Idiom48

Contents
10 esseNtIal hINts fOr usINg ICt IN the eNglIsh ClassrOOM
Edwin Creely, St Francis Xavier College

Technology, or what is known in educational circles

as Interactive Computer Technology (ICT), has an
uneasy history with the English teacher in the English
classroom, or at least that is my experience. On the
one hand, there are the ICT prophets who cry in the
wilderness about the new (and now not-so-new)
interactive online worldthe digital worldthat is
changing the whole landscape of how we, as English
teachers, conceive and practice literacy(ies) (Hawisher
and Selfe, 2000; Alvermann, 2002; Kapitzke, 2002;
Haywood, et al, 2006; Leu, 2007; Coiro, 2008; Kenton
and Blummer, 2010). They talk about literacies,
about digital literacies, about digital selves and
communicating in the interactive age of Facebook,
Twitter, tablets and personal e-devices (Roschelle and
Tatar, 2007; Parmar, 2011). Its not as if we have to
think about ICT in our classrooms, according to these
prophets, it is already here and in our faces, and we
avoid it to our peril. On the other hand, there are the
neo-Luddites (see Frobish, 2002; Bigge, 2006) for
whom computers and digital devices are anathema
and good teaching is about engagement with good
literature, about the teacher-student connection,
about the craft of writing, and about the tangibility of
holding a book in ones hand and feeling its weight of
imagination. Probably, like me, you sit somewhere inbetween these two positions: sensing the obligations of
the digital age and also pining nostalgically for a time
when writing was king, the book was queen and the
pen was mightier than the sword.
My conversations with fellow English teachers are often
replete with horror stories of what has gone wrong
when ICT visits the English classroom, juxtaposed to the
stories of younger English teachers whose technology
narratives are often (and I hate to say it) positive, even
euphoric. The postmodernist approach to knowledge
and learning seems to be at the core of contemporary
discourses about technology in education (see
Solomon, 2000). At its worst, the technology push,
especially from the various levels of government,
is about throwing money at schools in the form of
computers, laptops, tablets and e-devices, and then
hoping that it will foster positive change (see Rudd,
Swan and Conroy, 2007; Rudd and Gillard, 2008; Reid,
2009). At its best, it is about the careful and thoughtful
integration of ICT into classrooms because of wellresearched benefits and the potential of computer and
Internet technologies for the effective formation of
students who will have to cope with a yet-to-be seen
digital future (Moyle, 2010).
Effective ICT would seem to me to be about being
complementary; not supplanting what is still useful.
I, for one, still like writing with a pen (and a fountain

pen at that), and I encourage my students to do

likewise. Lets face it, the pen is an old but still
essential technology for communication, and it has
even transmogrified into a digital input device. It is
part of a repertoire of technologies that students need
to adopt and adapt to in order to be 21st century
communicators in which there is an unending flux of
technological change and innovation. They need a
diverse technology toolbox (including e-readers such as
the Kindle, online compositional technologies, online
Cloud storage, online website design, blogging, virtual
worlds such as Second Life, and the like) from which
they can draw in order to meet contemporary literacy
needs and expectations.
So, if we, as a collective profession, are to sit more
comfortably between the neo-Luddite and technoprophet positions, what do we need to do? I have
come up with ten hints, or strategies or perspectives
for avoiding or minimising pitfalls and shifting to
an adaptive strategy for dealing with technology in
the classroom. These ideas are drawn from both my
reflection on praxis and my reading of the growing
research literature about ICT, literacy and learning,
some of which is cited in this article.
So, here are my ten (not to be confused with the ones
on stone tablets) hints:

1. kNOw the teChNOlOgy

There is no substitute for embodied learning of a
technology. To be embodied means doing (handson) as well as conceiving: it is both cognitive and
somatic engagement (Emig, 2001; Evans, et al 2009).
Thoroughly familiarise yourself with the technology you
intend to utilise in your educational setting. Familiarity
is half the battle. Play with the technology: embrace it
and deploy it corporeally into the fabric of your practice
as an educator. Do it outside the classroom; which
is what I am currently doing with my iPad. I believe
that teachers should always be, and continue to be,
learners. A sense of inquiry should be at the core of our
pedagogy and inspire our educative connection with
students. Teachers should be researchers and personify
openness (see Kincheloe, 2003). This openness to
the world and to the changes in the world, I argue,
evokes an adaptability that is essential for an education
towards the future. This adaptability is especially
facilitated with playful engagement with what is new
or unfamiliar, and evolving e-technologies are certainly
that.

2. seek suppOrt aND traININg

For busy and committed teachers it may be challenging
to seek training and develop a culture of asking for

Best Lessons Edition

support in regard to technology This training and

support, however, would seem to be vital in multimodal
classrooms, where a tablet may well sit beside a pen,
a laptop, an electronic whiteboard or digital projector,
and there is a myriad of possibilities for what can go
wrong. Training and support need to be about both
the use of the technology and its implementation in
learning and literacy programs; thus the term learning
technologies (and eLearning) is often part of the protechnology advocacy discourse (see Jones and Issroff,
2005).
Whilst going to training providers outside of a school
setting is a worthwhile option, peer-to-peer support
within a school is especially efficacious and promotes a
collegiality that sustains developing practice. Talking to
colleagues about ones practice and about best practice
in implementing and sustaining technology in the
classroom is, for me, part of our continuing professional
development and formation as English and literacy
educators. Networking with schools that are trialling
new technologies or developing innovative approaches
would also be part of this ongoing development of best
practice.
Many schools now employ an eLearning or innovation
director. This type of person could be crucial for the
ease of implementation and ongoing issues with the
integration of eLearning with the particular curriculum
demands of an English classroom.

3. theOrIse the IMpleMeNtatION Of ICt aND DIgItal

teChNOlOgIes

Teaching is concerned with sound praxis: the symbiosis

between theory and practice (see Argyris and Schon,
1974). Thus, pedagogy for digital technologies and
ICT in the English classroom needs to be based on
theoretical concerns as well as practical, inductive
experience. For instance, one theoretical concern in
terms of eLearning is the intra-personal and technopersonal factors that constitute the dynamics of
a learning environment. Complex systems theory
suggests that a system needs careful design to reach
optimal potential and that the initial conditions of
a system are critical for the outcome of that system
(see Jacobson and Wilensky, 2006). If the classroom is
viewed as a system, then design of the space in terms
of human and technological parameters is especially
important.

4. OrIeNtate tO tasks
The structured and focused use of ICT in the English
classroom would seem to be a means of avoiding
horror stories, especially inappropriate use of
technology. In my teaching practice having a task
4

orientation in using ICT is most effective. Tasks drive

both the use and selection of appropriate technologies
that are customised for the educational context (see,
for example, Branzburg, 2001; Neville, et al, 2005).
Narrative writing, for instance, may benefit from the
use of flow-charting or fiction writing software, such
as Scrivener, or Celtx for script writing. Researching an
issue could be facilitated by the newspaper apps on the
iPad or other tablet devices. There is considerable scope
for all or most of English courses, tasks and resources
to be online, and for students to submit work digitally,
as well as through hand-written scripts (which can
even be online through digital input pens). Indeed the
growing model of educational delivery at tertiary level
is through structured and task-specific eLearning and
virtual environments (Bouras, et al, 2001).
Thus, developing technology-savvy curricula that
accounts for the multiplicity of digital modalities
and forms of literacy(ies) needs to be both targeted
and geared to the aims of the broader school
curriculum and national and state directives about the
development of curricula. I suggest that the use of
technology should never be haphazard but purposeful
and orientated to the needs of particular tasks. Ask
yourself the question: what technology would best
facilitate the needs of students completing a particular
task? This question suggests both a curriculum and a
pedagogical answer.

5. ClarIfy rules aND pOlICIes fOr MIsuse

I have always been of the opinion that both the
carrot and the stick should apply to controlling
the appropriate use of technology in educational
settings. The carrot is that technology or ICT in the
classroom can bring significant and lasting benefits
for students through access to seemingly limitless
information and eLearning materials, availability of a
set of compositional tools (many of which are now
online), eReading devices and the use of technology
to connect people inside and outside the classroom.
ICT is enjoyable to use, encourages initiative and
fosters an empowering research focus (see Culican
and Emmitt, 2002). The stick is that inappropriate use
of technology has consequences and can impede the
learning of students for whom it becomes a distraction
or an unhelpful focus. Certainly, in legal and ethical
terms, there are emerging issues and problems with
e-technologies and the Internet (Davidson and Saubert,
2004).
Rules and policy should thus emphasise the benefits
of working within the rules and protocols of effective
usage, not just the sanctions that apply for misuse.
In my view too many policies about technology and
Idiom: Volume 48, Number 3

Idiom48

OK Computer

eLearning emphasise the stick and pay too little

attention to the carrot.

6. establIsh aCCOuNtabIlIty prOCesses

Accountability processes in using ICT are an essential
part of a teachers praxis. By accountability I mean
a set of performance expectations that are woven
in situ within a learning environment and moderate
the sets of relationships within that environment.
Accountability means that students need to articulate
and explain what they use the technology to do and
what they have learnt through using the technology.
This feedback and strategic intervention needs to be
planned for and part of the structures of lessons and
units of work. It is not a matter of just providing ICT
for students but asking them to account for and own
their usage of it in the process of self-directed learning
where well-being and learning goals are integrated
(Boekaerts and Corno, 2005).

7. fOster peer-tO-peer tutOrINg

I propose that one of the most powerful means
of facilitating the integration of technology into
the English classroom is through the resources of
the students themselves as collaborators and coconstructors of knowledge (see Mukama, 2010).
Using the varying levels of expertise in mix ability
classrooms, a teacher can work with students as cotutors. Both social network theory (Daly, 2010) and
Gestalt psychology (Murray, 1995) emphasise the
ground for and interactions of humans as they adapt to
and connect contextually within an environment. The
environment of and adaptation of self within a human
environment could be labelled a field. The social field
and the technological fields of a classroom can intersect
in sharing expertise and through de-centering authority.
In all probability there are students in an English
teachers class that have significantly more knowledge
and skills, in regard to particular technologies, than the
teacher. Not only will such students be of inestimable
value to the teacher, they will experience enhanced
learning through the interactive process of tutoring/
teaching peers (Beasley, 2002).

8. DeplOy teChNOlOgy IN all Its fOrMs aND VarIetIes IN

the eNglIsh ClassrOOM
Our core business as English and literacy teachers is to
develop each students facility with and understanding
of words (and the social occasion of words), oral
discourses and communication across modalities. The
means of achieving this core in our teaching will vary
and is multifarious. It is likely to be a complex mix
of hard and soft modalities. Hard refers to those
communication modalities that require haptic and

visual engagement with a tangible communication

artefact such as a paper book, magazine or newspaper.
It would also include the use of a pen, paintbrush or
other such creative tools. Soft refers to visual and
interactive media based on software, including the
range of interactive and digital forms that constitute
the Internet.
The best practice English classroom is one in which
a deliberative blend of hard and soft modalities is
embodied in practice (see Morrow and Gambrell,
2011). There is not a privileging of one technology
but a pragmatic deployment of technologies that will
aid students and develop particular literacies. In sum,
best practice is about designing an e-learning and
literacy(ies) environment. As an aside, it seems to me
that tablets (the iPad and the Android-based tablets)
embody both hard and soft characteristics, with many
apps written on the visual basis of metaphors drawn
from hard modalities such as the book.

9. lINk teChNOlOgy tO ONlINe prODuCtION

Writing and the creation of content has significantly
shifted to online, non-print, modalities linked with
social media (Facebook, Twitter), blogs, web sites
(emerging interactive writing sites), gaming and
intranet based applications such as Moodle (Hargittai
and Walejko, 2008). As a conservative, and sometime
old-fashioned, English teacher, I must admit to some
reluctance in incorporating such modalities and metamodal discourses into my teaching practice. However,
for the digital futures that all our students face, we
have to cogitate about how such modalities as might
be meaningfully incorporated into literacy programs.
Is it conceivable that students could complete their
writing work online and publish to their own web
sites (made with such online template based web site
creation tools as weebly.com)? Is it conceivable that
teachers (and probably many of you already do this)
could do the same?

10. CONCeIVe DIgItal lIteraCy as part Of a brOaDer set

Of NOtIONs abOut lIteraCy(Ies)
Throughout this article I have pluralised references
to the various computer-based, online and digital
technologies. I believe the same plurality and
heterogeneity should apply to the term literacy,
reflected in the use of the term literacy(ies) in this
article. Even in the pre-digital era the term was never
monolithic that I can recall. The current Australian
Curriculum constructs English in terms of reading,
writing, viewing, speaking and listening, as multifacial, in other words. Rather than an all-inclusive
term, the notion of context-specific literacies might
be more helpful in dealing with the variety of media
5

Best Lessons Edition

forms, writing genres, digital technologies, e-reading

technologies and online content production and
consumption.
In reading back over this article, one composed on
the fly on my iPad, I see clearly the possible danger of
appearing to be patronising to my English colleagues.
The use of technology is a sensitive issue for educators,
especially ones at the coal-face of literacy(ies) practice.
We are constantly told what should happen and
perhaps I am doing more of this telling. Certainly, we
are used to demands about technology being imposed
from without. I would like to assure you all, however,
that I am, like you, still grappling, experimenting,
failing, succeeding and modifying what I do with
technology, and having fun in the process. I am a
learner and a researcher, and I have not arrived. I have
some ideas, some experiences, and some perspectives
that I would like to share. Try them out, discuss them,
experiment and trial, and most of all find what works
for you and, most importantly, what works for your
students.
Edwin Creeley

refereNCes
Alvermann, D. E (2002), Adolescents and literacies in a
digital world, Peter Lang, New York.
Argyris, C, Schon, D (1974), Theory in practice:
increasing professional effectiveness, Jossey-Bass
Publishers, San Francisco.
Beasley, C (2002), Students as teachers: The benefits of
peer tutoring,Teaching and Learning Forum 97, Curtin
University, WA, <http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1997/
beasley.html>.
Bigge, R (2006), The cost of (anti-) social networks:
Identity, agency and neo-luddites, First Monday, 11
(12), <http://frodo.lib.uic.edu/ojsjournals/index.php/fm/
article/view/1421/1339>.
Boekaerts, M, Corno, L (2005), Self-Regulation in
the Classroom: A Perspective on Assessment and
Intervention, Applied Psychology 54 (2), 199231.
Branzburg, J (2001), How Well Is It Working?
Customizing Your Technology Assessment, Technology
and Learning 21 (7), 2426,30,32,3435.

Literacy Research, paper prepared for The Australian

Association for Research in Education, Brisbane,
December 2002, <http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/
emm02090.htm>.
Daly, A (ed) (2010), Social Network Theory And
Educational Change, Harvard Education Press, Boston.
Davidson, D., Saubert, W (2004), Classroom Concerns:
Legal and Ethical Implications of Internet Misuse,
<http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2004/misuse.htm>.
Emig, J (2001), Embodied Learning, English Education
33 (4), 271280.
Evans, J, Davies, B., Rich, E (2009), The body made
flesh: embodied learning and the corporeal device,
British Journal of Sociology of Education 30 (4), 391
406.
Frobish, T (2002), Neo-Luddites and Their Rhetorical
Paradox, Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice 14
(2), 207215.
Hargittai, E, Walejko, G (2008), The Participation
Divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital
age Information, Communication and Society 11 (2),
239256.
Haywood, D, Haywood, J., Macleod, H (2006),
Graduate e-Literacies and Employability. In Literacies
for Learning in the Digital Age, Martin, A and Madigan
(Eds), D. Pub. Facet, London.
Jacobson, M., Wilensky, U (2006), Complex Systems in
Education: Scientific and Educational Importance and
Implications for the Learning Sciences, Journal of the
Learning Sciences 15 (1), 1134.
Jones, A, Issroff, K (2005), Learning technologies:
Affective and social issues in computer-supported
collaborative learning, Computers and Education 44
(4), 395408.
Kapitzke, C (2002), E-literacies and cybraries. In S.
Capra and J. Ryan (Ed.), Problems are the Solution:
Keys to Lifelong Learning, Capalaba, Qld: Capra Ryan
and Associates, 7788.

Coiro, J (2008), Handbook of research on new

literacies, New York, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kenton, J, Blummer, B (2010), Promoting Digital

Literacy Skills: Examples from the Literature and
Implications for Academic Librarians. Community and
Junior College Libraries 16 (2): 8499.

Culican, S, Emmitt, M (2002), Towards a model of

Collaboration and Empowerment in Middle Years

Kincheloe, J L (2003), Teachers as researchers:

qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment,

Idiom: Volume 48, Number 3

Idiom48

OK Computer

Routledge Falmer, New York.

Leu, D, et al (2007), What Is New About The New
Literacies of Online Reading Comprehension?, Berger,
L Rush, and J Eakle (Eds.) Secondary school reading and
writing: What research reveals for classroom practices,
NCTE/NCRLL: Chicago, IL.
Morrow, L. M., Gambrell, L (2011), Best practices in
literacy instruction (4th Edition), Guilford Press, New
York.
Moyle, K (2010), Building innovation learning with
technologies, Australian Education Review 56, ACER
Press, Vic.
Mukama, E (2010), Strategizing computer-supported
collaborative learning toward knowledge building,
International Journal of Educational Research 49 (1),
19.
Murray, D J (1995), Gestalt psychology and the
cognitive revolution, Hemel Hempstead [England],
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Neville, K, Heavin, C, Walsh, E (2005), A case in
customizing e-learning, Journal of Information
Technology 20 (2), 117129.
Parmar, J (2011), E-Learning: Tablets in Education,
<http://www.union.ic.ac.uk/blogs/2011/10/28/elearning-tablets-in-education>.
Reid, A (2009), Is this a revolution? A critical analysis
of the Rudd governments national education agenda,
<http://www.qcpcanrc.com/docs/Is_this_a_revolution.
pdf>.
Roschelle, J, Tatar, D, et al (2007), Ink, Improvisation,
and Interactive Engagement: Learning with Tablets,
Computer 40 (9), 4248.
Rudd, K, and Gillard, J (2008), Quality education:
The case for an education revolution in our schools,
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Rudd, K, Swan, S, and Conroy, S (2007), A digital
education revolution, Election 2007 Policy Document,
Australian Labor Party, Canberra.
Selfe, C L and G E. Hawisher (2000), Global literacies
and the World-Wide Web, Routledge, New York
Solomon, D (2000), Toward a post-modern agenda
in instructional technology. Educational Technology
Research and Development 48 (4), 520.
7