reason that we see significant inroads of
mobile learning into the English language classroom, both in high-tech and low-tech
environments, in developed and developing countries and contexts (see Pegrum, 2014,
for a selection of case studies).
It is perhaps the ubiquity of the devices, and the resulting impact on educational estab-
lishment finances that makes them so ideally positioned for widespread adoption and
use. Adopting a Bring Your Own Device or BYOD approach means that institutions no
longer have to invest in significant hardware themselves, freeing any budget up for other
purposes altogether. And, perhaps more importantly, they are a technology which is so
firmly embedded in the lives of students outside the classroom, that it makes very little
sense not to carry that relationship over into the classroom, helping students to under-
stand how the device they see as a pure entertainment gadget can be brought to bear in
the service of their learning.
Hockly and Dudeney 173

As students discover this kind of device affordance, we will see more of them spend-
ing time on mobile content for language learning, from language learning apps such as
Duolingo, to material resources such as Busuu, and even online classes using video-
conferencing applications. Meanwhile, in the classroom, the teacher may perhaps play a
pivotal role in encouraging learners to experiment with their devices as creative or pro-
ductive tools (see Hockly and Dudeney, 2014), involving the use of images, audio and
video recordings and other media which encourage language production and the fabrica-
tion of digital artefacts which may play a part in future electronic language portfolios or
digital curriculum vitae.
It is still the case, however, that teachers do not yet feel comfortable enough – even
with devices with which they are intimately familiar – to take the technology into their
classes with them. Whilst mobile devices are completely normalized (Bax, 2003) outside
of the classroom, for both teachers and learners, that same degree of invisibility is yet to
be achieved inside. This is largely due to a lack of initial teacher training, a situation
which has not changed significantly as the pace of technology development has
quickened.
Mobility, however, is a challenge for any kind of teaching. As students learn how to
access meaningful and useful language on the move, they may have less need for formal
teaching. Being equipped with GPS and location sensors, mobile devices are ideal
machines to provide useful language in specific situations, for example, offering a learner
useful transport phrases when they are located in a train station, or medical vocabulary
on a visit to the doctor (see the MASELTOV project, described in Pegrum, 2014). Virtual
Reality and Augmented Reality apps and simulations will offer greater opportunities for
full immersion communicative activities. Although these technologies are currently
rather primitive, they are developing at a pace which suggests they will become useful
and usable soon.

Machine Translation
Whilst machines are increasingly involved in what and how we study, they are also mak-
ing small inroads into the very skills we work with – the skills of speaking, and under-
standing, another language. Artificial Intelligence has brought about huge improvements
in how machines understand language and we are already seeing the fruits of this labour
in digital assistants such as Siri on Apple devices and Cortana on Windows devices as
well as in a number of intelligent devices such as Amazon’s Alexa and Google Home.
These assistants and devices are quite capable of parsing relatively complex human
utterances, and acting on them.
With storage and processing power both increasingly cheaper, bigger and faster, our
ability to store, break down, understand and use chunks of language is improving expo-
nentially year on year, leading to the development of tools such as Microsoft’s Skype
Translator which enables two people to call each other using their own first language,
and have their utterances translated in real time into the language of their interlocutor. In
this manner, a French businesswoman might hold a meeting with her Japanese counter-
part, with each of them speaking their own language, but hearing what their opposite
number says, immediately translated. The technology has evolved since the launch of
174 RELC Journal 49(2)

Skype Translator (in 2015): devices have shrunk and become more mobile, to the point
that wearable in-ear devices, such as Google’s Pixel Buds or the Waverly Labs’ Pilot
earphones, can now provide simultaneous real-life translation when combined with a
connected mobile device.
Working with mobile connectivity and Bluetooth headsets, these devices may well
occasion the demise of certain types of language teaching where language use and pro-
duction are limited (in the diplomatic service, as one example) or only temporarily
needed, as when we go on holiday to another country but do not plan to remain there.
One sector which should be particularly concerned with these developments is the
Business (or Professional) English sector, which may well fall partial victim to this kind
of technology. In recognition of this, many teachers working in the sector are actively
rebranding themselves as ‘coaches’, putting more emphasis on the development of soft
skills, intercultural communication and other services which complement the language
work they currently perform.
Whilst not perfect, these devices do provide ample opportunity for communication,
although they would seem to work better in certain scenarios – such as the ones men-
tioned above – than in others. It is difficult to imagine a couple from different countries
living their entire lives together with headsets in their ears. And other intimate, human,
personal communications are unlikely to succumb to this kind of just-in-time solution.
As with all technologies, however, the real stumbling block for most of the world,
currently, will be more prosaic factors such as a lack of the necessary technology, a lack
of connectivity to make the technology work, expensive data connections, sustainable
ways of charging devices and more. Given the pace of much of this infrastructure devel-
opment, it is fairly safe to say that much of what language teachers currently do is safe
for the moment. Some sectors will see an impact, but most standard education globally
will not. We see no reason for the majority of teachers to fear this kind of change, but do
recommend they research it, and perhaps even embrace it where it makes sense in their
context.

The Future
Although it is difficult to predict what the future will bring in terms of new technologies
for language teaching, we believe that most – if not all – of the trends identified in this
article will be with us for at least the next decade. We plant the seeds of the future in the
present. As one version of a well known quote goes, ‘The best way to predict the future
is to create it’; this is practically the mantra of technology start-ups in general, and edu-
cational technology is no exception. Current technologies that support language learning
– for example, by providing access to online communities with whom learners can com-
municate in the target language – that keep the costs of language learning low (such as
MOOCs) and convenient (such as blended or online approaches), and that leverage user-
friendly hardware and software (such as mobile phone apps) are likely to be with us for
some time to come.
In addition, what may have seemed like fringe technologies too futuristic for use in
the language classroom a few years ago are becoming increasingly mainstream. For
example, augmented reality and virtual reality have become firmly entrenched in popular
Hockly and Dudeney 175

culture via digital games, with Pokemon Go as one well-known example of augmented
reality, and PlayStation games as examples of virtual reality experiences played by mil-
lions globally. Augmented and virtual reality have both been used to support English
language learning. Google Cardboard offers virtual reality tours to places around the
globe via Expeditions, and has been used with EFL learners by early-adopter teachers in
some contexts (e.g. Ribeiro, 2016). Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games
(MMORPGs) take place in virtual worlds (e.g. World of Warcraft); research over the last
decade has examined the effects of playing MMORPGs on English language acquisition,
with overall positive findings (e.g. see Sundqvist, 2009; Suh et al., 2010; Peterson, 2012;
and Gillen, 2014).
Teachers are in the business of preparing students for the future, and educators need
to at least be aware of what that future might demand of our students. Dator suggests that
governments, their Ministries of Education, and educational institutions should create
educational policy with an eye on the future:

It is absolutely essential to determine first what the futures of society generally might be before
deciding what the futures of education should be. Few if any educational institutions do this.
[…] From our years of work in future studies we firmly believe that “futures of education”
should never be undertaken until the alternative futures of the societies in which future graduates
will live have been identified (Dator, 2014: Paragraphs 7 and 11).

In the meantime, it is clear that developments in technology, such as those explored in

this article, are already affecting – and will continue to affect – the role of the language
teacher. Susskind and Susskind (2015) point out that technological innovation and
increased access to specialist knowledge have already undermined traditional roles in
professions like architecture, medicine, journalism, law, accountancy and financial ser-
vices, and even in the priesthood. Developments in digital technologies, the digitization
and granular organization of knowledge, and the economic imperative of lowering costs
all point towards a fundamental shift in education too. In our profession, the teacher is no
longer the single source of (English-language) knowledge. It is becoming increasingly
easy for learners to bypass traditional bricks and mortar language schools and courses; in
this scenario, the role of the teacher becomes that of guide, facilitator and consultant to
help students effectively navigate the wealth of online resources and education techno-
logy software and apps in order to reach his or her language goals. As a starting point,
and in order to support language learners in the near future, the aspiring 21st century
teacher should familiarize him/herself with, and start to integrate into his/her teaching,
some of the trends and developments explored in this article.

Conclusion
In concluding this article, we draw together the key threads explored throughout, starting
with perhaps the most important: the digital divide. Whilst some improvements have
been noted in terms of access to technology through the use of more low-cost mobile
solutions, the digital divide continues to affect every aspect of digital learning and is set
to do so for some time to come. Just as access to education is not simply a case of
176 RELC Journal 49(2)

economics, access to technology functions along the same lines, and those who are
affected in one case are often affected in the other. That said, as economic pressure is
brought to bear further on education provision, we expect to see blended learning coming
to the fore as institutions struggle to balance the needs of their learners whilst simultane-
ously balancing the books in a time of shrinking budgets. Whilst potentially offering a
more personalized, time-sensitive and differentiated learning experience, blended learn-
ing is also potentially subject to a degree of external pressure from EdTech companies,
state and government education departments and other players with more non-educa-
tional aims, and we will need to take care to ensure that quality is not sacrificed to profit
or political expediency. Greater automation, for better or for worse, is also inevitable,
and we fully expect to see more lifelong learning and learning for pleasure or personal
development associated with MOOCs and other self-access programs, although how far
these will impact on language proficiency is yet to be explored. Teachers will, we can
confidently predict, continue to play an important part in the learning process. However,
unless adequate training in the use of technologies in teaching and learning is given at
pre- and in-service levels, teachers may find it an increasingly challenging environment
in which to work. If we were to make one solid prediction, it would be this.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Aborisade PA (2013) Blended learning in English for academic purposes courses: a Nigerian case
study. In: Tomlinson B, Whittaker C (eds) Blended Learning in English Language Teaching:
Course Design and Implementation. London: The British Council, 35–42.
Bárcena E, Martín-Monje E (eds) (2014) Language MOOCs: Providing Learning, Transcending
Boundaries. Berlin: De Gruyter Open Ltd.
Bax S (2003) CALL – past, present and future. System 31(1): 13–28.
Bergmann J (2012) The ‘Flipped Classroom’ starts with one question: What is the best use of my
face-to-face class time? Available at: http://dailyedventures.com/index.php/2012/05/22/the-
flipped-classroom-starts-with-one-question-what-is-the-best-use-of-my-face-to-face-class-
time/
Dator J (2014) Education fit for the futures. ICT in education blog. UNESCO. Available at: http://
www.unescobkk.org/education/ict/online-resources/databases/ict-in-education-database/
item/article/education-fit-for-the-futures/
Fleet L (2013) A blended learning approach to soft skills training at Al Azhar University, Cairo. In:
Tomlinson B, Whittaker C (eds) Blended Learning in English Language Teaching: Course
Design and Implementation. London: The British Council, 201–206.
Gillen J (2014) Digital Literacies. London: Routledge.
Grant L (2009) Learning in families: a review of research evidence and the current landscape
of learning in families with digital technologies. Futurelab. Available at: https://www.nfer.
ac.uk/publications/FUTL30/FUTL30.pdf
Haight M, Quan-Haase A, and Corbett BA (2014) Revisiting the digital divide in Canada: the
impact of demographic factors on access to the internet, level of online activity, and social
networking site usage. Information, Communication & Society 17(4): 503–19.
Hockly and Dudeney 177

Hockly N, Dudeney G (2014) Going Mobile: Teaching with Hand-held Devices. Guildford: Delta
Publishing.
Hockly N (2016) Focus on Learning Technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horn M, Staker H (2012) How much does blended learning cost? Available at: https://thejournal.
com/articles/2012/04/05/how-much-does-blended-learning-cost.aspx
Jackson N (2013) On MOOCs; and some futures for higher education. Available at: http://hac.
bard.edu/news/?p=10779
Johnson C, Marsh D (2016) The flipped classroom. In: McCarthy M (ed.) The Cambridge Guide to
Blended Learning for Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 55–67.
Kerr P (2015) Adaptive learning. ELT Journal 70(1): 88–93.
Khan S (2011) Turning the classroom upside down. The Wall Street Journal. Available at: https://
www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704101604576248713420747884
Lafer G (2014) Do poor kids deserve lower-quality education than rich kids? Evaluating school
privatization proposals in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Report for the Economic Policy Institute.
Available at: http://www.epi.org/publication/school-privatization-milwaukee/
Lage MJ, Platt G (2000) The internet and the inverted classroom. The Journal of Economic
Education 31(1): 11.
Mazur E (1997) Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual Series in Educational Innovation. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mendieta Aguilar JA (2012) Blended learning and the language teacher: a literature review.
Colombia Applied Linguistics Journal 14(2): 163–80.
Osguthorpe RT, Graham CR (2003) Blended learning environments: definitions and directions.
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4(3): 227–33.
Parker LL (2008) Technology in support of young English learners in and out of school. In:
Parker LL (ed.) Technology-mediated Learning Environments for Young English Learners:
Connections In and Out of School. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 213–50.
Pegrum M (2009) From Blogs to Bombs: The Future of Digital Technologies in Education.
Crawley, Australia: UWA Publishing.
Pegrum M (2014) Mobile Learning: Languages, Literacies and Cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Peterson M (2012) Language learner interaction in a massively multiplayer online role-playing
game. In: Reinders H (ed.) Digital Games in Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Ribeiro R (2016) Virtual reality in the EFL class. Blog post. Available at: https://www.teachin-
genglish.org.uk/blogs/raquel-gonzaga/supplementary-resource-virtual-reality-efl-class
Rideout V, Foehr UG, and Roberts DF (2010) Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-
Olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
Stallard CK, Cocker J (2014) Education Technology and the Failure of American Schools.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Suh S, Kim SW, and Kim NJ (2010) Effectiveness of MMORPG-based instruction in elementary
English education in Korea. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26(5): 370–78.
Sundqvist P (2009) Extramural English Matters: Out-of-school English and its Impact on Swedish
Ninth Graders’ Oral Proficiency and Vocabulary. Karlstad: Karlstad University Studies.
Susskind R, Susskind D (2015) The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform
the Work of Human Experts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yang Y, Egbert J (2004) Mediating the digital divide in CALL classrooms: promoting effective
language tasks in limited technology contexts. ReCALL Journal 16(2), 280–91.
178 RELC Journal 49(2)

Yeok-Hwa Ngeow K (2010) Restricted internet access and censorship: CALL alternatives and
initiatives. In: Egbert J (ed.) CALL in Limited Technology Contexts, Vol. 9. San Marcos, TX:
CALICO, 93–106.
Warschauer M (2002) Reconceptualizing the digital divide. First Monday 7, 7. Available at: http://
firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/967/888/
Warschauer M (2011) Learning in the Cloud: How (And Why) to Transform Schools with Digital
Media. New York: Teachers College Press.
Warschauer M, Knobel M, and Stone L (2004) Technology and equity in schooling: deconstruct-
ing the digital divide. Educational Policy 18(4): 562–88.
Warschauer M, Matuchniak T (2010) New technology and digital worlds: analyzing evidence of
equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education 34(1), 179–225.
Zhu C, Valcke M, and Schellens T (2009) A cross-cultural study of online collaborative learning.
Multicultural Education and Technology Journal 3(1): 33–46.