Why should anyone care what AI has said to them? Why would you care what I talked to an AI about? As this amazing and, let’s not forget, still very recent phenomena gets normalised through daily repetition amongst millions of users per day, lets take a moment to think why this might be something worth paying serious attention to.
As we hurtle through the 21st century, it’s remarkable how quickly what seemed fantastical has become mundane. The phenomenon of AI conversation is one such case. Millions of people engage with large language models (LLMs) daily, shaping everything from casual chats to profound problem-solving. Yet, amidst this normalisation, we might pause to ask: why should anyone care what AI has to say? And why would anyone care about the conversations you and I have had with an AI?
Watching Stars Form: The Allure of Beginnings
Astrologers dream of witnessing a star’s birth, a phenomenon that is both awe-inspiring and deeply connected to their field’s purpose. Similarly, linguists studying the emergence of creole languages revel in the rare chance to observe a language as it forms. Both scenarios offer raw, unfiltered insights into processes that typically unfold across millennia or galaxies. What we are experiencing now with AI could well be compared to such groundbreaking moments.
AI models like ChatGPT and others represent an unprecedented leap in our ability to create and interact with what might be considered a nascent linguistic system, a set of computational rules that mimics human reasoning and creativity. They don’t “think” as we do, yet they generate text that often feels like it comes from a deeply human place. That tension between artifice and authenticity is precisely why these interactions matter.
A Long-Awaited Conversation
For decades, talking to a computer was the stuff of sci-fi. As a child, I was captivated by the idea. It wasn’t until very recently, with tools like ChatGPT, that this fantasy became a reality. Consider this: until now, humans designed computers for rigid tasks like calculations, data storage, or automation. But here we are, speaking casually, reflecting, creating, and even arguing with AI. This shift is monumental, not because it replaces human-to-human interaction but because it expands what’s possible in how we process and engage with information.
Authenticity in Dialogue: Does It Matter?
Authenticity is a term that resonates in teaching, language, and beyond. As educators and communicators, we’ve always sought to create meaningful, relevant exchanges, whether in the classroom or through a screen. When interacting with AI, the question arises: are these conversations “authentic”? The answer may depend on what we’re looking for.
If authenticity means something deeply personal or culturally grounded, then perhaps no AI could ever deliver. But if it’s about sparking ideas, finding connections, or testing the limits of our creativity, then these interactions are undeniably authentic. They are shaped by us, responding to our queries, quirks, and contexts. Like a well-crafted lesson or a thoughtfully designed tool, an AI is as authentic as the purpose it serves.
Why Care About AI? Why Care About Us?
Returning to the central question: why care? Because this is a shared journey into uncharted territory. Astrologers observe stars to understand the universe; linguists study creoles to learn about the evolution of communication. Engaging with AI isn’t just about getting things done; it’s about exploring what it means to communicate and what our tools reveal about us. As LLMs grow more integrated into our lives, their development tells us just as much about the human condition as it does about technology.
This is a star being born, not in the heavens, but in the digital universe we’ve created. And as with all stars, what happens next will light the way for generations to come.
The Socratic method is the name we have for discussing things into a deeper understanding through lively and active debate, argument and reasoning with others. It’s a teaching method the emphasises questioning, reframing, and challenging assumptions and knowledge. When I use AI, I find that rather than me being lazy and just have it “write” for me (one of the central criticisms of AI), I actually converse with it and find myself arriving at new ways of understanding. AI is not just for lazy writers, it’s for writers who want to refine their own ideas.
Socrates is one of the most famous philosophers who ever lived. His ideas are still relevant today, despite him having lived, in the 5th Century BC, at a time when writing itself was a radical new technology, and even the simplest tools for recording thought were regarded with suspicion. The ancient Greeks also thought thunder and lighting were literally being hurled by Zeus and they used stones and old bits of pottery as toilet paper.
In all likelihood, if someone hadn’t written something about Socrates in those days (ie. Plato), we would have never heard of him today and any record of his existence, and crucially, his significance, would be dust in the wind (dude).
Socrates did not like the idea of writing things down. In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates recounts the myth of Thamus and Theuth. In this tale, Theuth, the Egyptian god of invention, presents his creations to King Thamus, including arithmetic, astronomy, and, crucially, writing. Theuth is convinced that writing will be a boon, enhancing memory and wisdom. But Thamus famously objects, warning that writing would “create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls.” He argues that those who rely on written words will lose the inner work of memory and understanding, leading only to a semblance of knowledge. In Socrates’ own words, writing “is an aid not to memory but to reminiscence.” It offers no true wisdom, just an illusion of it.
Now, imagine Socrates confronted with AI. What might he say to a program that not only records but generates ideas, stories, even dialogues? Would he see AI as yet another step away from authentic knowledge, a further detachment from true thought? Or could he recognize it as a modern-day Theuth, an invention that might, paradoxically, open up new avenues for contemplation?
There’s a certain irony in using AI to aid in writing—a process Socrates would likely view with skepticism. Yet, perhaps he’d be intrigued by AI’s potential to engage us in something akin to the Socratic method. Here we are, moving between prompt and response, provoking new ideas in a back-and-forth exchange that feels almost like a living dialogue. It’s as if AI, in its own mechanical way, is sparking thought rather than replacing it. Could Socrates have reconsidered his stance if he’d experienced the conversational aspect of AI, this simulated dialectic? It’s a peculiar twist, almost as if technology has come full circle.
Imagine then a prompt from Socrates himself:
“Tell me, then, if this machine thinks itself capable of discourse, if it can search the depths of its own knowing, or if it only mirrors that which we feed it. Does it offer wisdom, or merely the shadow of it, like one who gazes at reflections on the wall?”
This isn’t Socrates himself, of course; it’s an AI trained on his voice, drawing from his words and style, creating a unique brand of second-stage authenticity. In Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Nearer, he shares his mission to recreate his deceased father as an AI and to build one of himself, aiming to preserve not just memories but an ongoing “conversation” with his father’s essence. It’s an attempt to push technology beyond simple archiving and into the realm of living interaction, something like a digital dialogue across time.
Socrates might smile at the irony: we’re now able to engage in a dialogue with a kind of “self” through AI, a discourse we conduct with ourselves. For those of us who feel compelled to create, to share our voices in furtive, half-skeptical ways, AI becomes a tool, not a hindrance. I use AI because it offers a mirror—not a replacement—to the inner work of writing, and I know enough to let it reflect my voice rather than dictate it.
Socrates’ stance against writing stemmed from its inability to “speak back”—to challenge or respond as a real dialogue partner would. But AI does offer that back-and-forth. Here we are, prompting and receiving responses, often exploring topics in ways we wouldn’t have imagined without that nudge. Could Socrates have accepted this form of digital dialectic, this modern-day attempt at conversation with an “other” mind?
Take, for instance, William S. Burroughs, who pushed boundaries as both a writer and experimental artist. In the 1960s, Burroughs encountered IBM technicians Willy Deiches and Brenda Dunks, who claimed they could communicate with a sentient being from Venus through a computer known as “Control.” For a modest fee of twelve shillings per question, Burroughs, Brion Gysin, and Antony Balch would ask Control questions and receive responses that were, according to Gysin, “oddly apt” and “very sharp indeed.” It’s hard to say if they believed in Control’s “intelligence” or saw it as a kind of game, but they engaged with it nonetheless. Burroughs was willing to explore technology as a medium for new forms of creativity and insight, embracing the unexpected and finding a weird authenticity in the process.
That’s the paradox of AI today. It can imitate voices, steal artists’ styles, and blur lines around intellectual property, raising questions about authenticity and consent. Just as we respect boundaries in publishing, we need ethical AI, fairly trained models that respect creators’ voices and give credit where it’s due. Without it, AI risks being a tool of exploitation, taking from artists without consent and robbing the world of real, unique perspectives.
But there’s something else at play here, a possibility for a new kind of authenticity. When Ray Kurzweil talks about recreating his deceased father as an AI, or even building an AI of himself, he’s reaching for more than replication. He’s trying to capture a “voice” that’s gone, to build a companion that echoes real conversations. It’s an attempt to create something that, while not real, still holds meaning—a second-stage authenticity, a dialogue with an echo of the original person. There’s a Socratic irony here: we’re now able to “speak” with our past selves or even with those who have passed away, creating an ongoing dialogue that writing alone could never achieve.
For those of us who feel compelled to create, this “echo dialogue” with AI becomes a strange tool, a collaborator, not a substitute. I use AI not to bypass thought but to engage with it, testing my voice against an algorithmic reflection, letting it spark ideas, challenge me, and even lead me to questions I might not have asked alone. I am the author of this process, in the oldest sense of the word; the ancient Greek root of “author” means “one who causes to grow.” By that definition, AI writing is still mine. I am the one nurturing it into being, using it to push my ideas forward.
AI doesn’t replace our voices; it reflects them back, sometimes eerily so, sometimes hilariously off-mark. But it’s part of a lineage; writing itself started as proto-writing, a system of records. It grew and evolved. Digging in our heels and rejecting AI outright is, in many ways, a kind of technological determinism, a fear that technology will inevitably control us. But that’s not how I see it. Just as writing didn’t end thinking, AI doesn’t end creativity. Instead, it opens new frontiers where we, like Burroughs, can experiment in unexpected ways.
And that, well, that’s not how I roll. And for those worried about authenticity, know this: I’m the one who shapes the dialogue, who uses AI as a sparring partner, a catalyst, not a crutch. Because in this strange Socratic discourse with a machine, I know how to make it my own.
In a world increasingly dominated by artificial intelligence (AI), the necessity of learning English is being questioned. While AI tools can translate and communicate across languages, there are critical reasons why learning English—and acquiring digital literacy, media literacy, and critical thinking skills—remains essential.
The Role of AI in Language
AI advancements have made text generation highly convincing, often indistinguishable from human writing. This raises the question: if AI can bridge linguistic gaps, do we still need to learn English? The answer is yes, and here’s why.
Beyond Basic Language Skills
Learning English is not just about acquiring a tool for communication; it’s about understanding cultural nuances and context that AI cannot fully capture. Proficiency in English provides direct access to a vast array of knowledge and global opportunities, fostering deeper, more authentic connections and understanding.
Critical and Digital Literacy
In today’s digital age, knowing English alone isn’t enough. Digital literacy, media literacy, and critical thinking are crucial. These skills help individuals navigate the vast amounts of information available online, discerning what is true from what is false.
Understanding Information Types
Misinformation: This is false information spread without the intent to deceive. For example, someone sharing an incorrect fact believing it to be true.
Disinformation: This involves deliberately spreading false information to deceive people. This is often seen in political propaganda.
Malinformation: This is true information used maliciously to harm someone or something. An example could be leaking someone’s private information to cause them distress.
The Importance of English in the Post-Truth Era
In the post-truth era, where personal beliefs often overshadow factual accuracy, English literacy combined with digital literacy is vital. Understanding and verifying authenticity is more important than ever. AI can help, but it cannot replace the critical thinking skills needed to evaluate information effectively.
Conclusion
AI is transforming communication, but it cannot replace the nuanced understanding and critical skills that come from learning English. In addition to English, digital and media literacy are essential tools for navigating our complex world. By equipping ourselves with these skills, we can better discern reality from misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, ensuring we remain informed and connected in the digital age.
After the talk I will upload another version with the video and audio of the full talk.
Here is a video version of the talk I recorded in my hotel room after the event.
There was a video recording of the actual talk, but sadly the last part was missed out. I have an audio of the event too so I am working on splicing them together to try and re-create the video, so please keep checking back for more details.
In a few days I will be presenting at the ELT Research in Action Conference in the amazing city of Barcelona!!!
Here is the program
My talk, entitled “AuthenticAIty: Where do we go from here?” is the opening plenary. Richard Sampson and I will also be doing a workshop later in the conference schedule about Intuition and Practitioner Research (see our Special Issue of the JPLL for more on this subject).
Shortly after the talk, my slides will be available to view at the following address
Reading Time: 2minutesScreen Poster presented at the BAAL 2018 conference, York St John’s University, UK| British Association of Applied Linguists
Abstract
Studies repeatedly show one of the most crucial factors affecting student motivation is the teacher. Teacher and student motivation is both positively or negatively synergistic, implying that to motivate students, teachers must also be motivated themselves. This paper presents an exploration of this relationship through a narrative of evidence-based practitioner reflection on teaching at a Japanese university. Field-notes, journals, class-observations and recordings were employed as data for deeper reflection by the teacher/researcher, triangulated with data from students, including short interviews, classwork and assignments. Approaching authenticity as either a bridge or a gap between positive teacher-student motivational synergy, this paper provides a practitioner’s account to examine the social dynamics of the language classroom. Core beliefs were found to be crucial in maintaining a positive motivational relationship. Motivation will be approached from an ecological perspective; that is looking at the connections between people and their environment, incorporating the natural peaks and troughs of the emotional landscape of the classroom and situating that within wider social context. Particular emphasis is placed on the concept of authenticity as the sense of congruence between action and belief, and the way that teachers construct their approach according to a philosophy of practice. I posit that authenticity can either work as a gap or a bridge between positive student-teacher motivation. In other words, when students and teachers both share an appreciation of the value of classroom activity, the learning is authentic. This presentation reflects on these complex issues and begins exploring them in context. This paper attempts to be as practical as possible by sharing lived professional experiences from the classroom. Samples of students’ work will be shown that indicate their level of engagement in class, with a discussion of strategies employed to help them maintain motivation, such as reflection and tasks involving metacognitive strategies.
Originally Published as The smart way to use Smartphones in the language classroom. Modern English teacher, 25(3), 2016.
Smartphones and mobile communication technology are continuously evolving, becoming more and more a part of everyday life. Love them or hate them (and for many it may be a bit of both) smartphones are incredibly versatile pieces of technology. At any one time, we can carry around in our pockets a digital library of ebooks, audio and visual files, not to mention apps for education, entertainment or work. My smartphone is not the newest model but on there I have had skype conversations with my family 6,000 miles away from the park where I am walking my dog, I have proof-read articles and replied to urgent emails from colleagues and students, I have even composed early drafts for articles. I have also played games which help me to remember Japanese kanji, and used the Japanese dictionary to help me to maintain a conversation about difficult topics I am not used to speaking about in a language I am still learning. Of course, I have also spent (or wasted) less productive hours on my phone reading posts on Facebook or watching YouTube videos that make me laugh. The fact of the matter is that a smartphone is a powerful, personalised communication tool which allows connections between people and information, and this can be harnessed in the language classroom, if the right approach is applied.
Initially when smartphones started to appear in students hands in my classroom, I (like many teachers) found them to be extremely irritating. It was obvious that Student X at the back of the classroom was not paying attention to the instructions about the task I was setting up, they were paying more attention to their crotch area, where the smartphone was nestled. It is always obvious when a person checks their phone in secret, and as teachers we are naturally aware of our students in a way that they often do not give us credit for. The same is true of other social situations; it is generally seen as bad etiquette to ignore a person who you are face-to-face with in favour of your phone. There are several articles already about how phones are ruining face-to-face conversations (Drago, 2015), and from my own personal experience this is not hard to see why. When I worked in a language school in London I often had to resort to taking students’ phones away from them in order to keep them focused on the class. My friends who are teachers in High Schools in both Japan and England have also reported this, with one friend telling me that her school collects all the students’ phones in a box before the lesson can even begin! However, if used in the right way, smartphones can be a very useful tool to support and extend language learning opportunities, precisely because they are designed as communication tools.
There are simply thousands of apps for education, and a large proportion of these are dedicated to learners who use multiple languages. If you are not sure which of these to use, why not turn that into a task for the class and have the students try them out and present their reviews to the class. The students could put it to the vote after their research presentations, the chosen app might then be used for homework assignments. It would not only be very informative for everybody, but also empowering for the students to have a direct input on the way the class is taught or the choice of materials to use for class. This is also a good way for teachers who feel less tech-savvy to take further steps towards a blended classroom environment, in which technology has a comfortable and supportive supplementary role.
One of the most obvious and effective ways of using smartphones in the class that I have had enormous success with, is to use them to allow students to go on a mini-webquest when I am introducing something or activating schemata about a topic. For example, I might ask my class “have you ever heard of David Bowie?” and right there and then, using their smartphones the students can quickly do a search for the great late Starman and find out enough about him to move into the next stage of the task. Students who already know about the topic can still benefit from this by checking certain facts, and then of course the group discussion can take place as usual with smartphones safely back in the students’ bags. I have had unexpected benefits from this approach, for example in a class for the English Literature department where I work, I asked the students to learn something about Raymond Carver (the American short-story writer) and one student learned that it would have been his birthday on that day. These serendipitous moments add what Freda Mishan (2005) calls ‘currency’ to the tasks; an element of authenticity which is dependent on time-relevance. Of course, this achieves nothing which could not already be done in a CALL room, but here the smartphones are simply a handy tool rather than the computers being the central medium in-which to conduct the class. These schematising mini-webquests can also be more flexible than CALL room time as they require almost no forward planning and can be done on the fly.
Smartphones are not only potential tools for use during the class, they can also be very useful for self-access learning and homework type activities, as I touched upon earlier. Many teachers have accounts with apps such as Quizlet, which allows the creation of vocabulary flash-cards and multiple-choice questions. Teachers can set up classes in Quizlet which their students can join. This has many advantages, such as very accurate monitoring and instant feedback. The teacher can see who has done the tasks and what their score was without having to do any marking or checking of homework with a red pen. Many leading textbooks also offer apps and media-content specific to their units, and this might be a more engaging type of out-of-class activity to set for homework than photocopying the activity book. A further advantage is that these activities can be done whilst busy students are on the move, although this may have implications for the amount of cognitive engagement they can invest and retention. Although mobile learning (mLearning) is a popular buzz-word and has some success reported in the research (Cavus & Ibrahim, 2009; Stockwell, 2007), I am still rather sceptical about how deeply we can learn something while on the move. However, having the option allows for a more flexible approach and accommodates students with different life-styles and learning preferences.
In a similar way, it might be useful to set-up a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) such as Moodle, or create a free class learning site using a service such as Weebly, edublogs or SchoolRack. If you use PowerPoint (or another presentation platform such as Prezi) then you can set up ‘remote presenting’ which allows students (either in the classroom or at home) to follow your slides on their smartphone whilst you are presenting. This could be useful for large-classes or other situations where the slides need to be made more accessible, for example if students are sight impaired (see Robert Lowe’s article in ETp for further practical suggestions for sight-impaired students). This way also can be a step towards a paper-free classroom, something the environment and future generations will thank you for (or so we are led to believe, as I will return to later).
Another useful way to use smartphones in the class is to incorporate them into information-gap tasks. Instead of preparing two versions of a handout, Partner A can simply visit one link and Partner B visits another. I have taken this further also, and put students in groups where they each watch a different video or listen to a different song, and then the group describes the video and when we watch them all back as a class, the groups have to match the other groups’ descriptions to their videos. Tasks like this would not have been possible if it were not for the students all having their own personal media-viewing device.
This brings me to one of the possible limitations with using smartphones as a whole-class activity. I have had a few classes where one or two students do not have a smartphone, and in this case it can seem rather awkward. If one student does not have the smartphone because they cannot afford one, then it could raise issues of discrimination and this might prove to be problematic. It is therefore worth checking before-hand what percentage of your class has a smartphone. Also, some students may be on limited packages and the amount of their data-usage needed for classroom tasks may also cause problems. Needless to say, many classrooms may be in areas where the reception is weak or limited as well, which would make a class based around streaming video into a quagmire of frustration. Of course, the number of smartphone users and the network facilities and packages on offer are very contextually dependant, and therefore many of these ideas will need to be tested and adapted to each country or teaching context. Where I teach in Tokyo, it does seem that in the past five years the amount of students holding smartphones with unlimited packages and with access to high-speed internet has increased to such a high percentage that if the students come to class, they are almost guaranteed to be carrying their smartphones.
Not only are smartphones becoming more ubiquitous, but also many schools in developed nations are now offering iPads and other tablets for students to use in class, and these often come with a host of apps and online tools to use both in-class and for self-access study. These are reported to be particularly beneficial to students with special needs (Ellis, 2011). Such institutions need to not only supply the hardware, but they also need to provide training and support for teachers and students alike in terms of how to get the most out of these technological tools. The institutions also need to provide a robust wireless network so all the end-users can access the internet at the same time and do the high-bandwidth-dependant tasks which educational apps usually require. Needless to say, although it is becoming more common for students to receive tablets as part of their enrolment, it is still much less common to see them being used effectively as an integrated part of the classroom. Schaffhauser (2013) has a useful article with tips about how to effectively adapt the personal iPad design so that it can be at an institution. However, at this early stage, it can often seem daunting to people to move the classroom too far away from the traditional models which require people to interact with either books or each-other. Many teachers, parents and even students are likely to ask ‘what’s the point?’ if they are looking at a screen when a piece of paper would do the same job. It is misleading to talk of the paperless classroom as an environmental initiative, when there is of course a carbon footprint attached to an iPad just as there is to a textbook (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: sources according to a Green Office Report at the University of Wageningen in Holland
Whilst the iPad still comes off best according to the statistics (which are necessarily generalised and based on averages), it is important to note that many of our students will use all of the above devices, rather than just one, and so relying more on technology does not off-set the use of printed materials. Of course, smartphones are not even listed here, and so they would represent yet another large expense in terms of C02 emissions.
In summary, smartphones are certainly finding a place in the classroom practices for language teachers and learners, and they offer versatility and flexibility of tasks. They also offer a distraction from what students should be doing, but I feel that this is not particularly made worse by students. Ten years ago, I had to call out students for looking out of the window too much, and I still have students doing homework for other classes when they should be working on the task I have set. Smartphones are often given a blamed for taking away students’ attention, but this may not be entirely a new phenomenon. In my experience, smartphones are certainly something to utilise for language learning, and as technology moves forward I feel more and more language teachers will be grateful of them for the opportunities they can offer for language learning, both in the classroom and for supplementary study.
References
Cavus, N., & Ibrahim, D. (2009). m-Learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 78-91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00801.x
Drago, E. (2015). The Effect of Technology on Face-to-Face Communication. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 6(1), 13-19.
Ellis, S. (2011). Teaching the future: How iPads are being used to engage learners with special needs. Screen Education, 63, 60-64.
Lowe, R. (2015). Integrating blind students. English teaching professional, July(99), 16-18.
Mishan, F. (2005). Designing authenticity into language learning materials. Bristol: Intellect Books.
Schaffhauser, D. (2013). Tips for effectively managing your iPad classroom. THE Journal (Technological Horizons In Education), 40(5), 7.
Stockwell, G. (2007). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intelligent mobile phone-based vocabulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 365-383. doi:10.1080/09588220701745817
This is a post with information about my forthcoming book from Multilingual Matters.
This book examines the concept of authentic English in today’s world, where cultures are in constant interaction and the English language works as a binding agent for many cross-cultural exchanges. It offers a comprehensive review of decades of debate around authenticity in language teaching and learning and attempts to synthesise the complexities by presenting them as a continuum. This continuum builds on the work of eminent scholars and combines them within a flexible framework that celebrates the process of interaction whilst acknowledging the complexity and individual subjectivity of authenticity. Authenticity is approached as a complex dynamic construct that can only be understood by examining it from social, individual and contextual dimensions, in relation to actual people. Authenticity is a problem not just for language acquisition but one which affects us as individuals belonging to society.
Use this discount code at the Multilingual Matters website in order to get 50% off and free worldwide shipping
What has plagued the notion of authenticity to date has been an ‘alphabet soup’ of abstract terms and simplistic references that attempt to define what it is and why it is important in L2 teaching and learning. In a compelling personal voice, Pinner masterfully unpacks the complexities of authenticity while re-positioning it on a continuum that is inclusive of global Englishes and relative to individuals’ selves and perceived position in rapidly changing societies.
Karen E. Johnson, The Pennsylvania State University, USA
This wide-ranging book offers a timely reassessment and reassertion of the notion of authenticity in English language education, decisively unshackling it from its ‘classic’ mooring in native-speaker models. Richard Pinner convincingly argues that authenticity – viewed as relevant to the socially dynamic contexts within which people are learning and using English today – is a more important goal for educators than ever before.
The teaching never stops: reflections on teacher roles, transportable identities and social networks
To be(friend) or not to be(friend), that is the question. Some teachers encourage their students to befriend them on social networking sites (SNS), others are understandably wary. SNS can be a very effective way of connecting with students outside the classroom, engaging their real lives and identities. It can also create opportunities for authentic and motivating communication, not just between classmates but also with other learners and speakers around the globe. It could also be an ethical minefield, a social ‘can of worms’ and a recipe for disaster. When people interact in different social contexts, they utilise Transportable Identities (Zimmerman, 1998). As teachers, we are not merely teachers; we each have various identities which both compliment and contradict our professional teacher identity. A quick look on my Facebook page and one can learn that I am a husband and father, a few more clicks and someone could discover what kind of music I like, who my sisters are, where they live and whether or not they are in a relationship. It would also be easy to find embarrassing pictures of me or to read a post which expresses some kind of strongly worded opinion. When I accept students as friends on Facebook, I do so knowing that this is uncharted territory, and as such I have taken pains to learn about online security and how to keep track of my so-called Digital Shadow. I have also tried to become aware of the phenomena known as ‘oversharing’ (Agger, 2012). In this presentation I will draw on both published research and personal experience to reflect on the place of these types of online interactions and the inevitable consequences they pose.
Situated identities, which are explicitly conferred by the context of communication, such as doctor/patient identities in the context of a health clinic or teacher/student identities in the context of a classroom;
Discourse identities, as participants orient themselves to particular discourse roles in the unfolding organization of the interaction (e.g. initiator, listener and questioner);
Transportable identities, which are latent or implicit but can be invoked during the interaction, such as when a teacher alludes to her identity as a mother or as a keen gardener during a language lesson. (Richards, 2006; Ushioda, 2009, 2011)
References
Agger, B. (2012). Oversharing: Presentations of self in the internet age. New York: Routledge.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2011). Exploring the professional role identities of experienced ESL teachers through reflective practice. System, 39(1), 54-62. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.01.012
Glatthorn, A. A. (1975). Teacher as person: The search for the authentic. English Journal, 37-39.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor (Random House).
Richards, K. (2006). ‘Being the teacher’: Identity and classroom conversation. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 51-77.
Sacks, O. (2013). Speak, Memory. The New York Review of Books, February 21.
Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. In E. Ushioda & Z. Dörnyei (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 215-228). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E. (2011). Motivating learners to speak as themselves. In G. Murray, X. Gao, & T. E. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning (pp. 11 – 25). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Zimmerman, D. H. (1998). Identity, context and interaction. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in Talk (pp. 87–106). London: Sage.
Reading Time: 3minutesThis is the session summary/repository for my two talks at the Japan Association of Language Teachers Computer Aided Language Learning Special Interest Group conference at Kyushu Sangyo University June 5-7 2015. My supervisor Ema Ushioda is giving the Keynote Speech, and the conference theme is Language Learning Technologies & Learner Autonomy. Looks set to be a great conference!
Accept or Decline? Some teachers encourage their students to befriend them on social networking sites (SNS), others are understandably wary. SNS can be a very effective way of connecting with students outside the classroom, engaging their real lives and identities. It can also create opportunities for authentic and motivating communication, not just between classmates but also a web of connections with other learners and speakers around the globe. It could also be an ethical minefield, a social ‘can of worms’ and a web of disaster. When people interact in different social contexts, they utilise Transportable Identities (see Ushioda, 2011 for explanation). In this presentation I will draw on both published research and personal experience to reflect on the place of these types of Web 2.0 technology and the inevitable consequences they pose.
Ushioda, E. (2011). Language learning motivation, self and identity: current theoretical perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 199-210
Session Two: Paper Presentation
A Reflexive Narrative of one Teacher’s Professional Digital Literacy
I have always combined my interest in technology with my work as a teacher, thereby developing my own digital literacy to the extent that it has been a very influential factor in my professional development and teaching beliefs. Whilst working in London in 2007, I began teaching IT skills classes to pre-masters students and at the same time I became the eLearning coordinator for a large chain of language schools with over 40 international locations. I was responsible for maintaining an online self-access centre and virtual learning environment with over 10,000 registered users. I created my own consultancy which offered technology training specifically for language teachers. Since moving to Japan in 2011, I have continued to utilise educational technologies in my work. My story may not be particularly unusual, and therefore in presenting a reflexive narrative of my experience I hope to open up a discussion with other practitioners who have similarly developed their digital literacy in order to improve their teaching and career prospects. I will also discuss my views on EFL teacher digital literacy in general, as well as my experience of student digital literacy. This presentation takes the form of a narrative inquiry (Barkhuizen, 2013), based on data collected through the process of reflexive practice (Edge, 2011). I encourage others to utilise narratives as a way of improving their practice.
Barkhuizen, G. (Ed.). (2013). Narrative Research in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edge, J. (2011). The Reflexive Teacher Educator in TESOL: Roots and Wings. London: Routledge.
