A few years ago I was asked to teach a course on using technology in English language teaching as a third year course in the Bachelor of Education programme. When I read the course outline, I was shocked at how dated the software was it recommended that the student teachers evaluate and use to create learning activities. They were generally the kind of software that takes a pen and paper activity and just places it on a screen, such as cloze, gap fill or matching activities. Nothing exciting, unlikely to entice more discerning students who have more interesting experiences of technology. So, I created my own course, replacing the software with a range of Web 2.0 applications which - after some exploration - I thought would be useful to facilitate English language learning. However, I wanted to place the technology into a coherent theoretical framework, so I used Mishra and Kohler's paper, 'Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge' (Teachers College Record, 2006) both for my planning of the course and for students' planning of their project which required them to design an integrated language learning activity using one or more Web 2.0 applications.
We began by considering the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, highlighting the opportunities it offers for creativity, construction and collaboration and discussing how this tied in with the social constructivist approach ti learning which the B.Ed programme promotes. I presented a few language learning activities using simple Web 2.0 applications which the class experienced as language learners and we analysed each with reference to Mishra and Kohler to focus on how the language activities address all three of the knowledge areas that the authors have identified. After this, my students spent some time exploring about 12 of the Web 2.0 sites, considering the language skills they encouraged and how they might use them. They then worked in groups of two or three to construct a series of coherent lessons and assessments that utilised Web 2.0 for the purpose of learning and practicing English. I emphasised that the learning experience must use 5 features of effective technology use in language learning, i.e. it must be constructive, interactive, authentic, cooperative, and intentional and allowed for about three weeks for the students to create their project which they then had to 'teach' to the rest of the class and me. One thing I noticed immediately was that Web 2.0 facilitated all 5 of the features of effective learning much more than the standard language learning software did, most of which involved filling in prescribed answers, but allowed for little creativity or authenticity. For me, the use of interactive networked technology in the form of Web 2.0 finally demonstrated technology as a flexible tool rather than a means of practicing neat and discrete chunks of language. The multimedia aspect that fast broadband allows is authentic and fits in with students' experience of technology outside the formal learning environment. There is the possibility of authentic communication with peers across time and space and it allows students to use language and technology to create multimedia for and with each other.