Rob,


Rob wrote:
"(...) seems to me, it's a perceived (by me) attitude of "You're either
with us or against us", which I sense in Karenne's recent post, that turns
people off. All I've ever wanted to say is that technology is not inherently
beneficial just because it is new and different, just as technology is not
inherently evil for the same reasons."


Well quite! You know, I think we do agree on most things. However...

I can't speak for Karenne, obviously, but there has been enough negative
technology talk in this group since I joined it to feel exactly that from
those not using technology - either you're with us or you're against us (I
hark back to the glory days of Celso telling all of us SL users that we have
unfulfilling real lives and digging at us with hilarious Star Trek
references as one example of the welcome technology users receive...).

This isn't helped by people who are not actively interested in teaching with
technology spending half their waking hours attempting to knock those who
do, or the tools they choose to use. In such a climate it seems entirely
logical to me that those of us who do use technology would want to be
equally strident in favour, and point out that some of these detractors have
NEVER taught with technology and do not really speak from experience or with
any great authority.

So - and despite his enthusiasm for DOGME 2.0 - phrases such as Scott's
here, on IWBs:

"In the end, whether or not you are drawn to IWBs boils down to whether you
construe language teaching as, on the one hand, entertainment and delivery,
or, on the other, community and communication." [ http://tinyurl.com/qj8adg
]

are largely unhelpful in that they do indeed suggest a right and wrong way
of doing things, a 'with us or not' way of looking at teaching and a hint of
a suggestion that those using this particular technology are doing it all
wrong. Or, as Scott put it on the BC blog: "the few demonstrations of IWBs
that I've been subjected to (both directly or as viewed on promotional or
educational websites) suggest that IWBs are primarily used as a way of
delivering content".

I note the use of 'few' and 'subjected to (the torture of technology) and
the fact that some (most?) of them have been promotional - and therefore I
might expect them to be a little useless, mightn't I? It might be a good
idea for Scott and I to go and observe Graham Stanley teach with them (we're
all in the same city, after all) and see if that offers an alternative
viewpoint which we could discuss more fruitfully, rather than rely on
selected research reports and commercial demonstrations. Again, all I ask
for is some balance and views based on personal experience rather than
hearsay, whatever the provenance.

Scott and I, as you will have noted, have been at each other like cat and
dog over this particular subject for three weeks now. This is odd since I'm
not particularly a fan of IWBs either and have written extensively on my
reasons, most of which are more humanist than pedagogical. I think we were
probably both enjoying the chase at some point, but frankly both of us are
wasting our time.

Scott asks for research to back up claims for technology and spends
considerable time digging out unfavourable research on IWBs which are his
current pet hate. In exchange he offered largely anecdotal evidence that
DOGME works during his session in SL (sic!). I'm beginning to think that
perhaps it's just a question of feeling like one is on a runaway train and
doesn't understand the instructions over the brake lever.

What I would like, really, would be that those people who have no intention
of teaching using technologies simply stop spending their time doing down
those who do. Or perhaps that those who keep blogs, tweet and use Yahoo
Groups to communicate and develop professionally also acknowledge that their
learners like and use technologies and consider that their unwillingness to
engage with their learners using tools that everyone finds useful (to some
extent or other) is clearly inconsistent and increasingly illogical and
unsustainable. In that sense I welcome (as Scott declared) the arrival of
DOGME 2.0 and a new dawn in the consideration of technologies in the class
and out.

As I've said, people who use technology also tend to use a lot of other
tools and approaches in their teaching, including what I would call broadly
dogme-related techniques involving 'the people in the room, etc., etc.".
What irks is that those who do not use technologies (and do actually live in
places where they can use them) are so intent on dissing them and trying to
prove they don't work. This strikes me as an incredible waste of time and
effort - and talent. And, as we tech users are more inclusive in terms of
tools and approaches, and less controlling in the content we use in the
classroom, I'd like to ask why this is considered a bad thing?

I'd love to move on to "talk about practical ways to teach dogme classes
using digital technology" but at the moment I'm too busy fighting (a little
bit of) the corner for thousands of teachers worldwide who are good, caring
professionals and who are convinced that they are doing a good job in their
classes with the technologies they use. I'm perhaps more opinionated than a
lot of them, but it only takes a few 'XXX technology is rubbish' comments
from louder voices for people to lose heart and to feel intimidated in what
they do, and I don't think that should be allowed to happen.

Best,

Gavin