Your site name

The Debate: “Tweeting is for the birds, not for Language Learning”

In this year's debate, Alan Walker proposed the motion that “tweeting is for the birds, not for language learning” with Nicky Hockly opposing. Each person had eighteen minutes to make their argument, then the floor was opened for comments. Next the debaters each had three more minutes to sum up their arguments before the audience was asked to vote on the motion. The debate was both thought-provoking and amusing. There was a live Twitter feed on the projector so that both members of the immediate audience and the wider audience who were watching online were able to contribute to the debate.

Alan had a really tough job arguing for the motion, because as he admitted himself he is pro-innovation and did not wish to rule out technology altogether. Instead his goal was to point out some of the risks technology poses to teaching and he made several thought-provoking points. Firstly, that technology cannot change a teacher’s teaching style: the teacher will simply absorb the technology into their existing style. Thus it is a mistake to assume that incorporating technology will automatically improve the quality of teaching. We should bear in mind the concept Alan terms GIGO: “garbage in, garbage out” when deciding whether technology adds value to our teaching. Furthermore, in the world of interactive whiteboards, there is a danger that classes are becoming increasingly teacher-centred, consisting of slide after slide of teacher-created presentations. Alan also went on to draw a comparison between the latest trend for technology in language learning and the last big rush to embrace technology; the language lab. His point was that we should not view technology as a short cut, like the language labs of the past, technology will not provide a quick language learning fix. The overall point of Alan’s argument was that while technology is important, there is a danger of overemphasising just one part of what language learning involves.

Next up was Nicky, who structured her argument by highlighting “holes” she felt that people fall into when talking about technology in language learning - which cloud their thinking. Nicky claimed Alan had fallen into several of these holes in his argument, in particular the idea that that technology makes a good teacher and that technology is a magic bullet. To the contrary, as Nicky put it, “a fool with a tool is still a fool” and technology cannot make us better teachers, but it can enhance what we do in the classroom. People also fall into the hole of thinking technology can be problematic and cause difficulties. Nicky suggested that this was an issue related to training and pre- and in-service training needed to focus more on preparing teachers for using technology in their classrooms. One more interesting “hole” Nicky brought up was the idea that there are no definitive studies that support using technology in learning. She argued that in fact there is a lot of research which has shown the benefits of technology in teaching. One study in particular came from Alan’s own university and found that technology led to increased motivation, Nicky suggested that this in turn would lead to increased learning. She concluded her debate by reframing the motion, stating that “tweeting is for the birds but even language teachers can learn to sing”.

The debate was then opened to the audience, who appeared to be divided on the issue with strong opinions both for and against the motion. One of the most valid comments was that as teachers we should be questioning what value using technology is adding to our tasks or lessons. After hearing the audience’s opinions, each debater gave their closing remarks before we were asked to vote on the motion. In the spirit of the debate Keith Morrow, who was facilitating, decided to download an app onto his i-phone that could transfer sound into a Richter scale measurement. The idea being that we shouted as loud as possible for the position we chose to vote for and whichever argument had the highest Richter scale reading would win. First the vote was taken to propose the motion, then the vote to oppose the motion during which, ironically, the i-phone app decided to stop working.

By Sam Weekes.

Watch the debate online here.