Work Package 3: Communicative Language Teaching (2.11.2008)
Partner 6, University of Helsinki
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and ICTs
Advanced Information
In the following excerpt, Harjanne and Tella (2008) discuss certain elements of educational uses of information and communication technologies (ICTs), with a special analysis of Web 2.0 applications from a Finnish language teacher’s point of view. Three different versions of the desirable future are also indicated.
Reference: Harjanne, P., & Tella, S. (2008). Strong signals in foreign language education, with a view to future visions. In S. Tella (Ed.), From Brawn to Brain: Strong Signals in Foreign Language Education.Proceedings of the ViKiPeda-2007 Conference in Helsinki, May 21–22, 2007 (pp. 69–84). University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Research Report 290.
Strong Signals in Foreign Language Education,
With a View To Future Visions
Pirjo Harjanne & Seppo Tella
Research Centre for Foreign Language Education (ReFLEct)
Department of Applied Sciences of Education
University of Helsinki
pirjo.harjanne<at>helsinki.fi, seppo.tella<at>helsinki.fi
Abstract
Foreign language education (FLE) is generally expected to reflect current conceptions of human beings, knowledge, teaching, studying, learning, and knowing. Today’s FLE can be characterised, for instance, as socio-culturally oriented, communicative and transcultural. In this article, we will study some strong FL-specific signals that characterise this kind of FLE. The notion of weak signals refers to those barely noticeable signals that surround us and are likely to become important trends or phenomena at a later stage. However, we prefer to talk about strong signals that are clearly perceivable in current FLE and are likely to have a strong impact on future FLE, provided that they are allowed to grow steadily and taken into account properly by increasing numbers of FL teachers and teacher educators.
As strong signals, we discuss (i)the holistic view on language exemplified through language as an empowering mediator; (ii) the holistic view on language proficiency; (iii) the holistic view on language learning focusing on interaction and participation, exemplified through scaffolding, collaborative dialogue and affordance; (iv)the holistic view on language teaching exemplified through task-based language teaching (TBLT) and LanguageQuest, and (v)information and communication technologies (ICTs), with a view to Web 2.0.
We argue that dealing with strong signals is of primary importance. in order to understand the current nature of FLE and to be able to envision future FLE. We also acknowledge that these strong signals might, at their best, lead to or, at their worst, partially shadow some weaker signals that only perspicacious persons can sense at the moment.
We also argue that by analysing strong FL-specific signals, we can approach more easily certain future visions of FLE, which may then become a spectrum of different options and opportunities to us. Visions almost always imply an idea of a more desired future. Three visions, based on the strong signals analysed in this article, are presented: Brusselisation, Fraglargement, and Rejuvenation of the old continent. The future is seen as an opportunity, not as a threat.
Keywords: communicative, transcultural foreign language education (FLE); weak and strong signals; holistic view; empowering mediator; participation; interaction; scaffolding; collaborative dialogue; affordance; TBLT; LanguageQuest; ICTs; Web 2.0; future visions.
(…)
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)
One of the backdrop themes in this article has been the duality of weak signals versus strong signals. As we mentioned in the beginning, weak signals originally referred in radio astronomy to barely noticeable signals over a fairly large frequency range. Figuratively speaking, weak signals have then been used to indicate some new emerging phenomena that only the most perspicacious persons have been able to see or to “sense” as important future developments. Weak signals have often been on centre stage when information and communication technologies (ICTs) are referred to, and even more frequently, when they have been incorporated into education in general and into foreign language education in particular. One example of a modern cell phone was given earlier in this article in connection with affordance. A few more will be given below, although the main focus will then be shifted towards one recent development, namely Web 2.0.
One of the weak signals in the domain of ICTs has been the notion of a virtual school, first launched by Paulsen (1987) and then introduced to Finnish educational parlance by Tella (e.g., 1992, 1995). It was only since the mid-to-late 1990s that the virtual school became a strong signal in Finland, especially after the Finnish Ministry of Education and the Finnish National Board of Education started using it more and more extensively. Another weak signal was recognised in 1996 by a Finnish team of educators (cf. Nummi et al., 1998; later reported in Sariola et al., 2002) when the first models of Nokia communicators were put into the hands of primary and lower secondary school pupils for various kinds of tasks. These weak signals were gradually strengthened and finally became better known as e-learning or m-learning (mobile learning) in the early 2000s. In both cases, educational applications were already thought of and implemented before the signals could be recognised as strong by larger audiences.
At this very moment, Web 2.0 represents a weak signal in foreign language education, though it is certainly much more widely known in circles of media educationalists, for instance. On writing this article (November, 2007), we are of the opinion that not too many foreign language teachers or teacher educators are aware or cognisant of the emerging impact of Web 2.0. Nevertheless, we believe that it represents a quantum leap ahead and is bound to become a strong signal, even in FLE, in a number of years. Therefore, Web 2.0 is something we very much like to present as a strong signal.
Web 2.0
What could be a better way to define Web 2.0 than consulting and quoting Wikipedia, one of the best-known examples of Web 2.0 applications:
”Web 2.0, a phrase coined by O'Reilly Media in 2003 … refers to a perceived second generation of web-based communities and hosted services—such as social-networking sites, wikis and folksonomies—which facilitate collaboration and sharing between users.” (Wikipedia on Web 2.0)
Indeed, technically, we are still using the Internet as everybody knows it. Yet, Web 2.0 (pronounced, by the way, [web tu: ou]), represents a social revolution, as it is geared towards facilitating collaboration and social sharing. This is why many regard Web 2.0 as social media or social networking, which aptly describes its intrinsic character.
Why and how does Web 2.0 then look revolutionary and not only evolutionary? It might help to refer to a table contrasting our present modes (Web 1.0) of using the Internet as opposed to modes put forward through Web 2.0 (Table 2).
Table 2. Some Salient Features of and Differences Between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 (as conceptualised by O’Reilly, 2005).
Most Finnish language teachers, we argue, are using Web 1.0 or—as most of them would describe their practice: the Internet. Some if not most of them would have recourse to their own personal home pages. Some of them might have downloaded the Encyclopedia Britannica onto their laptops—though, we might add, without any irony, not too many. Some of them might be enjoying MP3 music on their iPods or some other multimedia players. Again, some of them (might) use content management systems (CMSs) or IDLEs (integrated distributed learning environments), such as BSCW, BlackBoard/WebCT or Moodle. They would also use different kinds of taxonomies, such as diverse library databases—and, for that matter—be quite happy about their present status quo while, we might add, being blissfully ignorant of any other state of the art in this field. We could continue to analyse the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 (3.0, 4.0 and so on ad infinitum), but we prefer leaving it to the readers’ own amusement (or irritation), as this also exemplifies the new world of Web 2.0; not everything is explained thoroughly or even sufficiently: it is up to our reader(s) to decide whether s/he//they want(s) anything more.
When seen from the perspective of emerging Web 2.0 applications, many FL colleagues of ours would probably be interested in and keen on learning about the potential impact that Web 2.0 applications might have on their professional habits and lives. Let us just point to some, partly based on our own experience when coming across Web 2.0. For instance, Wikipedia Encyclopaedia is something that most of us use, in lieu of previously popular albeit high-priced online encyclopaedia. Admittedly, Wikipedia contains mistakes and errors together with biased articles, but think about it, very often so do even highly-respected printed encyclopaedias, especially when the current theory is challenged by others.
Some of the major conceptual changes are about to take place once you realise that static home pages you have been creating cannot give the flexibility that any blog affords. Blogging, in other words writing one’s own interactive web pages or diary on the web, has become very important in many areas, not only in education. Think of how media reports what some politicians write about their opinions on their personal blogs (Teachers of Swedish: have a look at Carl Bildt’s blog at or any of us, view Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen’s blog at
Publishing something on one’s own home page is no longer enough. Publishing has changed to participation, as Web 2.0 applications allow others to comment on what you have written yourself. This is clearly seen on wikis, which have started to replace more rigid and inflexible course management systems (CMSs). Wikis, on the other hand, allow others to comment and participate. From our point of view—and from the point of view of foreign language education in general—this is something quite revolutionary, and even fascinating. An increasingly growing number of people can and will communicate with one another via Web 2.0 applications. Let this also be a good reminder of the fact that it is no longer crucial to only promote oral skills; preferably, as language teachers and teacher educators, we should know—as we always should have known—how to promote multifaceted, many-sided language proficiency, both written and oral skills. The latest developments of ICTs in the form of Web 2.0 are most likely to activate all language skills in us.
One more clarification of Table 2: Web 2.0 also invites and encourages us to use taxonomies of our own, now called folksonomies. Users on Web 2.0 no longer rely on top-down established taxonomies; they prefer to classify and categorise things as they like themselves. These new categories are called tags—think of them as Web 2.0 descriptors or keywords—and tagging is one of the major and most empowering features on Web 2.0. Let us give an example of language teaching. Imagine a language teacher (educator) writing an article about, say, Web 2.0. What very often happens right now is that the writer goes to Google and thus tries to find relevant sources. Very often, what follows is that Google (or any other search engine) gives (hundreds of) thousands of sources, out of which the majority are secondary or completely useless. In the world of Web 2.0, however, many of these articles are tagged. This means that if you locate an article that has been tagged by some of the experts in the field, then you might consider using that article yourself. Tagging gives some added value in indicating that these articles have been regarded as important and deemed as useful by some other experts as well.
Wikipedia, blogs, folksonomies, wikis, tagging, RSS, on-demand video, file-sharing, blogs and podcasting, CmapTools … yes, these are some of the terms and concepts embedded in Web 2.0. When getting familiar with Web 2.0, we also need to familiarise ourselves with new lexis. This is of course partly a reason for “magnetism of the past”, in other terms, reluctance to adopt new ideas: even new terms always call for extra work in order to understand what it is all about. However, we believe that effort is needed and not unnecessary at all. The seven key characteristics of Web 2.0 are as follows: participation, standards, decentralisation, openness, modularity, user control and identity. The heart of Web 2.0 is how it converts inputs (user-generated content, opinions, applications), through a series of mechanisms (technologies, recombination, collaborative filtering, structures, syndication) into emergent outcomes that are of value to the entire community.
Let us summarise what some of the benefits of Web 2.0 might be from the perspective of FLE. First, Web 2.0 implies a more intensive use of language, both receptive and productive, both oral and written. Second, it brings with it many new affordances, new opportunities, to participate socially over the web. Instead of just publishing static information pages, such as home pages, it gives ample opportunity to share experiences with others, to send and receive comments from other communicators. In other words, Web 2.0 emphasises collaborative and community-building aspects of communication, which, at the same time, also underscores the importance of socio-constructivist and socio-cultural learning approaches. Third, it means giving up dinosaur-types of ICT applications, often called CMSs, and replacing them with more flexible, open-ended and truly interactive wikis. Fourth, Web 2.0 encourages us to rely on and contribute to open source software such as Wikipedia, at the cost of commercially-produced products. Finally, Web 2.0 means open source, open content and open courseware. The net is full of various services, applications and programs that can substantially contribute to foreign language teaching, studying and learning in novel ways that have not been realised or even conceptualised so far. These materials are often referred to as Open Educational Resources (OER[1]) or Free and Open Source Software (FOSS[2]).
What, then, are the prerequisites of having a fair command of Web 2.0? First, getting familiar with new terminology (blogs, tagging, wikis, RSS, etc). Second, not being afraid of something novel that has not traditionally been part of FLE. This is something completely different from easygoing learner autonomy, European Language Portfolios or CEFR proficiency scales now familiar to most informed language teachers and language educators. Web 2.0 calls for an extra effort, but so have educational uses of ICTs since the early 1980s, when it all officially started in Finland.
At the same time, Web 2.0 gives all language teachers breathtaking new affordances that should be part of any teacher education course now and in the future. Think of shared files on the web (cf. for instance, that gives a language teacher a free-of-charge opportunity to co-author an article on the web. In the same way, a joint presentation can be coauthored on the web without having to buy any extra software, and the authors can be located all over the world, for that matter. This is something completely novel when compared to process-writing on pen-and-paper. Another key concept is open source courseware, in other words, learning materials available on the net free of charge, opening new avenues for language learning as well (cf. e.g., Vuorikari, 2004). What Web 2.0 fundamentally does is to afford a myriad of ICT applications that make language teachers’ work much more versatile and dynamic than ever before.
Still, as Einstein put it, “everything should be as simple as it can be, but not any simpler”. Web 2.0 makes things easy (or at least easier) for language teachers as well.
Visions and the Way Ahead
In this article, we have argued that dealing with strong signals is of primary importance in order to understand the current nature of foreign language education, to implement it and to be able to envision its future. We have also argued that by analysing strong FL-specific signals we can more easily approach certain future visions of FLE, which may then become a spectrum of different options and opportunities open to all of us. We have said that visions to us are opportunities to visualise and envision the future and that those visions imply, at their best, an idea of a more desired or desirable future.
We are, at the same time, painfully conscious of the fact that not much may change. This is a real concern in FLE as in teaching in general. Think of the history of teaching. In spite of influential personalities, such as Dewey, Montessori, Steiner, Vygotsky and a large number of others, and in spite of the long history of communicative language teaching, we still face the fact that old methods are still going strong. A focus on the grammatical form is too heavily emphasised, teachers still talk 70% of the academic time allotted to language teaching, students still sit in rows behind their desks and answer teachers’ questions one by one, after having been given permission to talk and an atomistic product assessment is still dominant. Despite this static and unfortunate status quo and the traditional isolation of the school from the surrounding environment, we believe something may change. And it may change in three different directions, which we will depict in the following as examples of scenarios that we might face in the future.