The aim of the seminar was to begin to map out, as part of Futurelab's commitment to understanding the role of technology in language learning, the key principles that underpin language learning and the best approaches to take in developing technologies to support these principles. The two stated objectives of the seminar were:

· To identify current 'cutting edge' and 'off the wall' thinking in the field of language teaching (including English as a second language, modern foreign languages)
· To explore the potential of emergent technologies to support language learning both within and outside institutions of education.


Creating an environment to support language learning

It emerged during the e-mail discussion preceding the seminar that a quick and easy identification of 'key principles' was going to be harder to achieve than might have been thought. Participants were asked to summarise their best experiences as language learners themselves, the hardest aspects of language learning to teach, and the ideal form any technology to support language learning might take. A recollection emerged of that breakthrough moment when the learner realised that "languages were for talking in", as one respondent put it.

Another recalled the excitement and energy generated by living, and conducting relationships, with native speakers in the target language country. There was a completely authentic motivation to learn in the need to communicate. Language was being used in a real context, which is what made it so memorable: "I was able to learn what I needed to learn at each moment, rather than having to work through a fixed syllabus".

Reading these comments, we might conclude that the 'best' environment for learning languages is one in which the learner simply 'lives amongst' or communicates with native speakers of a language. Importantly, however, the debate served to underline the role that language teaching has to play in supporting students to become confident, in identifying the particular needs and motivations of different students, in introducing concepts that do not exist in the mother tongue, and in reflecting on and supporting students' acquisition of vocabulary, appropriate pronunciation, and developing grammatical awareness.

Given this range of objectives in language teaching, it was unsurprising that the ideal supporting technology should emerge as a virtual advisor, providing authentic interaction, as well as feedback, support and advice for learners. It would be a soft spoken, reliable and very attractive friend, providing support and advice whenever needed, and encouraging self-confidence and independence.

Perhaps it could be a wearable virtual adviser - something that would listen to the language coming at you, suggest a response and maybe later analyse your response and advise on how you could improve what you said.

When this was combined with recognition of the role of computer networks in providing access to resources, monitoring progress and feedback, a complex software environment was envisaged: a machine that would speak and respond to you in the target language giving you the opportunity to conduct a relationship in the second language. This machine, whether a computer or hand held device, would be linked to the web, and to a database of resources such as sample conversations and practice exercises. It could also link you by video/audio to second language speakers.

All of this, however, was only the e-mail discussion. The seminar itself provided the opportunity for further elaboration and clarification of some of these ideas, as well as new insights into the potential role of technologies for language learning.


The potential role of technologies in language learning

The seminar discussion focused on the following questions:

1. How/do the aims of language teaching change with the emergence of new technologies?
2. What principles should be applied to the design of new technologies for language teaching and learning?

Unsurprisingly, given their scope, these questions were not addressed by the attendees directly. However a wide-ranging discussion covering the issues in both sections followed. In answer to the question - why learn languages at all - the following key points were made:

· Language learning should be seen as part of a general process of developing cultural understanding, and has strong links with citizenship agendas (both national and global)
· Language learning supports employability - with students demonstrating both empathy and communication skills
· Even if technology develops to the point where instantaneous translation is possible, this does not obviate the need for language learning. The question was raised: what happens if it fails?

In respect of language teaching more specifically, the following points were made:

· The limited amount of time dedicated to language learning in this country is a significant factor in determining levels of language acquisition. European countries have more success in the amount of time children have dedicated to learning or experiencing foreign languages both in and outside school.
· While introducing languages in primary schools might be positive, all benefits would be lost if a coherent approach to language learning were not adopted that carried through from primary to secondary school.
· There continue to be major difficulties in accessing and using existing technologies in schools for language learning. While the shift to laptops was considered a useful step forward, the confidence of teachers to use technologies, the current assessment system and the quantity of software (and its costs) available to teachers, provided major barriers to developing technology use in language learning in schools.

Several key 'principles' could be identified in respect of language teaching and learning, central to which was the call to identify what formal educational settings (such as schools and language colleges) are really good at doing, and what they are not, ie what is the best use of time and teacher resource compared with self-directed learning at home.

There were a number of heuristics that emerged as significant elements of good language teaching:

· Set clear attainable outcomes for learners
· Deliver in short chunks, repeat quickly and get away from mistakes
· Pick up mistakes quickly and provide instant feedback
· Offer a wide range of aural and oral experiences (on demand)
· Teach structures and words: anchor a structure and vary the words
· Success is motivator - not the technology - in the long term
· Topics should be meaningful and relevant to children. not the business professional or adult
· There is not a 'one size fits all' solution to be provided via technology - rather resources need to be tailored to particular settings for particular learners.

This seminar included three demonstrations:

1. A collaborative online learning environment for young learners
2. A French version of a mainstream game
3. A dedicated simulation environment for language learning

Key points emerging from discussion of these demonstrations were:

Games

Games were felt to be an important format in that they generated student motivation and interest. However, it was emphasised that the focus needs to be on language learning and not on games play, ie the student needs to reflect on the language component in order to play the game. Further, games need to be designed in such a way that they are easy to use within the time constraints of the classroom. They should also draw on the principles of good language teaching and learning.

Collaborative environments

Valuable online collaborative environments were felt to be those in which learners were able to work together on something, ie that there would be shared objects to generate discussion. However, the online environment demonstrated (VIRLAN) also identified that a key success factor is the degree to which, for beginning language learners, vocabulary could be restricted to ensure that communication was possible for all participants. The challenges of security for learners online were also raised.

There were mixed messages about collaborative online approaches. Spending time with the paraphernalia of e-collaboration discussing a few things means you end up learning very little language. However there is also a feeling that working with real peers is a great stimulus. There was some support for the proposal that learners might benefit from working with people who were learners of the same foreign language with different mother tongues. However, it was pointed out that there is no benefit of collaborative correction of each other's mistakes.

Authentic learning

There was discussion about the meaning of an 'authentic' learning environment - in particular whether 'real world' situations were sufficient, or whether the motivating quality of imaginary environments would also encourage and develop language learning. This reflected back to the debate on games - where it was emphasised that a 'dull' but authentic learning environment would do little to encourage or motivate learners. Rather 'authenticity' needed to be determined by students themselves.


Learners as producers of language

Throughout the seminar, it was clear that much emphasis was placed on learners being able to produce, use and reflect on language as well as simply manipulating or recognising it. This led to enthusiasm for interactive and communicative potential of the technology.

The key lesson from the day was that emergent technologies should NOT be used to provide activities which can already be done much more quickly and easily using other technologies such as video or 'even' interactions between students and between teachers and students.

Rather, there was a sense that technology was often being used to make language teaching and learning unnecessarily complicated, taking the focus away from the language and onto the technology. Future directions in teaching and learning with technology should encourage a focus on language, should facilitate communication and reflection, and should offer opportunities for learning that are not already provided for within the languages classroom.


Next steps

The following steps were suggested as key to pushing forward our understanding of teaching and learning languages with technologies. These will be taken up by Futurelab and reported on in future web reports.

· Targetted 'design' workshops - bringing together teachers and academics with software developers to develop specific solutions to particularly problematic areas of language learning
· Software review of existing (and old) software for language learning - preventing reinvention of wheels, and encouraging a revisiting of older, successful formats that could now work very effectively with the newer technologies available
· Exploratory research with teachers and students in schools - identifying possible avenues for developing existing software for language learning purposes
· Coherent literature survey of teaching and learning languages with technology, which is comprehensible and relevant not only to the academic constituency, but to practitioners and developers of educational software.



Delegate List
Michael Gruneberg, Department of Psychology, Swansea University
Heather Rendall, Independent Advisor
Paul Meara, Centre for Applied Linguistics, Swansea University
Jim Milton, Centre for Applied Linguistics, Swansea University
Alison Taylor, Department of Education, University of the West of England
Arlene Gilpin, Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol
Elisabeth Lazarus, Sir Bernard Lovell School
Ruth Cole, Sir Bernard Lovell School
Richard Shotton, Sir John Cabot School
Sue Wall, University of Derby
Charlie Berney, Chepstow Comprehensive School
Mark Grundy, Shirelands Language College
Keith Marshall, CILTS Cymru
Vicky Wright, LTSN Centre for Languages, University of Southampton
Helen Walker, BECTA
Kate Green, QCA
Carl Ellis, English and Foreign Languages Centre, University of Bath
Richard Hill, English and Foreign Languages Centre, University of Bath
Howard Thomas, English and Foreign Languages Centre University of Bath
Christine Balandier-Brown, Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol
Sue Timmis, Institute for Learning and Research Technology, University of Bristol
Jules Cook, Institute for Learning and Research Technology, University of Bristol