This reminds me of the year 1982, when I gave a guest lecture at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, entitled “Preaching to the unconverted: a personal report on five years’ work in Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)”. At that time I was regarded as the departmental nutter, but I managed to secure funding for a study trip to Canada, where using computers in language learning and teaching was more widely established than in the UK and where people were more at ease with technology in general. I came back suitably enlightened.

CALL really took off in UK schools in the early 1980s, after the introduction of the BBC Microcomputer. I then ceased to be the departmental nutter and was invited to give talks on CALL all over the UK and, indeed, all over the world. CILT commissioned me to write their fist publication on CALL in 1982. It was a best-seller and revised in 1985. The revised version was also a best-seller. I no longer had to evangelise: CALL was selling itself.

I think it was a mistake for the DCSF to insist on teachers using ICT when the NC was introduced. See the NC site, which still states:

“As a general requirement, teachers should provide pupils with opportunities to apply and develop their ICT capability in all subjects (except physical education and the non-core foundation subjects at key stage 1). For each subject, these translate into specific, statutory requirements to use ICT in subject teaching. Teachers should use their judgement to decide when the use of ICT is appropriate at key stage 1 in the non-core foundation subjects.”

I think one of the results of this is a backlash against the use of ICT. ICT has been grossly oversold, and a lot of money has been wasted on it. My personal view is that teachers should only use ICT if they feel comfortable about it and if they are properly trained to use it. The NOF training initiative was supposed to raise ICT literacy standards among teachers but, because it was enforced on teachers and delivered mainly by ICT specialists rather than subject specialists, it did not work.

See what I wrote about Web 2.0 here at the ICT4LT site (Section 2.1, Module 1.5):
http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_mod1-5.htm#WEB2

In recent months I have been invited to give several talks about using Second Life (which is a typical Web 2.0 application) in language learning and teaching. Like CALL in general in the 1980s, Second Life is selling itself as an educational tool. There is no need to evangelise. See Section 14.1.2, Module 1.5 at the ICT4LT site:
http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_mod1-5.htm#secondlife
The interesting thing about these talks is that I have given several of them to audiences at a distance, using Second Life as the delivery environment, to teachers in Finland, in Italy, in Spain, in the USA. Now THAT’s progress in technology.

End of rant! See my article:
1997: "Lessons from the past, lessons for the future: 20 years of CALL". In Korsvold A-K. & Rüschoff B. (eds.) New technologies in language learning and teaching, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France. The full text (regularly updated) is also on the Web at: http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/coegdd1.htm

Plus ça change…?

Regards
Graham Davies

You've hit the nail on the head. It is my current quandary.

I have been at my current school for 3.5 years. I reflect on, (and I suggest all those who advocate effective change for the purpose of learning), where we have come from, where we are and where we want to be.

There has already been a big shift in how the school thinks about technology. in 2005, we had maybe 1/4 of all computers meeting minimum specs for windows XP!!!!! So the school was running 98. Things often went wrong as the pcs could not cope with what was being demanded of them so people didn't bother, the computers are too slow or the internet takes forever!

School based decisions were being made by administrators and therefore the use of technology in learning was at best superficial and for appearances only. Not only that, it was extremely restrictive. Just last year one school I know of was still telling children to only use one graphic per powerpoint slide and they were only allowed to use certain designs. Man that shocked me!

Currently the situation is much better, money has been spent; don't get me wrong there are still barriers in terms of the hardware and software, some more perspective than actual fact.

School based decisions are being made in collaboration with educators and administrators (with the opinion of students, parents and staff being considered). We are embracing IWBs and the use of internet to support and enhance curriculum.

The biggest shift of all is our internet bandwith. We have been working on 512. We have been fighting for an upgrade for the last 6 months (even longer if you count my discussion with the principal. Our education department didn't want to allow it, they conducted numerous tests but eventually they caved after we established the need. we are being upgraded to 1.5mb.

Having supportive admin has helped, the face of learning at my school is changing, ever so slowly but I have learnt to focus on my class first and then when people see things they like, they ask me about it. We set up planning meetings and then implement a similar project in their classrooms.

I am quite proud of what has happened at my current school, but there have been times where I felt that I was wasting my time and that colleagues were not seeing the benefits of technology in the facilitating of their class's learning. But make sure you look at where you have come from and where you and your staff are now.

Remember it is not about technology it is really about enhancing learning to meet the needs of the children in our class today, right now. The class we have tomorrow will probably be completely different.

Where do I want my school to be? somewhere that caters to it's current cohort (of teachers and students), and that promotes learning for learning's sake and offers challenging, interesting, dynamic and relevant content. Web 2.0 is one platform that can provide this.

Here's to change no matter how slow it is!

Bob

I agree entirely with what you are saying

I have long believed that you shouldn't make any additional efforts to force colleagues to use online teaching tools. Exactly as you mention in the latter stages - what you instead need to do is prove the potential. Don't talk about "If we do this, we could..." but rather produce evidence, use the tools to the best of your own potential.

This this encourages colleagues in a number of ways. Firstly they see the benefits, more importantly they see that it was worth the risk to experiment with such technology, even more importantly, they don't need to take the risk as you've done that for them. Finally, they then make the decision themselves.

Forget about bringing horses to water and them not bothering to drink. Drink the whole lot yourself and let them ask for the water to be refilled!

I've seen an immense change at my place. When I arrived in 1998 I was the odd one for using the internet for teaching. Now you are seen as a bit odd if you aren't engaging with internet-based teaching and learning.

One thing those of us who are keen must appreciate is that it is much easier for colleagues to continue using what has worked rather than risk changing existing practice. If a spirit of risk-taking is very clear an institution can really go places. What we also mustn't demand is instant, immediate change. Instead we need to encourage Colleagues, as you say, by showing the benefits in reality.

I agree - and most importantly, get the pupils on your side! If the pupils want something and ask it of their teachers then said teachers will be more inclined to go along with it, if they think it will benefit their classes, rather than being evangelised to (if that's correct grammar?!) by a convert. Same sort of thing happened when we first started Moodle - a few of us used it and a few were sceptical, but it was pupil power ('Sir - Miss So-and-so has put her lesson on Moodle; why can't you do it too?') that encouraged them more than anything. I think Web 2.0 usage could work in the same way. And I hope I don't get spammed this time!