Methodological Guidelines

In “Dogme: Dancing in the dark?” Scott Thornbury sets out the original guidelines (“vows”) for Dogme.  The below guidelines for Dogme 2.0 draw on these Dogme principles to suggest an approach appropriate to a web 2.0 world.  As such they focus on the areas where 2.0 technologies are changing our relationship to knowledge and therefore our approaches to learning.

• Enabling conversation: technology can enable dialogue, broadening the range of participants, or deepening the conversation by involving others.
• Content co-creation: materials stimulate conversation, but the content for the lesson is driven, indeed created, by the students themselves.  Collaborative tools (such as wikis) can encourage students to work together to create the lesson’s content.
• Locality: mobile devices can help students relate to their current location, through photographing, filming, audio recording or writing descriptions relating to where they are.  A Dogme use of mobile devices helps students to better relate to their immediate surroundings, or to places that are important to them.
• Connections: strengthening communication with others (near or far) to facilitate connectivist learning that involves not just individuals but also broader networks or communities.
• Relevance: the internet is used to ensure greater relevance of the subject matter for the learner.  Students are able to find more specific information and connect with networks that are more suited to their interests.
• Voice: online publishing (be it text, audio, images or video) allows learners to be heard and included in specific and yet global discussions.
• Identity: students have space to express themselves and in so doing to focus on different aspects of their identity (perhaps in Second Life or by participating in different online networks or communities).  Students develop language skills that are relevant to them as individuals, through exploring their identity and relationship with the world.

To give some background to these suggestions, I discuss below some related concepts with respect to Dogme.

Connectivist learning beyond the classroom

George Siemens points to how learning is becoming increasingly informal, experiential, and continual.  This has implications for the teacher as the majority of the students’ learning will take place outside of the class and therefore beyond the immediate reach of the teacher.  Dogme 2.0 recognizes that a considerable amount of a student’s learning (perhaps most) takes place outside of lesson time and therefore beyond the classroom.  It addresses the question of how to enable continued conversations outside of the lesson, as it draws on technology to reconnect class members when they are physically distant from one another.    As such the students’ learning stretches beyond the class’s subject matter, its student body and the experiences they share together.

Connectivist learning places great importance on networks (of colleagues, friends and others interested in a particular subject) in enabling an individual’s learning.  Learners create and strengthen links between themselves and others who are also learning in the same or related fields.  Not only do they make connections between sources of knowledge, but also between other ideas or concepts.  Siemens sees this process as driven by the increasing need to manage changing contexts, where decisions are necessarily taken with limited knowledge.  Indeed he sees the capacity to learn (in the future) as being more important that the knowledge an individual currently has.  It is the capacity to make future connections that will solve future problems.  Dogme’s focus on the conversation allows the learning process to also strengthen network relationships, since the themselves are based upon communication.

Location and reality

By drawing upon what is already in the classroom (in preference to bringing in external materials) Dogme implicitly places great emphasis on being present in one’s physical (rather than virtual) location.  2.0 technologies can in fact be used to focus on our relationship with the real world: with places, people and experiences.  Mobile and 2.0 technologies can bridge experiences and conversations in the outside world with those within class.

• Mobile devices allow students to record their experiences between classes (as text, photos, sounds or video).  Text or voice recording permit students to capture their thoughts, impressions, reactions to that experience or environment.
• Twitter likewise allows learners to share their ideas with others (perhaps via a mobile phone) according to the moment.
• Augmented Reality on mobile devices can display data according to the physical location of the handset.  This information can be determined by the provider (as in web 1.0) or created by the device user (as web 2.0 applications).  These 2.0 programs (such as BrightKite and Tonchidot AirTags) allow greater connection with others depending on both the student’s location and interests.  Conversations can be both topic-specific and yet inclusive; they can be location-specific, yet global.
• Virtual worlds present Dogme 2.0 teachers with a greater challenge as they more obviously remove the student from their present location (and in this respect they are quite different from augmented reality).  However, virtual worlds can be used to focus on the students’ location: perhaps by virtually visiting where they live or work; perhaps by inviting students to build in a 3D virtual environment as a way to relate to their real world location.

Pedagogy 2.0

In the same way that Dogme is based on pedagogically sound foundations, so too is Dogme 2.0, where the focus is on the use of technology to achieve specific pedagogical goals.  However, Dogme 2.0 also recognizes that changes in technologies are leading to changing relationships to knowledge and therefore learning.  Learning increasingly takes place on the group level (in addition to the individual’s level), so web 2.0 tools play an enabling role in facilitating the building and development of networks within the process of learning.  Dogme has a natural role to play by focusing on conversation as the medium for both learning and developing network relationships.

Is Dogme 2.0 still Dogme?

Dogme 2.0 is very much an application of Dogme ideas to the world of web 2.0 and the above ideas are certainly in harmony with the three precepts that Meddings and Thornbury present in “Teaching Unplugged”.

1. Conversation driven: dialogue is at the heart of any Dogme lesson; it also enables connectivist learning through network building and development.  Dogme 2.0 allows the conversations to extend globally.
2. Materials light: the lesson’s content is created by the students themselves; the wealth of materials available online, merely serve to stimulate creation of content by the students.
3. Emergent language: Language emerges through the content that the students have created.  Grammar and new vocabulary are uncovered through the students striving to express themselves more accurately and more completely.

Dogme and learning 2.0

Both Dogme and learning 2.0 have much to offer each other.  However, it does not seem an evenly beneficial relationship.  Although Dogme 2.0 brings Dogme up to date (especially in its recognition of networked learning and connectivism), it is eLearning that gains most from Dogme: Dogme offers a clear framework for working with tools that so clearly place students at the center of their learning and in control of their own relationship to knowledge.

Some related links…

• Dogme for Virtual World Language Learning
• Dogme 2.0: What “Teaching 2.0” Can Learn from Dogme ELT

So far it is limited to just one user (not both sharing at the same time). However, it is a very simple way to show the other what is happening – especially useful for using Google Street View.

More information on the Skype website.

Thanks to Alexei for keeping me up to date on this!

This is the first time that I had used Twitter in class, although I had encouraged another student to sign up for twitter and to follow the Swedish tourism office, because he is shortly going on holiday to Sweden.

Although this wasn’t a planned activity with twitter, it did lead to some interesting observations about the potential of twitter for the language classroom.

Twitter English – The Differences
The English used in microblogging services such as Twitter seems different from that used in ordinary blogging or elsewhere on the web.

• Twitter English (TwEnglish / Twitterese) is different from normal English and different even from text messaging. As such, reading TwEnglish is a skill in itself.
  • Spelling: The spelling may be different – although it doesn’t seem to be vastly different from emails or note taking (with a pen). An example is “ya” in one of Nicole Lapin’s tweets
  • SMS style contractions: Twitter does not seem to lead to the abbreviations used in texting (see Txting: The Gr8 Db8 by David Crystal)
  • @ & #: use of @ for intended recipients and # for tags
  • Grammar: There are changes in grammar that can be found in tweets (probably because of the need to be concise). David Crystal’s blog mentions how the progressive passive is used in Twitter.
• Tweets are anyhow different from longer writing because of the lack of context and above all the brevity of the communication.
  • Conversations: Twitter is clearly all about the conversation and so the lesson naturally led to following the original tweets that Nicole Lapin was responding to.
  • Context: there is usually very little context (within the tweet itself) from which to work out the meaning of tweets. However, there are ways to gain a context, such as following the links within the tweets and tracing back through the conversations.

Some Observations

• Culturally specific terms: There were several times when culturally specific terms came up – such as simply the use of “Staples Center”, which follows a North American pattern of sponsorship for public arenas (eg Pepsi, Verizon, Wachovia, United, American Airlines)
• Relevance and timeliness: CNN tweets are certainly very timely and also relevant to those who naturally follow the news.
• Twitter conversations: Although this activity was a passive use of Twitter (ie not writing tweets), the reading did offer constant opportunity for conversation and for the student to relate his life and views to the tweets. It was a kind of lurking and therefore this particular activity did not lead to an engagement in the conversation with other Twitter users. However, Twitter can be used in a more proactive way by encouraging students to write tweets and to maintain conversations with others. I think what this shows is that a web 2.0 tool such as twitter can be both used as a stimulus for classroom based discussion and also to expand the classroom to include conversations with non-members of the class.
• Narrow Reading: In some sense, reading tweets is a form of narrow reading, because the style used is so concise as to be similar to other tweets. However, in a more general sense, this is not at all narrow reading. The student is in fact reading multiple conversations, which probably have very little relationship to one another. So the contexts vary greatly and therefore the vocabulary.
• New Reading Skills: Scott Thornbury points out that students don’t need to be taught to develop reading skills in their L2 lessons: if they already know how to read, then the translation of that skill (such as skimming) to a target language is something they can do naturally on their own. This makes sense for most situations, but I wonder whether students and teachers may now be facing new reading skills (such as reading twitter); it could well be that some students are meeting Twitterature for the first time when reading it in L2 and perhaps the lesson should be consciously guiding the student with this new skill.

I have been using virtual worlds such as Second Life for approximately two years and during this time I have done some interesting and engaging activities with students. However, I have also being looking for methodologies to draw upon to ensure that these activities are pedagogically sound and beneficial to the students’ learning. More recently I have taken a closer look at Dogme ELT as a pedagogy to guide these virtual world activities and Dogme has stood out as an approach that has much to offer virtual world language learning because of its focus on real life communication as the basis for developing language competencies.

This text starts with an overview of the Dogme approach and then continues by mapping out the different ways in which virtual worlds can be used for language learning. These two topics are then brought together to reflect on how Dogme can guide language teachers in using virtual worlds.

What is Dogme?
Dogme language teaching is a movement; it is a collective of teachers who have been inspired by the ideas of the Dogme film movement founded by Lars von Trier in 1995. Similar to the filmmakers, Dogme teachers are looking to return to the essence of a classroom by choosing to reduce or even avoid the use of technological tools and materials. Although virtual worlds are themselves high tech, a Dogme focus tends to take the activities in the direction of a lower tech approach that concentrates on the experiences that can lead to language emergence (or language acquisition). Followers of Dogme have generally moved away from using textbooks in class, partly as a desire to include real life materials and partly to reduce the role of third party content (text, audio, video) in the language lesson. In a Dogme lesson the students are encouraged to produce the content through their communication. This in turn leads to language learning opportunities in their striving to express themselves more clearly, fully and accurately. As such, this focus on communication reflects Dogme’s focus on social learning and so places the pedagogy within a constructivist context.

No Syllabus
Whereas a textbook strives to organize the learning into a program of themed units, Dogme teaching does not follow a syllabus, but instead prefers to allow the students’ needs and interests to set the pace and direction. In Dogme the syllabus emerges, or indeed is uncovered through the process of reflecting upon the language that emerges in class. Dogme language teaching is therefore a process, where the teacher responds to students’ needs rather than preemptively planning for them.

Principles
The Dogme approach is based upon some key principles that were set out by the movement’s founder, Scott Thornbury (ref). Learning is considered to take place through the interaction amongst the students and between the students and the teachers. This interaction enables knowledge to be co-constructed by the students rather than transmitted by the teacher to the students. In fact, by concentrating on conversation as the vehicle for learning, the knowledge is jointly assembled by the participants in what is termed ’scaffolding’. As such, the teacher’s role is more akin to a “guide on the side” than that of a “stage on the stage”.

As already mentioned, communication is seen as the key vehicle for language learning, because it allows for affordances or language learning opportunities to arise in class. In this way language learning is considered to be not so much of a process of acquisition (as in second language acquisition) as more one of emergence: the language emerges from the students’ conversations in class. These conversations in effect become the primary content in the language lesson, and especially contribute to the class because they enable the introduction of the students’ beliefs, knowledge and experiences into the learning process. The question of content is particularly interesting in the context of virtual worlds because a virtual world, such as Second Life, offers experiences far more than it can offer third party content in the way that published materials do. In a conventional (classroom-based), Dogme lesson the content is preferably introduced (at least in part) by the students themselves. This more proactive role of the students helps to ensure that the content is engaging and relevant, which are key attributes to promote the communication that leads to language emergence and therefore language learning.

Virtual World Language Learning
In order to consider how Dogme can guide virtual world language education, the above overview will now be placed within the context of the various ways in which virtual worlds offer opportunities for language learning. I see four main types of experiences that the learner may have in a virtual world: social, immersive, creative and gaming.

1. Social: Almost all 3D virtual environments (a notable exception being Google Street View) are social spaces which allow the opportunity for social interactions for language learning. These social experiences could be formal group lessons or casual conversations with unknown residents of a 3D virtual world. This type of experience can be approached from a Dogme perspective to enable language emergence.
2. Immersive: All 3D virtual environments can offer users immersive experiences that can stimulate conversation for use in a Dogme lesson. In Second Life this could take the form of a virtual field trip to the moon or to a replica of a real life place such as Barcelona. The important aspect here is that immersive spaces are stimulating and engaging places and that this can promote the use and therefore development of a foreign language.
3. Creative: Some virtual worlds, allow the residents to customize their avatars, decorate their homes or even build entire cities, as is the case in Second Life. This can be drawn upon in lessons to allow students to describe their constructions and how they relate to them. If done as a collaborative task the process of building can itself be a communicative activity. Again, a Dogme approach is able to recognize the pedagogical value of these more creative activities.
4. Gaming: Many 3D virtual environments are in fact Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) that can also be used to further language learning. MMOGs often involve considerable negotiation and collaboration amongst players and therefore may also offer scope for Dogme inspired teaching. MMOGs for language learning is a relatively new field and there are few recorded examples of attempts to incorporate MMOGs in to language education; [name] is one of them. Second Life can also be used for game-like activities by virtue of its flexibility. Second Life offers educators to create immersive tasks that reward the student for the correct answer. In some respects this approach is a 3D version of an exercise book and there therefore seems to be limited scope to draw on Dogme ideas for guidance with this approach.

Although virtual environments are often thought of as being virtual worlds such as Second Life, there are many other 3D virtual spaces that offer many of these experiences. Google Street View is a case in point; it allows users to virtually visit real cities and see the buildings from the perspective of someone standing in the street. Google Street View is not a social space, but it allows for 3D virtual immersive experiences not so dissimilar to 3D virtual worlds. Another form of virtual environment is the browser-based 3d virtual space “Hangout” which allows users to customize their apartment and invite other avatars to share the space with them. Exit Reality is similar, but also allows users to surf the web in 3D with their avatar.

Blended Learning
The range of 3D virtual environments allows considerable choice in using a specific tool for the desired type of experience. In fact distinguishing between the types of experience (social, immersive etc) helps the educator (or indeed the learner) focus on selecting the right tool for the job. And it is therefore likely that a blend of tools (online of offline; 3D or 2D) will be employed. So blended learning is the most likely format given that virtual environments are excellent for experiential learning yet cannot compete with the flexibility and scope of the 2D web for content and especially text work.

Implications for Dogme teaching with virtual worlds
The immersive, social and creative experiences available with 3D virtual environments can be guided by the Dogme methodology to focus on the students’ own needs and interests and in doing so, to develop their language skills. The above presentations of the Dogme approach and the opportunities offered by virtual worlds have implications for the likely approach to Dogme teaching with virtual worlds.

Firstly the focus on experience leaves considerable scope for using virtual worlds both in class or drawing on them for homework activities. Since Dogme teaching is most interested in the enabling of communication (for learning), the location of that communication (in-world, in physical classrooms or through wiki-based collaboration) is less important. Secondly, given that the students’ engagement is key to enabling the conversations that lead to language emergence, they need to have the freedom to choose where they want to go (in a 3D virtual environment) and what they will do there.

The above implications suggest that a Dogme educator is unlikely to use pre-prepared materials and exercises in a virtual world. And as such, Dogme in virtual worlds has a light touch to technology, much as it does in the conventional classroom. A clear advantage of this approach is that both teachers and students need not be as expert in navigating the complexities of a virtual world such as Second Life. However, the main strength of Dogme is the natural tendency to focus on the strengths of 3D virtual environments – namely the social, immersive and creative experiences.

Dogme Activities in Virtual Worlds
Naturally there is a wide range of activities that could fit into a 3D virtual class inspired by Dogme. A few examples are suggested here…

• Social experiences such as meeting other students or even complete strangers in a 3D virtual space can be achieved through interviews, casual conversations, group discussions or even presentations at conferences held in virtual worlds. Some experiences indicate that social interaction is most productive when it has a clear purpose rather than just conversation practice.
• Students can be immersed in a specific environment, perhaps a place that exists in real life or somewhere imaginary, to stimulate conversation. This can be done through encouraging the student to respond to basic questions about the place or to perhaps elicit more complex responses such as emotional reactions to the 3D environment.
• A more creative approach can be taken by including the building of objects. Perhaps the construction of a house followed by guided tours or through group activities that likewise involve the creation of objects.
• Using MMOGs such as World of Warcraft remains a relatively unexplored field, but it seems likely that there are opportunities to engage students in either communicative and collaborative tasks or perhaps as a quest-like activity.

Role plays may also be done in immersive environments, such as a city tour using Google Street View. There are various examples of using Second Life for simulated training, such as by the Canadian Border Control and the Iowa emergency preparation. However, given the structured and planned nature of such training, it seems there may be less scope to apply Dogme ideas.

Dogme Inspired Lesson: an example
Video clips of a Dogme inspired lesson are embedded below to illustrate how 3D virtual worlds (in this case Second Life) can be integrated into (offline or 2D online) lessons. These clips show how the student is able to identify for himself which vocabulary and structures were key to matching the images and texts; the student was then able to draw on new or unfamiliar vocabulary to use in his own terms, when exploring restaurants in Second Life. Learning opportunities (such as reinforcing the pronunciation of the word ‘bank’) naturally arose with only gentle prompting by the teacher. As such, the lesson reflects the Dogme principles of language emergence, materials-light content and conversation-driven learning.

However, this lesson could have demonstrated greater Dogme influences had the student played a more active role in the selection of materials (from the Lonely Planet site in this case) and of the locations (the restaurants in Second Life) for the virtual field trip. The lesson could also have involved greater social experiences such as the student interviewing other Second Life residents (eg restaurant diners) or leading a group discussion on the topic. However the clips do serve to show the flexibility of virtual worlds and the scope to integrate specific experiences (be it social, immersive, creative or gaming) into Dogme inspired language lessons.

Some related links…

• Second Life as a Social Learning Environment
• Dogme 2.0: What “Teaching 2.0” Can Learn from Dogme ELT

Using second life for conversation practice focuses on the social experiences available with 3D virtual worlds. See “Dogme as a pedagogy for virtual worlds” for a presentation of other experiences (immersive, creative and gaming – alongside social) that can be gained in a 3D virtual world such as Second Life.

Virtual Worlds as Social Environments

Virtual worlds are social in two main ways. Firstly, it is possible to meet strangers (ie other residents who are unknown to us) at any time, day or night, in Second Life. Although Skype and other 2D online chat rooms have allowed this for a few years now, the sense of physical presence that 3D virtual worlds offer is quite new. It enables a much more natural way to meet new people, especially as it allows users to simply walk up to other users, or indeed, simply to walk away. The other way in which Second Life can be used to meet with others, is as a venue for planned meetings. In an educational setting, this could be a group lesson or a prearranged meeting amongst some students. Pierre’s presentation focuses on the first way, because he used Second Life to meet others in a ‘pub’ in Second Life to join in the conversations between the pub’s ‘customers’.

Pierre’s experiences are interesting because they offer the opportunity to hear directly from a language learner and to consider how to best support students such as Pierre. His experiences demonstrate the importance of motivation and of feeling confident in conversation practice – even in 3D virtual worlds, which offer users more anonymity than in real life interactions. However, it is worth looking at each point he made in detail.

1. Virtual worlds are engaging. In fact, they are so engaging for some as to be almost addictive. Clearly this is not the experience that everyone has, and many language learners do not wish to use Second Life. And perhaps tools such as Google Street View is immersive enough for these people. However for some it is very enjoyable and appealing.
2. Virtual Worlds are real. Indeed, they are sufficiently real for emotions such as self consciousness to be an issue.
3. Languages in virtual words are real. The use of English, in Pierre’s case was challenging, because it was fast and not always easy to understand. This made it difficult at times for Pierre to participate, much as casual conversation in real life can be.
4. Text chat is important. While the conversation is real, it is slightly different from real life, because there is the combination of both voice and text chat. Text is usually the first form of communication, with voices being used for more in depth conversations. The greater role of text chat allows language learners to review the chat history and even look up the meaning of words while text chatting.
5. Casual conversation is less motivating. Although the immersiveness of Second Life is certainly attractive and an enjoyable experience, general conversation practice is not in itself highly motivating and engaging.

There are some observations that can be made from these points. As language teachers we can draw on this to ensure social and communicative experiences in virtual worlds are as effective as possible.

1. There are psychological barriers that hinder students from using a virtual world for speaking in public.
2. Learners with lower levels (A1-B1) may find general conversations too difficult. This will be especially relevant for teachers of languages other than English, because the students are less likely to have a high level of proficiency.
3. Specific tasks or activities may assist with addressing the psychological barriers and supporting lower-level students.
4. Text chat may be a stepping stone. Even if text chat is not considered the intended form of communication, it may lead to the learner gaining familiarity and confidence to be able to move on to using voice.

An interesting aspect of setting specific tasks is that it bridges the gap between formal class activities and informal language practice. This means that what happens in class can support the activities out of class and vice-versa. Homework tasks can be prepared within class time and then subsequently drawn upon during lessons after the Second Life based work that is done for homework. It is worth mentioning that by integrating lesson work and homework, we are increasing the variety of opportunities to use Second Life for communicative language learning.

There are three main types of tasks that draw on the above…

1. Interviews with other Second Life residents can focus the conversation on a particular subject and give greater purpose to the dialogue. This can also be embedded within a broader project or quest-based work. Second Life has many themed islands, which help students find interviewees for a particular topic. If the subject has cultural aspects, then the student can visit the appropriate community or virtual city, such as “Second Krakow”, “Virtual Berlin” or Second Life Japan. In the future this may become a more natural activity if virtual worlds such as Twinity become more widespread.
2. Economic-based tasks such as visiting shops and offices in Second Life allow students to carry out tasks that mirror real life activities. Although there are many real life companies that no longer staff their Second Life offices or stores, there are many real life and Second Life shops that continue to have live assistance. When virtual worlds become more widespread and commonly used, this will be a much greater opportunity.
3. Events in 3D virtual worlds, such as the SLanguages conference, tutorials and even political demonstrations all offer the possibility to speak with others and to research a topic. Conferences and political events allow a focus on the language of opinion and persuasion.

Second Life is Real Life
All of these tasks draw their relevancy precisely because Second Life and other 3D virtual worlds are so real. Indeed Pierre’s presentation (within Second Life) was so motivating for him because others attended and engaged in discussion with him.

21st Century Skills
Aside from being real, virtual worlds are different and the different styles and habits of communication will likely become more widespread as virtual worlds themselves play an increasingly role in our lives. As such virtual world communication skills form a part of 21st Century Skills and so language education with virtual worlds takes on validity in its own right, in much the same way that cell phones, pagers and text chat have entered mainstream business and society.

The Teachers’ Role
The focus of this presentation and text has intentionally been on how independent language teachers can best use virtual worlds with their students. This approach to using Second Life is more low-tech than the development of islands specifically for language learning. Clearly such projects are not feasible for independent teachers, but more importantly this approach concentrates on the unique qualities of Second Life: namely that it is a social space that is well suited to certain aspects of language learning. The teachers’ role is therefore one of facilitating the students’ use of virtual worlds in a similar way as that envisaged in Dogme language teaching with virtual worlds. Although the teacher will play an active role in the development of the activities so too will the students to ensure that the use of Second Life is engaging and motivating.

Dogme and Task-Based Learning
There are opportunities to embed the activities in a Dogme or TBL (Task-Based Learning) approach with the Second Life social activities either being an experience that leads to language emergence (in the case of a Dogme lesson) or as a task that is intended to concentrate on a particular aspect of the target language (in the case of TBL). Although the methodology could differ the Second Life activity itself would be possibly quite similar. It is the teaching style that would perhaps differ most, with Dogme being more reflective and TBL being more planned and intentional.

Some related links…

• Dogme for Virtual World Language Learning
• SurReal Quests for Language Learning

Photo of Dennis’ Villa in Second Life (image by Sanja).

Carol Rainbow kindly recorded the audio of the meeting and you can listen to it on Blip.TV or download/play this mp3 recording of the discussion about Augmented Reality Language Learning in Second Life.

The event took place at Dennis’ villa on EduNation – so thank you Dennis for hosting the meeting. And thank you to all for attending and making it such a interesting conversation.

I think you can only hear 3 voices (most participated via text-chat within Second Life) and they are of Dennis Newson, Scott Thornbury and me.

This blog post is an attempt to sketch out some initial thoughts on how Augmented Reality Language Learning (ARLL) could be used in a student centered way. Both Task-Based Learning (TBL) and Dogme approaches seem to offer guidance, as do the experiences with Virtual World Language Learning (VWLL). The focus here is very much on mobile access to geo-tagged Wikipedia (Wikitude) and location-based social networking (Google Latitude and BrightKite).

Avatar Languages has yet to develop ARLL lessons, so this blog post merely looks at what may well be possible.

What is Augmented Reality?
AR is the combination of real-world and computer-generated data so that computer generated objects are blended into real time projection of real life activities.

Wikitude – An Immersive Wikipedia
Wikitude is a program that overlays information in Wikipedia about physical places onto the camera screen of a mobile phone.

Wikitude places markers and summaries on the screen exactly where you can see the relevant building or location. These markers also link to the relevant Wikipedia article, which then opens up in the phone’s internet browser (via a 3G connection).

Latitude – Location-Based Social Networks
Google Latitude is just one of several programs that combine social networks with GPS to enable a system to see where other friends are physically located in real time on an online map on the phone. It shows the location of friends along with photos and other profile information. Privacy can be maintained by each user, who can select what to disclose and when to disclose it.

BrightKite – Geo-tagged Twitter
BrightKite offers a free service that looks very much like a geo-tagged twitter-style program. Users can microblog from their mobile devices and the service automatically tracks the microblogger’s location. Depending on each user’s privacy settings, users can see updates (microblog posts) from others who are near them. Although this is not a full service social network (along the lines of Facebook) it does open up location-specific virtual conversations.

Augmented Reality in Mobile Assisted Language Learning
ARLL focuses on contextual learning (see Kukulska-Hulme’s four approaches to MALL) and in so doing, allows the learners to move outside of the conventional classroom and to choose locations that are relevant to their lives. Perhaps this aspect of relevance can lead to greater engagement and therefore the desire to communicate, to converse, and above all, to learn.

Augmented Reality Language Learning and Virtual World Language Learning
VWLL may offer language educators some guidance and ideas for approaching ARLL, especially from a constructivist perspective. In my presentation at SLanguages about Dogme and Virtual Worlds, I mention 4 experiences that are possible with virtual worlds: immersive, social, creative and gaming. It seems likely that these experiences would be possible in ARLL.

Immersive experiences in AR (ie in real life) are certainly very immersive, however there is little flexibility because of the time, effort and money needed to change location and because of the limited opportunities to shape one’s environment in the real world (at least, compared to a virtual world). Using Wikitude we are able to have truly information-rich, immersive experiences, although these will be limited to real life locations.

Social experiences in AR will be extremely real, but limited to the people actually present in the real life location. Geo-tagged twitter would allow microblog-conversations with others will be based on locally relevant and perhaps time-specific topics. This would open the door to more casual, fleeting and yet focused communications – and this could well open up new ways to engage learners in active communication.

Creative experiences can be gained through microblogging, blogging, commenting on blogs, instant messaging, photo-sharing, immediate podcasting/vodcasting and wiki participation.

Gaming experiences in ARLL are already better documented than the other three experiences Ravi Purushotma has outlined an ARLL game activity and the Local Games Lab describes an AR game for non-language learning. Holden and Sykes are currently researching this gaming aspect of ARLL.

Methods for Augmented Reality Language Learning
Approaches to VWLL seem to focus on constructivist-based methodologies such as TBL and Dogme. The question is how these approaches can guide us with using ARLL.

• TBL seems particularly applicable to ARLL, especially with the 24/7 access to location-specific knowledge. Indeed location-based social networking offers opportunities for collaborative tasks using information gap activities.
• Dogme is at first glance less applicable to ARLL than VWLL, especially when concentrating the ARLL on Wikitude, which draws attention to the access to knowledge more than it enables conversations. However, geo-tagged twitter services such as BrightKite could well be woven into a Dogme style lesson. Microblogging is by nature a far more conversant form of blogging and would allow learners to choose to engage with others according to what is relevant to them. It is therefore potentially a very engaging way to communicate.

Activities for Augmented Reality Language Learning
Drawing on both TBL and Dogme, I offer here some possible activities or types of activities for ARLL. Some make a more passive use of the information available through Wikitude; while others involve more the pro-active creation of content.

• Role plays as tour guides, where learners access Wikitude information on the fly. This ‘speed-dating’ equivalent of role play would likely focus on fluency.
• Quests on location, where the students search for ‘treasure’ or even each other based on tasks set by the teacher.
• AR Geocaching, where the hidden containers could be virtual (augmented reality). Conventional Geocaching is a high-tech treasure hunting game using GPS to locate hidden containers (geocaches).  The experiences are then shared online.
• Projects and fieldtrips, where students collect data (text, videos, audios and images) while physically exploring a location.
• Blogging, Microblogging and Wiki participation, where students interact with these web 2.0 tools to share ideas and content. This could be part of a project or fieldtrip. Geo-tagging the content could then enable it to feedback into the location-specific body of knowledge.
• Noticing and mobile diaries, where students reflect on their language learning experiences as they happen (as described by Kukulska-Hulme); these activities could be location-specific and therefore make use of location-based social networks or geo-tagged knowledge.

Future of Augmented Reality Language Learning
The thread running through all of the above considerations of ARLL is geo-tagging. Perhaps ARLL is currently just geo-tagged language learning? However, AR is developing very quickly and it will become more usual to interact with virtual objects (rather than super-imposed lays of data) within a real world context. This may well allow users the ability to edit the environment in a similar way to Second Life (see below video for an example). And so there may be opportunities for far more creative learning experiences.

In the meantime, geo-tagging is already moving beyond Wikipedia to include practical information such as ATM locations and real estate offers, as the Layar video below shows.

ARLL will clearly develop according to how AR applications are actually used in real life, and this of course remains to be seen. Technologies often involve shifts in how we communicate and how we relate to knowledge. It may well be that shifts due to AR will open up new opportunities for language education.

Thanks to Graham Stanley for telling me about AR geo-tagging and AR social networks. Thanks also to Pierre Moussy for demonstrating his HTC Magic phone in Paris.

The above YouTube video is worth watching, even though it is over one hour long. It very nicely sets out both what the tool can do and starts to look at how it will change how we work in the future. Of course, there is always the question of whether it will catch on, but given that it is an open source, there is a good chance that this or something similar will become the norm in the forthcoming years.

What is a wave?
The following is how Google sums up Wave …

• A wave is equal parts conversation and document. People can communicate and work together with richly formatted text, photos, videos, maps, and more.

• A wave is shared. Any participant can reply anywhere in the message, edit the content and add participants at any point in the process. Then playback lets anyone rewind the wave to see who said what and when.

• A wave is live. With live transmission as you type, participants on a wave can have faster conversations, see edits and interact with extensions in real-time.

Enterprise 2.0 –> Learning 2.0
Google have clearly designed wave with the business team user in mind (rather than the individual/private internet user as noted by ZDNet). And it seems likely that it will enable a flatter (less hierarchical) way of team-work within and between organizations. And so if it is going to change the way we work, it is likely that it gives us some indication of changes in learning approaches we can expect with languages. A few initial thoughts below…

Real-time collaboration
The collaborative editing of waves is faster and more continuous than currently possible with Google Docs. It has very much a document layout (in the same way as Word or email does), and so does not seem to combine the freedom of a whiteboard into the wave work-surface. However, it is as responsive as any online whiteboard and allows editing tools that enable participants (students/teacher) to collaboratively create and edit texts and include multimedia.

Playback
Playback is a video style version of a wiki history. It lets you slide through the history of the wave to see how it has changed over its history. This can even be done for one particular participant and so could be used to see how a certain student has interacted with the document.

Commenting / Editing
Wave makes a distinction between editing a document and commenting on it and so a teacher (or student) can comment on the text. For example, this could allow a teacher to highlight areas for correction and give a hint of what the issue is.

Games and Widgets
There is a games function that has been used to create Sudoku and chess games that you can see in the demo film above. I can see potential for interactive quizzes and ‘exercises’ with this tool.

Opinion Polls seem very easy to create within Wave and so it adds some interactivity for students to quiz each other and for teachers to create checks for comprehension.

Spell Check & Automatic Translation
There is an automatic spell check and even an automatic translator for simultaneously communicating with speakers of another language. This raises the question of what skills we need to teach language learners so that they can draw on these tools to improve their communication skills. There may be scope for language education to move further away from accuracy and more into communicative approaches. In fact, if translation bots become more widespread (through the integration into conventional communication tools such as Wave), will the use of English (and other languages) change in an equivalent way to how English is changing as it becomes increasingly a global language with decreasing influence from native speakers.

Conversations rather than Publications
Google Wave certainly appears to be taking us further into the process of information and away from the publication of knowledge. Email and Microsoft Word are still very much focused on the completion and publication of information (with a clear time and date stamp) – even if shuttled to and fro in email conversations or as edited attachments. Wave, however, reflects the continuity of a conversation. The playback function allows us to look at how the wave changed over time, but there is no sense of finishing, publishing and archiving a particular document. This must surely take is in a different direction with knowledge construction and therefore learning approaches. Will language teaching become more obviously the management of conversations that run through various different lessons? Could language lessons become much more interactive with participants beyond the classroom? The very term “conversation” suggests that there may be some synergies to explore between Dogme and Google Wave in the language classroom.

Language learners often travel and so they have plenty of travel experiences to write about. Even those students who aren’t travelling much can write about where they live or another place they know well.

There are a few challenges with this approach to writing…

• Quality: ensuring that the quality is high – wikis are public resources and so the student’s input should be clear and of a good level.
• Accuracy: there is also the question of accuracy of information – although this is easily checked according to sources that are referenced by the student
• Speed: students also sometimes need to write quickly – a few months back I suggested a student write about Obama – only to find that a lot of information was added to Wikipedia (Simple English version) a couple of days later.

An advantage of Wikitravel (compared to Wikipedia) is that there are often opportunities to add content – even in English. Although some locations such as Bangkok have a great deal of detail, others such as Esteli have very little text. True that Esteli is a little off the beaten track – but even visitors to major destinations can add a paragraph or two about something specific. And of course, this is very much in the spirit of wikis – that everyone writes a little about what they know about.

Interestingly, if the student is learning Spanish, then there are many more opportunities to write for Wikitravel. As of today, the entry for Toronto in Spanish is looking a little on the thin side…

Toronto es una de las ciudades mas grandes y pobladas de Canadá, se distingue por la CN Tower que esta ubicada a un costado del estadio de los azulejos (el unico estadio en el mundo con un domo removible). Esta ciudad moderna y multicultural ofrece una gran cantidad de atracciones para sus visitantes.

There are, of course, other wiki websites for students to write for…

• Recipes (http://www.recipeswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page)
• Music (http://www.wikimusicguide.com/)
• Star Wars (http://swfanon.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page)
• And many more… http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Big_wikis

Wikis are much more than mulitlingual resources for language classes – they can become a collaborative and easy way for students to publish their written work and gain a genuine sense of accomplishment.

Some related links…

• Dogme 2.0: What “Teaching 2.0” Can Learn from Dogme ELT
• Are Textbooks Still Relevant in a Web 2.0 World?
• Simple English Wikipedia in Language Lessons
• Google Maps Street View for Language Learning

Title: Second Life as a Social Learning Environment
Presenters [avatar names]: Howard Vickers & Pierre Moussy [ Howie Yoshikawa & Mieszko Beck ]
Second Life offers language learners a place for meeting others to practice a foreign language. This two-part presentation hears from a language learner about his experiences in Second Life and from a language educator about the lessons learned for encouraging conversation practice in virtual worlds.

• What are the advantages of using Second Life for conversation practice?
• What are the experiences of language learners? What are their motivations?
• Where do they see limitations to this approach? What are the differences between the in-world voice system and text chatting?
• What can we learn from learners about how best to promote fluency through conversation practice in Second Life?

Time: 05.00 – 06.00 (Second Life time = PDT)

Date: Saturday 9 May 2009

Location: EduNation III Amphitheatre in Second Life.

Hope to see you there!

Some related links…

• Scott Thornbury in Second Life
• Jeremy Harmer in 3D – Interview in Second Life
• SLanguages 2009: Dogme ELT for Virtual Worlds