See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326647552

Technology-based English Language Instruction

Chapter · January 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 1,302

1 author:

Jo-Ann Netto-Shek
National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore
5 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Reading Teacher's Practice (SUG 17/17 JAS) View project

Preparing learners of English as communicators in the 21st Century: An examination of language policies and classroom practice in Tasikmalaya and Singapore View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jo-Ann Netto-Shek on 27 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

To cite this chapter:

Netto-Shek, J.A. (2017). Technology-based English Language Instruction. In Kabilan, M. K.,

Aziz, R.M.R.A.A. & Netto-Shek, J.A. (Ed.), 21st Century Learning & English Language
Education. (pp.1-20). Kuala Lumpur: USM Press in collaboration with MELTA.

Technology-Based English Language Instruction

Jo-Ann Netto-Shek
National Institute of Education
Nanyang Technological University

Introduction: Technology, Technologies & New Technologies

There is little doubt that the world is a vastly different place today because of the internet. As
Leu (2010, p. viii) points out “The internet changes everything, doesn’t it?” Equally, what is
meant by technology today has considerably evolved in its meaning since the internet. The
notion of technology has progressed such that there are now technologies or information and
communication tools. In addition, technologies that offer new ways of being, knowing and
doing are described as new technologies. As Gee (2013) opines ““Our world is now so
complex, our technology and science so powerful, and our problems so global and
interconnected that we have come to the limits of individual human intelligence and individual
expertise.”

Not only does technology play a significant role in our lives today, its presence is difficult to
ignore. There was a time not too far back at the turn of the century that the most stalwart
resistants to technology could choose to disregard it. Today, 10 over years well into the 21st
century, the same resistants have had to embrace it for the changes technology has inspired
to the world and the way it operates. As predicted by Leu (2010, p. viii), “it [technology] is likely
to influence our lives more profoundly than any other aspect of the 21st century”. More recent
observations anticipate that it “will continue to have, a profound effect on every aspect of our
lives” (Senior, 2010, p. 137).

Yet, within this field, there is still a substantial body of research examining issues of equity in
terms of access to technology as well as its use by different demographic groups. In this body
of research, the primary goal is to locate “the digital divide” (Warshauer, Knoble, & Stone,
2004) between the “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001) and “the digital immigrants” (Prensky,
2001). Early and dramatic portrayals of the “digital divide” such as by Castells (1996)
envisioned “a future in which people become members of one and two groups – the

1 
 
“interacting” or the “interacted” where the “interacting will have the resources to choose,
develop, and critique new technologies, whereas the interacted will be passively subject to its
influence, perhaps without awareness.” This according to Barron (2004, p. 2) signals
innovational equity as a marker of a divide. More profoundly and one that impacts instruction
and education is described by Prensky (2001, p. 1) as an unrecognised “discontinuity”
between the profile of past learners and today’s learners. Given this, Prensky (2001, p. 3)
argues that today’s teachers can ill afford the assumption that “learners are the same as they
have always been, and that the same methods that worked for the teachers when they were
students will work for their students now”, concluding that today one cannot teach without
“TECH”. For as Prensky (2001, p. 1) explains “today’s students – K through college –
represent the first generations to grow up with this new technology. They have spent their
entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video
cams, cell phones, and all other toys and tools of the digital age”.

However, it is also argued that this may not be the reality of all learners across the globe and
that there are learners in contexts where technology plays and continues to play a limited role.
Even in these contexts, the divide that educators need to bridge is between the context that
learners are currently in and developing in them the necessary suite of digital capacities that
will give them access to better opportunities or improved circumstances in the future. To
illustrate, Izquierdo, de-la-Cruz-Villegas, Aquino-Zuniga, Sandoval-Caraveo, & Garcia-
Martinez (2017, p. 40) note that in such contexts “teachers have been able to circumscribe
their contextual limitations by exploiting the available institutional resources in combination
with their own personal devices and those of their learners (Egbert & Yang, 2004; Jeon-Ellis
et al 2005)”.

The Context for Literacy, Literacies and New Literacies

Leu (2010, p. viiii) argues that technology is “the new context for literacy”. Early research on
the impact of technology on learning was initiated by the New London Group (1996) from
which a new field of study emerged – The New Literacy Studies. The presence of technology
initiated a re-examination of the notion of literacy from the ability to read and write to the sense
that it is “a social and cultural achievement – it was about ways of participating in social and
cultural groups” (Gee, 1990/1996/2007). In effect, conceptions of literacy widened from
reading and writing as mental processes such as decoding, making predictions and
inferences, and comprehension to engagement in social or cultural practices. Gee (2000) goes
on to explain that as:

2 
 
 “There are many different social and cultural practices which
incorporate literacy, so, too, many different “literacies” (legal
literacy, gamer literacy, country music literacy, academic literacy of
many different types). People don’t just read and write in general,
they read and write specific sorts of “texts” in specific ways and
these ways are determined by the values and practices of different
social and cultural practices.”

More current conceptions of literacy describe an even more burgeoning understanding of

literacies as new literacies. Leu (2010, p. ix) explains that New Literacies (upper case) refers
“to a wide conceptualisation of literacies from multi-perspectives across a range of disciplines
and new literacies (lower case) refers to an increasing number and types of literacies such as
work place or examination literacy.” The sense that the potential of technology has not been
fully exploited yet is a consistent thread amongst literacy researchers such as articulated early
on by Unsworth (2001 cited in Shoffner 2010, p.76) who said that “The notion of being literate
necessarily changes to one of becoming literate, as the views on literacies continue to evolve”.

Significantly as well is that technology is an essential platform for English language use which
has resulted in “a plethora of literacies congregate[ing] around the ever-expanding subject
English as the prime site for innovation and development” (Mathewman, Blight, & Davies,
2004, p. 153). To illustrate, in economies where English is a foreign language, Motteram
(2013, p. 19) explains that “the growth of globalisation of trade and the predominance of
English in the media, particularly on the internet, have been responsible for driving change in
language education policy” leading to “a global trend towards introducing English language
teaching in the primary sector”. The picture for economies where English is a second language
is not much different, creating new waves of research into technology-based English language
teaching (Lewis, 2009).

Furthermore, new competencies are required of the 21st century learner. Beers, Porbst & Rief
(2007) point out that “21st century learning is dependent on students’ achievement in four
capacities: inventive thinking, effective communication, high productivity and digital-age
literacy” that Cope & Kalantzis (2000, p. 5) explain, “requires teachers to address the
“increasing multiplicity and integration of significant modes of meaning-making, where the
textual is also related to the visual, the audio, the spatial [and] the behavioural”. International
instructional frameworks such as the 2009 TESOL technology standards framework furthers
this thought by stating that “The use of technology in English language teaching and learning
can also encourage the development of strategies necessary for modern survival:

3 
 
communication, collaboration, and information gathering and retrieval.” (Teachers of English
to Speakers of Other Languages, 2009, p. 15). So, change is afoot and it has been so for
some time reminding us that “Today’s teachers don’t just teach language; they are also
expected to prepare children with the skills needed for success in the 21st century world.”
(Baker, 2016, p. 23)

Texts & Multimodality

One of the most significant changes that technology has impacted is the notion of texts and
the range of modality. Initiated by Kress & Van Leeuwen (1996), New London Group (1996)
and Cope & Kalantzis (2000), educators were encouraged to replace traditional conceptions
of texts with notions that embrace digital texts. Updated understandings of texts explain that
they are “constructed to serve different social purposes and the structures and features they
display are designed to serve those purposes” (Winch, Johnston, March, Ljungdahl, &
Holliday, 2014, p. 110). Winch et al (2014, p. 476) explains that “the idea of ‘text’ has been
expanded to include any communication involving language which means…anything that is
communicative: graphics and illustrations, images and moving images.” As proposed by these
researchers, texts take various digital forms in technological environments and today’s
learners are adept at negotiating these forms quite rapidly, not only as consumers but as
producers as well (Handsfield, Dean, & Cielocha, 2009). Prensky (2001, p. 1) adds that
because today’s students spend a great deal of their time in technological environments that
pervade with texts that have a range of modalities, “their thinking patterns [too] have changed”
as well.

Similarly, the research points out that conceptions of texts and modalities is anticipated to
have a knock on effect on the composition and use of textbooks and their role in instruction.
For example, Kendrick & Potts (2015, p. 452) posit that if “visual resources perform different
functions, realise different meanings, and patterns differently across discourse communities
and cultural groups, then such resources are not a neutral path to meaning” requiring
“rethinking the design of images and graphics in beginner’s textbooks; the structure of visual
prompts for tasks targeting fluency, accuracy, and/or complexity; and the textual conventions
related to the use of images and illustrations”. Mathewman, Blight & Davis (2004, p. 153)
confirm that using different modalities of texts to teach English is one pedagogical shift that
challenge English language teachers of today.

The argument so far is that technology-based EL instruction of today includes the use of the
internet and both information and communication tools as powerful learning mediums and

4 
 
resources. Current conceptions of technology, media and texts has also expanded language
learning to literacy learning for 21st century learners. Winch et al (2014, p. 474) summates,
when speaking about expanded understandings of language instruction in reference to new
curriculum internationally, the study of English today comprises “Language (‘knowing about
the English language’), Literature (‘understanding, appreciating, responding to, analysing and
creating literature’) and Literacy (‘expanding the repertoire of English usage’)”.

Changing worlds, Changing classrooms, New ways of learning

In consequence to the pervasive presence and dominant role of technology outside

classrooms, classrooms of today have to be different places and spaces. Apart from the
presence of new technologies within classrooms, technology has opened up classrooms as
spaces such that “learning extends beyond the walls of the school” (Jansen & Merwe, 2015,
p. 4). This significantly has given rise to descriptions of classrooms as sites of a “new ecology
of learning” (Jansen & Merwe, 2015, p. 4) or a “new paradigm of learning” (Kivunja, 2015, p.
1) where different notions of learning have been articulated.

Estaben-Guitart, Serra & Vila (2017, p. 4) describe this new paradigm as “participation in
communities of interest (such as a Facebook group, for example), and using different formats
of representation, with a predominance of visual language and multimodality of devices and
codes.” Barron (2004, p. 5) adds that “”the metaphor of a learning ecology has been used to
describe how distributed resources on the Web constitute a new kind of environment for
learning (Brown, 2000; Looi-Chi, 2000).” In addition, Barron (2004, p. 6) explains that “It is
the participation in these practices that creates and constitutes learning (Greeno, Collins &
Resnick, 1996; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 2003).” Certainly, a new ecology of learning
includes seamlessly traversing the physical and technological world as learning spaces.

Estaben-Guitart, Serra & Vila (2017, p. 6) further explain that “the Internet can be considered
the main point of access to information and where it is handled, which turns the act of learning
into a distributed and interconnected process” that Siemens (2005) proposes speaks of a new
theory of learning called connectivism. Described as a “a distributed network across nodes
and learning as a process of pattern recognition” (Esteban-Guitart et al., 2017, p. 5),
connectivism positions learners as “people with experiences and funds of knowledge and
identity (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014) who join communities of practice”. Gee (2000, p. 174)
in his examination of learning through popular culture, in particular video games, demonstrates
how new media such as video games situates the learner as “pro-ams” or “amateurs who have
become experts at whatever they have developed a passion for”, directing attention to the

5 
 
notion that technology has not only opened up classrooms but also, that it is integral as a
means to in-depth learning and mastery.

Current Theories of Language & Literacy learning

Tompkins (2010, p. 4) points out that “now literacy is considered a tool, a means to participate
more fully in the technological society of the 21st century”. Citing Tracey and Morrow (2006)
that “multiple theoretical perspectives improve the quality of literacy instruction”, Tompkins
(2010) proposes that instruction should represent a balance between “teacher-centred and
student-centred theories”.

The balance of theories that Tompkins (2010, p. 5) proposes is among the following:
behaviourism, constructivism, sociolinguistics and cognitivism. Arguing that the role of the
teacher as a dispenser of knowledge continues to remain key in 21st century classroom
instruction, behaviourism requires focus on how the teacher provides input and when.
Tompkins explains that behaviourism is enacted by the teacher when “information is presented
in small steps and reinforced through practice activities until students master it because each
step is built on the previous one.” Behaviourism explains the need for quality teacher input
that further student learning.

Constructivism occurs when learners are engaged and motivated in learning. Engagement is
argued through both instructional processes such as schema activation and development as
well as through task designs that allow for learners to demonstrate their understanding and
create their own knowledge. Through the lens of constructivism, language and literacy learning
is collaborative and inquiry-based. A sociolinguistic view of language and literacy learning, on
the other hand, includes the view that language is socially and culturally responsive. Language
learning is enhanced when authentic in terms of contexts and tasks. From a sociolinguistic
perspective, the role of the teacher shifts from that of an expert to that of a facilitator and guide.
A sociolinguistic lens to language learning offers the view that learners are positioned as
inquirers of language use in all forms of texts. Finally, Tompkins (2010) identifies that language
and literacy learning embraces cognitivism since language skills such as reading and writing
are meaning-processes where learners as readers and writers use a range of resources in
order to make meaning.

Apart from a balance of theories, Tompkins (2010) further argues that a balance to instruction
also attends to graduated levels of language support during instruction that range from
teacher-focussed to learner-focussed, to both language knowledge and skills, differentiated

6 
 
instruction to meet the needs of all learners and principles of inclusion as resources for
different abilities and groups. The role that technology plays within this combination of theories
for balanced instruction is undeniably varied for it can assist the teacher in providing expert
and visually adapt input to learners as a means to structuring learning, form multimodal
resources for learners to discuss, collaborate and co-create and offer the means for language
practice and output by learners as well. As a result, instruction that transcends from the
physical world of classrooms to technological platforms are described as “blended
approaches” and is yet another attribute of balanced instruction. Current view of the role of
technology in instruction is that this seamless transition from the world of the classroom and
the world of technology is how technology is accommodated in instruction. Further, the
concept of “ ‘content curation’ – selecting, sifting, showcasing and sharing content with friends,
family and peers”, as Motterram (2013, p. 20) explains it, is becoming more popular.

As such, Reis’ (2015, p. 14) comment that “it’s about having the courage to change the focus
in the classroom from a teacher-centered classroom, in which we are the bearers of
knowledge and truth, to a student-centered classroom in which the children are the
discoverers and builders of knowledge” is symptomatic of significant theoretical shifts. From
the perspective of connectivism alone, the inclusion of specific technologies requires a
reorientation to long-held beliefs about individual agency in learners.

The Use of Technology for English Language learning

How then is technology to be used for English language learning by 21st century learners?
Winch et al. (2014, p. 415) propose that it is “accommodated” and exploited “for their
pedagogical potential in the classroom”. They explain that “there are different kinds of
electronic literacies: the retrieval, recording and storage of information (as text and pictures)
and their combination in meaningful ways”. Recent work by Hyler & Hicks (2014) offers a
similar view of situating technology within the instructional sequence of “create, compose,
connect”.

There are as well many good resources for teachers that provide comprehensive lists of
technologies for English teachers, such as Motteram (2013) which I will not attempt to replicate
here. I seek to add to this body of work by providing two distinct examples of technology
accommodation in the area of the teaching of reading and writing for young learners and for
the teaching of English for research and inquiry.

7 
 
Secondly, technology has brought with it a significant additional knowledge area that teachers
will need to master which includes technological knowledge, technological content knowledge
and technological pedagogical content knowledge. The ways in which competencies in this
area of knowledge intersects with specific subject content and pedagogical knowledge
competencies reveals a new role that English teachers of today need to appropriate as
“designers of learning” (Sir Ken Robinson, 2008).

Preparing the Classroom for Technology

As a pre-requisite to filling the role of “designers of learning”, Lewis (2009, pp. 14-15) usefully
provides a list of technology to equip your classroom with and these are listed in Table 1. You
will notice that since publication in 2006, many of us as users of technology are already familiar
with the hardware required for access to the world of technology. The list is, nevertheless,
provided for teachers who may be in contexts which still have limited or are without technology
and are preparing to accommodate technology into instruction.

Unfortunately, out-fitting classrooms with technology remains an expensive endeavour and if

your school context is not yet wired, we could as teachers seek funding options from the
international community to assist with this preparatory step. For example in North America
funding options include:

 SchoolMart(https://www.schoolmart.com/2016/12/20/funding-your-
technological-classroom/)
 Digital Wish (http://www.digitalwish.com/dw/digitalwish/home),
 WeAreTeachers (https://www.weareteachers.com/)
 Think Quest (http://www.thinkquest.org/competition/)

Finally, as you plan to make your learning context technology-accessible, there are online
communities that you could join in order to help you make decisions with a view to expanding
the use of technology particularly in the area of independent work by learners. For example,
plans for a teacher desktop or laptop may be nuanced with plans for learners to bring in their
own laptops for use during instruction as a future step.

This initial step of preparing classrooms for technology is usually an exciting phase that will
set you on the path of student-centered and potentially transformative instruction. There is
little in the research that compares the impact of teacher-initiated attempts at integrating

8 
 
technology into instruction with policy-initiated attempts but one can envisage that there will
be greater agency and ownership when initiated by the individual teacher.

Table 1: Technology for the Classroom (Adapted from Lewis, 2009, pp. 14-15)

No Equipment Features

1. Computer Desktops or laptops are adequate although laptops are

easier to carry and store when not in use. Consider also that
the classroom could also be out-fitted with sufficient
electrical sockets for learners to use their own laptops in the
future.

2. Printer For print versions of digital texts such as websites or to make

copies of learners’ work from their digital portfolios.

3. Webcam These provides opportunities for language practice through

video chats.

4. Digital Digital cameras allow for the use of digital images that can
camera be printed out as flash cards, posters or learning sheets.
They are a versatile and useful resource for language
learning.

5. Scanner A scanner makes soft copy versions of learners’ work to be

reviewed or stored in e-portfolios.

6. Digital video Digital video cameras allow teachers to capture authentic

camera examples of language use that can be shared. They are easy
to use even by learners to demonstrate their learning.

7. Interactive Interactive whiteboards are connected to a computer and a

whiteboards projector. In terms of software features, they are like MS
Powerpoint with touch-screen capabilities. Lewis (2009, p.
33) describes them as “excellent examples of seamless
technology” that allow teachers to model, demonstrate
process and make it explicit. More recently, there are
alternatives which are less expensive such as Promethean,
TeamBoard and BoardShare for teachers to consider.

Literature as the Site for Language & Literacy Learning

Technology has undoubtedly accelerated globalisation significantly. While technology almost

necessitates that users are digitally literate, it also affords users with the opportunity to interact
with other users within their own borders that they would not or could not have ordinarily met
and with users beyond their own borders. Such communication needs not only to be culturally

9 
 
appropriate but sensitive as well. In other words, there is a spectrum of literacies that 21st
century learners require because of technology, that surpass digital literacy.

Some of the most renowned educational systems in the world today are advocating literature
as the conduit for the learning of language in this expanded sense. It is argued that because
literature is “applied language” or “language in action” (Winch et al., 2014, p. 478), it serves
as a reservoir of language practice across a range of contexts, codes and forms. Furthermore,
the range of literature from prose, poetry, drama and factual writing traditionally arises from
and addresses almost every human need that makes it most suitable. Winch et al (2014, p.
474) add that “it is in literature, and in the multimodal production of literature for children, that
the diversity and range of language (both verbal and visual, permanent and ephemeral) is
arguably most interactive yet intimate, most purposeful yet playful, and most dimensional”.
These qualities are not only representative of the world in which 21st century learners live in
but also intrinsically motivating for readers as language learners.

They further argue that literature is an apt field for the study of language and literacy because
“there is an emphasis on the visual through images as well as words, where pictures of culture
abound (clothes, food, houses, transport, shopping and merchandise, school), and where
youth and its concerns and uses of technology and mobile devices are graphically portrayed
in highly contemporary ways.” (Winch et al., 2014, p. 476)

The call to use literature as authentic expressions of language use and “life worlds” (Winch et
al., 2014, p. 495) is not new. Widdowson (1979, p. 151), for example, asked for the “immediate
exposure to genuine instances of language use”, in response to the growing practice of using
“texts that have been simplified or especially written for language learners”. These are
described as “language learner literature” (Bamford & Day, 1997, p. 12), particularly popular
in contexts where English is a foreign language. Honeyfield (1977) explain that such texts
were overly simplified and “lack[ed] the features of authentic texts”. In response, Swaffar
(1985, p. 17) argues that these should be replaced with literature where there is an “authentic
communicative objective in mind”.

However, it is the argument for the use of literature as the site for 21st language and literacy
instruction that is most compelling. As a body of work, literature offers a context where visual,
cultural and digital or e-literacies “interconnect and interrelate” (Winch et al., 2014, p. 476) in
authentic and motivating ways, allowing for readers as learners to explore new ways of
knowing, being and doing. Good or high quality literature set children thinking, discussing,
examining the relationship between language, thought and practice in multimodal ways that

10 
 
Gee (1997, p. 5) describes as “language-ing”. Significant to contexts where English is a
foreign language, literature in English opens the “self to a world of others” (Winch et al., 2014,
p. 484; italicised in the original text) shaping reader or user identities and their place in the
world that textbooks and language learner literature will struggle to achieve.

The following section will describe two vignettes where technology is accommodated in
classroom contexts. The first is an integrated reading-writing lesson for primary school children
and the second is for older learners on research and inquiry.

The integration of technology for young learners has always been received by teachers with
some caution. Murphy, DePasquale & McNamara (2003, p. 1) quite rightly describe the
situation as one where “visions of programmed instruction and electronic worksheets have
caused teachers [at these levels] to fear that children will miss out on key experiences that
support their development if computer technology infiltrates teaching”. However, if one were
pause and consider the responsiveness of technology to user needs today, this trepidation
will quickly subside. Many education technologists have remarked that technology moves at
a rapid pace and many times, technological resources have responded so rapidly that soon
after publication, they have been reworked to accommodate user feedback. In fact, the
turnaround rate of response is quite remarkable.

Vignette 1: Teaching Reading and Writing to Young Learners

Mrs Gomez begins a sequence of five lessons on reading and writing for learners aged 6-8
years of age. The sequence of lessons is based on a book entitled “The Gruffalo” by Julia
Donaldson. She begins her lesson by introducing a digital song on “The Gruffalo”
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZfEIX2lhlI). She demonstrates the lyrics on an
interactive whiteboard and points to content words as she sings the song. She sings the
song twice with the learners, asking them to act out the meaning of the words they know. She
acts out the meaning of the content words as well. At the end of the song, she asks the class
if they liked the song and many do. She then lists the words that they heard in the song and
writes it on the interactive whiteboard and leaves them on the side of the whiteboard as the
beginnings of a word wall.

She then calls the learners to the front of the class and seats them in front of her as she opens
a big book version of the story “The Gruffalo”. She reads the story once through stopping at
each page, eliciting answers to questions that require learners to infer and predict what might
happen next in the story. She uses a hand puppet of mouse as the narrator of the story.

11 
 
When the story comes to an end, she asks them if they wish to sing “The Gruffalo” song again.
The learners jump to their feet and sing the song interactively by doing the actions as they
sing. After the song, she hands them a picture of “The Gruffalo” and asks them to colour it.
Learners who are ready to entitle their picture are encouraged to do so.

As an after-class activity, she asks the learners to sing the song with their parents. She informs
their parents via WhatsApp that they are to do the same and provides the link from which
they can either get to the video or download it onto their mobile device. On the second day of
the sequence, she sings the song again with the class, noticing that they have improved
because of the after-class practice. She elicits the words they have learnt from the song and
writes it on the interactive whiteboard. She then begins the reading of the story again and finds
that many are able to read along certain parts of the book particularly where the words of the
song appear. She does a recording of the class reading the big book with a web-based
recording device, Vocaroo. She plays the recording for the class highlighting the fact that
not everyone could be heard.

As an after-class activity, she asks parents to read the story “The Gruffalo” with their child and
when ready, record the reading and send it back to her via WhatsApp so that she can track
the development of their child’s reading progress. The link to the story is given as well as the
link to Vocaroo or Sound Cloud for recording. On the third day, the class begins with singing
the song again before there is a re-reading of the story. Mrs Gomez notices that more and
more learners are joining in the song and reading because of the language practice. She then
informs the class that they will take a walk around the back gardens of the school where the
Gruffalo might live. She forms them into lines and as they walk she takes pictures with the
digital camera of the garden, asking if they think they will see the Gruffalo.

When they return from their shared experience of a walk in the school back gardens, she
recounts the walk with the learners as she shows the photographs on the interactive white
board. She asks them to use words from the word wall they have created from the story and
song if they can as they recount what happened on the walk. As each learner provides a
phrase or sentence, she writes it on the interactive whiteboard as a caption to the digital
photographs. They re-read their album of the garden walk and it is recorded with Vocaroo.
After they complete their album story, she publishes it on the class website for display along
with the recording of their reading and the colour portraits of “The Gruffalo” that they had done
the previous day.
Parents are asked to review their child’s work on the class website via WhatsApp and to leave
a comment to encourage their child. As an after-class activity, parents are asked to use an

12 
 
alphabet tracing application (Letter Tracer: http://www.educationalappstore.com/best-
apps/5-best-letter-tracing-apps-for-kids) to practice tracing the words on the word wall.

Vignette 2: Teaching English for Research and Inquiry to Older Learners

Mr Chan begins his lesson by asking the class what country they wish to visit for their vacation
this June. He lists their responses on the interactive whiteboard. He asks them to pair up
and curate and compile 5 images of attractions in the country they wish to visit. They are to
include two details per picture: (a) name of the place/attraction and (b) reasons it is an
attraction. The learners work in pairs with one computer and develop a five-slide MS
powerpoint on the attractions of the country they wish to visit.
Once each pair is ready to present, they listen to each pair’s presentation offering to add
information or ask questions. After the presentation, Mr Chan uploads their presentations onto
the class website. He also asks the class to locate 4 print and non-print resources a pair on
the country they wish to visit and bring them along to the next class.

The next day, he brings one print resource per pair and adds it to their collection. He provides
them with an i-Chart template (Hoffman, 1992) which they are to use to evaluate the
resources. Each member of the pair is to evaluate two resources before they complete the
resource brought in by Mr Chan. After they complete the i-Chart, they share their experiences
about the quality of the print resources on a class Edmodo account.

The following day, each learner is to review the reflections on Edmodo by leaving a comment.
Mr Chan then demonstrates on the interactive whiteboard what constitutes a good
comment. He lists the features of politeness, its grammar and compares examples to help the
learners distinguish between good and poor comments. The learners review their comments
and using TeamMates (https://teammatesv4.appspot.com/) to rate their partner’s comment
as a means of peer assessment. Mr Chan’s demonstration slides are uploaded onto the class
website as a learning resource.

The same instructional process is followed but this time with non-print resources such as CDs,
DVDs and websites. Mr Chan brings in one resource per pair to add to their collection. The
pairs complete an i-Chart on two resources per member and finally compare their evaluations
with their evaluations of print resources, forming an initial assessment of which are good
resources and which are questionable and why.
On the final day, the pairs put together a small presentation using one of the following
presentation tools in Table 2:

13 
 
 Table 2: Presentation Apps

1. Zoho Show for built-in broadcasting options

2. Slides for a modern take on presentations
3. Prezi for animated, non-linear presentations
4. Canva for creative presentations
5. Swipe for audience engagement features
6. Bunkr for quick sharable presentations
7. Slidebean for automatic slide creation

Once their presentations are ready, they share their presentations on the class website,
where their parents may review and leave a comment. Importantly, the teacher reviews their
presentations for its overall objective but also paying attention to the relationships learners
create through word, audio and image. Learners were given the opportunity to respond to
comments practicing cultural literacy as they address different audiences of their work. These
were later taken up by the teacher for discussion as well.

Principles About Technology-based English language teaching

The section above, comprising two vignettes, sought to demonstrate how technology was
accommodated into English language instruction. From the vignettes, some principles can be
extracted about the use of technology and they are:

Technology is the handmaiden of the learning process

In both vignettes, the role that technology plays is to serve the pedagogical and learning
outcome. Both teachers did not allow technology to over-shadow the learning outcomes in
either lesson. Technological tools were brought into each lesson either to enhance the learning
of language knowledge or literacy skills. In addition, different technological tools were used at
different stages of either lesson. Consequently, the learners from both lessons received a
mixture of learning experiences in either the technological or physical world of the classroom
that will best achieve the learning outcomes.

14 
 
Technology opens the walls of the classroom

Particularly in Vignette 2, the teacher used a critical reading strategy, i-Charts, as a means of
examining both print and non-print resources on the country they wish to visit and the reasons
for their choice and in that way, extending the net from which learners can curate their
resources for decision-making. However, in order to ensure that the learners read good quality
resources, one of the resources was selected by the teacher, signalling the need for mediation
by the teacher as an expert in terms of “specific strategies and techniques” as well in terms of
“ensuring that the internet is used productively” (Winch et al., 2014, p. 416).

A new ecology of learning

In both vignettes, a new ecology of stakeholders, that is learners, the teacher and parents, are
forged naturally. Parents and peers take turns to become both resources and audience
through each task. Assessment of student learning of instruction is easily monitored as well.
Technology, however, brings in stakeholders as partners of learning throughout the process
of learning and without compromising it.

Literature is language applied

In reference to Winch et al (2014), technology-based English instruction is anchored by good

quality fiction and non-fiction literature as a means of language and literacy learning. Learners
are provided with a range of multimodal texts for examination, discussion and evaluation. In
Vignette 1, the big book and the digital song is used to assist in developing core concepts
around the word, phoneme and text before technological tools such as Vocaroo is employed.
Further applications developed by Singapore entrepreneurs such as Moo-O are other
technological tools that offer children opportunities to creatively re-tell the story of the big book.
In Vignette 2, learners engage with literature as they are found on the internet. The teacher
brings in quality non-fiction print resources of the countries to mediate the quality of website
resources with good non-fiction literature on the countries.

Learners are the producers and consumers of texts

Technology is situated in instruction such that learners are provided with a range of literature
as consumers and then as producers of texts to demonstrate learning. As producers, learners
are encouraged to share their learning to a range of authentic audiences apart from the
teacher. There is less of this in Vignette 1 than there is in Vignette 2. However, if the teacher

15 
 
had used applications such as Moo-O! (EyePower Games, 2017) there would have been more
of this sense in this lesson. Presentations by learners in Vignette 2 offer students the
opportunity to demonstrate their learning in multimodal ways.

Hyler & Hicks (2014) offer “curate, collaborate and connect” as a possible learning
design for technology-based learning. However, drawing from the practices of the two
teachers from Vignette 1 and 2, another learning design that will prove useful is a
combination of explicit teacher input, learner collaboration (to clarify personal learning
and on intermediary application tasks), curate (to determine new learning required),
presentation of learning and thinking (to demonstrate learning acquired in terms of
outcomes). Assessment of learning is interspersed between the stages of learning that
may involve key stakeholders as members of a new ecology of learning.

Diagrammatically, the learning design is represented in the following manner:

Sharing  Schema 
presentations  activation

Assessment of 
Explict Teacher 
learning by 
Input
teacher
Ecology of Learning 

Presentation  Learner 
of learning collaboration

Assessment of 
learning by 
learners

Figure 1: Extracted Learning Design for Language Learning

16 
 
Conclusion

This chapter aimed to demonstrate the accommodation of technology into English

language classrooms that develop 21st century competencies. It is argued that when
understood through the rapid developments and pervasiveness of technology in our
lives today, technology-based instruction is no longer an option. The use for learning
in our lives outside the classroom makes it increasingly obvious that it should be
harnessed for classroom learning. Finally, because technology is often introduced to
learners even before they enter school, ignoring it creates a significant disconnect
between learning in schools and learning outside of it.

Yet, it is understandable that teachers may be apprehensive about the inclusion of

technology given their own knowledge about it. Two vignettes are described in this
chapter demonstrating how technology has been accommodated as handmaidens to
pedagogy, revealing it potential at developing 21st century competencies in students.
It is envisioned that as teachers accommodate technology into their current lessons,
teachers will begin to fill their roles as educators of 21st century learners who are
designers of learning and owners of “patterns of [their] practice” (Tompkins, 2005).

References

Baker, F. (2016). 21st-century teaching and learning. English Teaching Professional(104),

23-24.

Bamford, J., & Day, R. R. (1997). Extensive reading: What is it? Why bother? The Language
Teacher, 21(5), 6, 8-12.

Barron, B. (2004). Learning ecologies for technological fluency: Gender and experience
differences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1-37).

Beers, K., Probst, R. E., & Rief, L. (2007). Adolescent literacy: Turning promise into practice.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackell.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of socual
futures. New York: Routledge.

Early, M., Kendrick, M., & Potts, D. (2015). Multimodality: Out from the margins of English
Language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 447-460.

17 
 
Esteban-Guitart, M., Serra, J. M., & Vila, I. (2017). Informationalism and informalization of
learnings in 21st century: A qualitative study on meaningful learning experiences.
HSE - Social and Education History, 6(1), 1-25.

EyePower Games. (2017). Moo-O! Retrieved from https://www.moo-o.com

Gee, J. P. (1990/1996/2007). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discources.

London: Taylor & Francis (Second edition, 1996; Third Edition, 2007).

Gee, J. P. (1997). Literacy and social minds. In G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds.), The Literacy
Lexicon (pp. 5-14). Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Gee, J. P. (2000). The new literacies studies: From "socially situated" to the work of the
social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: reading and
writing in context (pp. 180-196).

Gee, J. P. (2013). The anti-education era: Creating smarter students through digital learning.
New York: palgrave, Macmillan.

Handsfield, L., J., Dean, T. R., & Cielocha, K. M. (2009). Becoming critical consumers and
producers of texts: Teaching literacy with Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. The Reading
Teacher, 63(1), 40-50.

Hoffman, J. V. (1992). Critical reading/thinking across the curriculum: Using I-charts to

support learning. Language Arts, 69(2), 121-127.

Honeyfeild, J. (1977). Simplification. TESOL Quarterly, 11(4), 434-440.

Hyler, J., & Hicks, T. (2014). Create, compose, connect : Reading, writing and learning with
digital tools. New York: Routledge.

Izquierdo, J., de-la-Cruz-Villegas, V., Aquino-Zuniga, S.-P., Sandoval-Caraveo, M.-d.-C., &

Garcia-Martinez, V. (2017). Teachers' use of ICTs in public language education:
Evidence from second language secondary-school classrooms. Communicar, 25(50),
1988-3293.

Jansen, C., & Merwe, P. c. d. (2015). Teaching practice in the 21st century: Emerging
trends, challenges and opportunities. Universal Journal of Educational Research,
3(3), 190-199.

Kivunja, C. (2015). Teaching students to learn and to work well with 21st century skills:
Unpacking the career and life skills domain of the new learning paradigm.
International Journal of Higher Education, 4(1), 1-11.

Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design.
London: Routledge.

Leu, D. (2010). Foreword. In E. A. Baker (Ed.), The new literacies: Multiple perspectives on
research and practice (pp. viii-xi). New York: The Guilford Press.

Lewis, G. (2009). Bringing technology into the classroom. China: Oxford University Press.

Mathewman, S., Blight, A., & Davies, C. (2004). What does multimodality mean for English?
Creative tensions in teaching new texts and new literacies. Education,
Communication & Information, 4(1), 153-176.

18 
 
 Motterram, G. (2013). Innovations in learning technologies for English language teaching.
United Kingdom: British Council.

Murphy, K. L., DePasquale, R., & McNamara, E. (2003). Meaningful connections. Beyond
the Journal, Young Children on the Web, 1-9.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Reis, V. (2015). 21st century learning for 21st century young learners. Modern English
Teacher, 24(1), 14-16.

Senior, R. (2010). Connectivity: A framework for understanding effective language teaching

in face-to-face and online learning communities. RELC Journal, 41(2), 137-147.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal
of Instructional Technology and Distance Laerning, 2(1), 3-10.

Sir Ken Robinson (Producer). (2008, 25 March). Developing Imagination in Education.

Lecture Series. [Broadcast] Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT_121H3kLY

Swaffar, J. K. (1985). Reading authentic texts in a foreign language: A cognitive model. The
Modern Language Journal, 69(1), 15-34.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. (2009). TESOL technology standards

framework. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Tompkins, G. E. (2005). Language Arts: Patterns of Practice. Upper Saddle Back, New
Jersey: Pearson Education.

Tompkins, G. E. (2010). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (5th edition).
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2006). Lenses on reading: An Introduction to theories and
models. New York: Guilford Press.

Unworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of

text and image in classroom practice. Philadelphia, PA: Open University press.

Warshauer, M., Knoble, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling:
Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588.

Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Winch, G., Johnston, R., March, P., Ljungdahl, L., & Holliday, M. (2014). Literacy: Reading,
Writing and Children's Literature. Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press.
 

19 
 

View publication stats