What’s Your Digital Quotient? How Do You Compare With a Six-Year-Old?

This is a 7-10 minute read. (There is a summary towards the bottom of the page.)

I haven’t looked at my Twitter feed today but I’m willing to bet that an article in The Guardian headlined “Ofcom: six-year-olds understand digital technology better than adults” has been shared without any great thought or comment. In this post I dig a little deeper – because it annoyed me.

sun-332141_1920 (1)

Journalists eh!

Sometimes newspaper articles miss the point.

Exhibit A: “Ofcom: six-year-olds understand digital technology better than adults.” Declares a Guardian Headline on 7th August 2014.

Exhibit B: “The advent of broadband in the year 2000 has created a generation of digital natives, the communication watchdog Ofcom says in its annual study of British consumers” – claims the second paragraph of the article.

This all sounds fine, common sense in fact. We all know how kids are with technology and how confusing new technology can be to those of us of an advanced age (our knowledge decreases after the age of sixteen according to the OFCOM report).  The only problem that  these are claims made by the journalist cherry picking data for sensationalism.

The headline (Exhibit A) may have been more accurate had it said something like

“Six to seven-year-olds appear to have greater awareness and self confidence around gadgets from tablets to smart watches, knowledge of superfast internet, 4G mobile phone networks and mobile apps* than people over the age of 45 according to the results of a subjective study to quantify an individual’s Digital Quotient.”

Of course that wouldn’t be nearly as sensational.

(*Italics taken from the Guardian article.)

As for Exhibit B this is pure journalistic license taking the meme of the digital native with its implications of a generational divide created by children with brains rewired by digital technology. The 423 page report does not mention digital natives!


Digital and Informatiom Literacy

Interestingly this brings up what I consider to be a vital component of Tech Savvyness and Digital Knowledge. This is Digital Literacy and its bedfellow Information Literacy. One component of  this  involves understanding how information sources (paper-based or digital) use journalistic license to skew the facts for more arresting headlines and compelling stories – even from an apparently reliable source such as The Guardian. We should, where possible, follow up the source material to see what it actually says – and from the analysis so far this doesn’t represent the report quite accurately.


To be fair…sort of

The remaining 18 paragraphs of the article is interesting and highlights some thought provoking issues arising from the report. For example this quote:

“These younger people are shaping communications,” said Jane Rumble, Ofcom’s media research head. “As a result of growing up in the digital age, they are developing fundamentally different communication habits from older generations, even compared to what we call the early adopters, the 16-to-24 age group.” This is interesting but shouldn’t be too shocking or surprising – imagine the headline “The New Generation Displays No Difference From the Previous Generation”

Another problem with the article, and the Ofcom press release is that it doesn’t quite seem to know how to interpret the results of its Digital Quotient study. Does it refer to knowledge of digital technology, use of digital technology, tech savvyness (what does this actually mean?), use and knowledge of communication technology. More on this later on.


But what about the report itself?

The Ofcom report is interesting and worth discussing but does not justify the Guardian’s headline. So let’s take a look at the report.

Firstly what is Ofcom? It describes itself as the UK’s “Independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries.”

What is the report? This is Ofcom’s eleventh annual Communication Market Report  which “supports Ofcom’s regulatory goal to research markets and to remain at the forefront of technological understanding”. The report is 423 pages long and covers all aspects of the UKs communication market – key points are summarised on pages one to fourteen.


So it’s all about digital divides?

No, according to the document “The report contains data and analysis on broadcast television and radio, fixed and mobile telephony, internet take-up and consumption and post.” Again it is worth pointing out that this is for the UK market.

For example did you know that 39% of 16-34 year-olds were unable to give the correct price for a first class stamp – they are the least philately savvy age group!

The report does discuss digital divides in generational terms. Importantly, it also does so in terms of other areas such as gender and socio-economic status (males and ABC1 people have greater confidence with digital technologies) (Ofcom, 2014, pp.4-5). These complement the findings of reports critical of the original conception of the digital native (Bennet,2012 and Helsper & Enyon, 2009).


What about the “Techie Teens”?

 Well, “Techie teens shaping communications” is the headline on Ofcom’s website publicising the report. It refers to findings from a part of the report detailing generational differences -compare this with the Guardian headline.

The important thing to notice here is the emphasis on communication. Teenager as innovators of communication technologies is nothing new. SMS messaging was a moribund technology before 1996** when teenagers took the affordance of pay-as-you-go mobile phones to embrace and breathe life into SMS.

The Guardian article points out that before that telephones were hogged for hours in the evenings by chatting teens.


Tell us more about the “Techie Teens”?

Well, the data that caught The Guardian’s attention was based on a survey to find a person’s Digital Quotient. That is, according to the website, their “awareness of technology and communications” or Tech Savvyness (are these even the same?).

Digital Quotients do not actually appear within the main report and seem to be another tool to publicise the report.  This is where the data for the comparisons of 6 year-olds and 45 year-olds comes from.

I couldn’t find much information about the methodology for base-lining the DQs. It appears that they have been extrapolated from the answers given by two thousand adults and eight hundred children for the main report. These questions have been collated into an abbreviated version of the test that is available online. Anyone can now find their DQ!

Why not try it for yourself? It only takes 3 minutes.

If you tried it how did you do? What did you think of the questions? Could do better would be my feedback.

I got a DQ of 104. This puts me 2 above the average for my age group and 1 above the average for 8-9 year olds.  I think this may just be fair enough in terms of communication technologies (though I’m not so sure) but I don’t think it is true in terms of Tech Savvyness (whatever that actually means).

By the way the age group with the highest DQ was the 14-15 year olds with an average of 113.

The DQ survey is a bit of fun to publicise the main report and clearly not a rigorously prepared survey. I think it is difficult to make any real claims based on its results beyond subjective knowledge of certain communication technologies.


So the report is rubbish then?

No, as I said the report is 423 pages long and contains lots of interesting facts about the UK communications sector. A really interesting nugget is the amount of media multitasking we do. Adults on average use media and communications for 8hrs 41 minutes but clocked up 11hrs of total media use and communications in that time. 16-24 year olds manage to squeeze an average of 14hrs into 9 hrs 8 mins.

We are all multi-taskers.


Is there anything in this for EL teachers?

Well, we must keep in mind that this is a survey of communications technology and use in the UK.

The first thing to say is that there is no need for lazy invocations of digital natives and its associations. They do make the point that young people born after 2000 are born into truly digital landscape based on broadband rather that dial up internet communication and that it is these young teenagers we should be looking to for future trends in communication. The story of SMS tells us this is the norm.

Secondly, is that this is a report about communication. In ELT we teach within a broadly communicative methodology. As communication and access to information becomes easier we should be using it to encourage learning and interaction both inside and outside the classroom. Project Based Learning  can take the affordances of these technologies and place them in a normalised learning context.

Thirdly, and the last point I will make (though I could do on), being tech savvy does not equate to being tech literate including being information literate. These are areas where critical thinking and analysis are central. Once again Project Based Learning, facilitated through technologically based enquiry, offers a great vehicle to explore and enhance these skills.


In Summary:

  • You can’t trust new sources to be completely accurate.
  • Media Literacy is a crucial companion of Digital Literacy.
  • OFCOM has produced an interesting report suggesting young people are at the forefront of the innovative use of digital technology for communication.
  • Teenagers have been good at recognising the affordances of communication technology in the past so why is this news now?
  • The Digital Quotient is a bit of fun but doesn’t really add much else beyond generalised conclusions.
  • The report contains lots of interesting information – have a look.
  • The report does not mention Digital Natives.
  • It confirms what would seem to be common knowledge, that young people like to communicate. Naturally they innovate using the affordances of the available technology – we should exploit this fact in our teaching. PBL does this .
  • Critical Thinking is key to Information Literacy. PBL encourages critical thinking.

Here is another article on The Guardian published as I was writing this blog. A better headline here!

**Yes, I do see the irony of linking to Guardian articles!


Bennett, S 2012, “Digital natives”,  In Z Yan (Eds), Encyclopedia of Cyber Behavior: Volume 1, pp. 212-219, viewed 1st June 2014, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27739/1/Digital_natives_(LSERO).pd

Helsper, E  & Eynon, R 2009, ‘Digital natives: where is the evidence?’ British Educational Research Journal, viewed 1st June 2014 http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27739/1/Digital_natives_(LSERO).pdf

Ofcom, 2014, “The Communications Market Report”, viewed 7th August 2014 http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr14/2014_UK_CMR.pdf

Related Posts

The Affordances of Technology  – Coming Soon

The Normalisation of Technology in Teaching and Learning – Coming Soon

Technology as a Cognitive Aid – Coming Soon

PBL & the Affordances of Web 2.0 Technology – Coming Soon

Applying PBL to English Language Teaching

“It was good enough for us, it should be good enough for them.” – Coming Soon

Digital-Media Literacy – Coming Soon

Of Digital Natives and God Particles

Creative Commons License
What’s Your Digital Quotient? How Do You Compare With a Six-Year-Old? by Andrew Bosson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://beginswithaproblem.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/whats-your-digital-quotient-how-do-you-compare-with-a-six-year-old/.


Experience, Memory, Motivation and Neil Young …. (and PBL)

This is a 14 – 18 minute read. (There is a summary of the post at the bottom of this page.)

This post investigates how a Neil Young concert led me to reflect on the difference between Experience and the Memory of Experience and some of the implications for teachers wishing their learners to have positive memories of learning experiences.


Neil Young & Crazy Horse

A few days ago I saw Neil Young and Crazy Horse in Istanbul. The concert was wonderful, beautiful songs, heartbreaking melodies that only NY can seem to produce and guitars producing a majestic sound to accompany the lightning storm taking place around to open air arena.

That was until the encore. I was there with a couple of friends and we didn’t recognise the one encore song – apparently it was a, unreleased, new one. Not that I need to tell NY his business but I’m going to anyway. If you are going to play a new song (and this one was a good song) put it in the main set – encores are for crowd-pleasers to send audience home on a high.

If the concert had ended with the last song before the encore  all would have been good, amazing in fact. But as it was as I wandered to the Dolmuş to begin my journey home I felt strangely subdued. A post-midnight traffic jam gave me time to think about the concert. The show was actually a wonderful and uplifting experience -and for the last few days I have been walking around with the amazing sounds from the concert in my head (or my reconstruction of them – see later).


Constructing Memories

There are worse places to be stuck in a traffic jam than the Bosphorus Bridge with its views across Istanbul. As I recalled the concert on that journey I had in the back of my mind a great interview with Daniel Kahneman about his TED Talk “The Riddle of Experience vs. Memory” in which he discussed the difference between an Experience and the Memory of an Experience.

He told a story of a man who had listened to a glorious symphony only for it to end in a screeching sound that “ruined the whole experience”. When Kahneman had been told this story he considered it to be ridiculous – the man had listened to 20 minutes of beautiful music before the screeching. Kahneman reasoned that it was not the experience that was ruined but the memory of the experience.

According to Kahneman “Our memory tells us stories. What we get to keep from our experiences is a story.” Another important point he makes is that how experiences end is important. The endings are the bits we remember most and these are the bits that have the largest impact of our story of the experience. In the case of the man and his symphony it was the screeching that told the story of the experience. Kahneman describes how he put this into practice when on a recent holiday with his wife in Switzerland. Having had a particularly wonderful day they decided to cut their holiday short to preserve the memory of their holiday – a risk he admits because the next day could have been even better.

Kahneman took a positive action to preserve the memory of the experience of the holiday. I’m glad I did the same for the concert – I didn’t leave before the encore but my final memory were those I remembered  / reconstructed as I reflected on the whole concert – I don’t remember much about the encore now.


Constructing Memories and Motivating Learners

As teachers we agonise over motivating our learners. How can we engage and maintain their motivation? On a cold rainy morning why should our learners get out of their warm beds to come willingly and enthusiastically to our lessons? Of course motivating learners is a complex area and we focus a great deal on the impact of the experience of learning but one area we seem to pay less attention to is the memory of the experience of learning.

Do we want our learners to leave our lessons with the equivalent of the memory of the wonderful Swiss holiday or the symphony ruined by screeching? If our learners have a positive memory of the experience of learning they may be more motivated. I don’t necessarily have the answers but I do have some thoughts – I’d love to hear you ideas.


Teaching to Promote a Positive Memory of the Experience of Learning

For teachers the common unit of teaching is the lesson – but the amount of time varies as do the amount of lessons that may be taught in a block. So in this session when I talk about the end of a lesson I am generally talking about the last session of a block of continuous lessons – although some of the points can clearly apply to individual lessons.

 ‘Fun and Games’ – well one obvious way to encourage a positive memory of the ending of the lesson is through ending the lesson with an enjoyable ‘fun’ activity. Of course the definitions of ‘fun and enjoyable’ activities will vary and we would need a deep well of games and activities to prevent them becoming stale.

Honest praise and encouragement – another simple way to reinforce positive memories is through praise and encouragement. This will be more effective if obviously honest – give a reason, explanation of why you consider the learners to have worked well or what you think they have achieved in the lesson. (I will develop this further when I discuss the use of Reflection).

We may also able to take some practical steps when Lesson Planning particularly with respect to Timing of activities.

 1. Perhaps another way to think of an enjoyable activity would be high and low energy activities. When planning we may wish to consider ending on a high energy activity – for example one that may require a variety of focus, a cognitive challenge or communicative commitment rather than an apparently more passive task. Such an activity may be a written task that is handed in as the lesson ends without immediate feedback or reflection. This certainly does not mean a ban on in-class writing in class but a considered approach to planning (actually this does not mean no writing at the end of the lesson – more later*).


 2. Of course I think most of us naturally plan our lessons to end with a positive memorable activity. I know this is my experience but I also know that there are many occasions where I have not had enough time to fully exploit these activities to their true learning potential. What was intended to be a key point of the lesson becomes lessened due to a lack of time to fully exploit it.

Classrooms are complex and unpredictable places and of course lesson plans are not set in stone and can naturally change during a lesson. We should retain the flexibility, if it is allowed within our teaching context, to change our planned lesson if this will enhance learning. Planning lessons with activities that can be dropped gives us leeway to fully exploit the ones we consider most important. Alternatively it may be the case that there is just not enough time to fully exploit the final activity – we should be prepared to consider dropping it (to use another day) in favour for something that can usefully be completed. A half-completed or exploited activity does not necessarily leave a good memory.


 3. Most learners do not enjoy homework, yet setting homework is often the last thing we do in a lesson – creating the learners’ last memory? Why not set homework earlier in the lesson? We may have to be careful in our planning and prioritising the work to cover in class to avoid the situation of setting work we did not have time to complete. In those unavoidable situations where we wish to set work that could not be covered in the lesson why not set it as homework during the next (day’s) lesson?


 4. This situation will certainly not apply to all teaching contexts but do your lessons have to finish exactly on time? If you have come to the natural end of a positive activity, that cannot be usefully extended, could you end the lesson a few minutes early to create an upbeat memory? Similarly could you extend the lesson for a few minutes to fully exploit an activity to create the memory of a positive learning experience?


Positive Achievement – leaving a lesson, or any situation, with a sense of achievement is one way to foster positive memories of the learning experience. Ending a lesson with activities that allow all learners, regardless of ability, to experience a form of achievement will leave a good memory of the experience of learning. This does not mean an activity whose achievement is defined by the lowest common denominator or can be completed with little effort. It means an activity which does not necessarily have correct or incorrect answers, rather achievement is based on the learner’s current ability and knowledge. A poster presentation could be completed successfully by all learners as long as both teacher and learners have a challenging, yet realistic, view of what an achievement would be for the activity.



As I mentioned earlier I was able to spend time thinking about the Neil Young concert on my journey home. This reflection led to the whole concert, rather than the encore, being my abiding memory! The process of reflection is important for learners too, and in addition to its other benefits, time spent on constructive reflection can produce positive learning memories.

Reflection then allows us to focus on the achievements and learning in the whole lesson (series of lessons) in the hope of reinforcing learning and achievement as well as creating positive memories of the learning experience. Lessons are not always ‘fun and enjoyable’ but can still be engaging through their cognitive challenge, breakthrough moments…etc- reflection on the effort involved and achievement can be create positive memories of learning.

*Earlier I suggested that ending the lesson with a ’low-energy’ writing activity may not be conducive to leaving a positive memory of the experience of learning. However, if the written task were followed with a reflection on the skills, knowledge and effort the learners felt they had utilised and developed then the final memory can become extremely positive.


Reflecting on Lesson Aims  -As teachers we often state our lesson aims at the start of the lesson and recap and reflect on their achievement at the end of the lesson with the learners. This process can certainly, and importantly, help the learners to consider their learning in the lesson. However, if it is solely based on the teachers’ lesson aims it runs the risk of missing learning and achievement in the lesson from individual learner’s perspective.

Individual Reflection – encouraging learners to individually (or collaboratively) to positively reflect on their learning and achievement enables the capture of elements we as teachers may not have considered or noticed. We can set lesson aims and teach to meet these goals but this does not necessarily equate what learners perceive as being learned or achieved (Kumaravadivelu 1991, p.100). Helping learners to recognise and value these other realms of knowledge and success, often not recognised through assessment, will not only enhance the experience of learning but the memory of the experience of learning.

Reflection is not a big job

Reflection need not, and probably should not, be an extensive process but a few minutes of quality time set aside at the end of each teaching period can be extremely beneficial to consolidate learning and prime positive memories.


Reflection and Positive Attributions

Daniel Kahneman also discusses the reliability of our memories – they are not really reliable! Each time we recall a memory we reconstruct the memory. Kahneman concludes that all of our memories are  “probably to some extent a reconstruction, except some reconstructions are better than others but you are not going to know necessarily whether what you are reconstructing is the reality or something else”. So our memories despite appearing certain to us are in fact subjective stories we have created of events, experiences and achievements.

Interestingly in the Attribution Theory of Motivation it is the subjective perceptions learners possess of past achievements or failures that play an important role in their self-efficacy – their belief in the ability to successfully complete similar tasks in the future.

Learners with an ‘optimistic’ attribution style, towards a learning outcome tend to attribute positive outcomes to their own effort and credit negative results to external factors. They are likely to possess high self-efficacy, which can result in increased effort and persistence at task completion, a clearer focus on goal achievement and planning for achievement. Conversely, learners displaying ‘pessimistic’ attribution styles, often have low self-efficacy, and ascribe failure to internal factors, such as lack of intelligence or ability. Positive achievements are attributed to areas outside of their sphere of control (Oxford & Shearin 1994, p.21, Dörnyei 2003, p.8, Dörnyei 1994, p.277, Harvey & Martinko 2010, p.149).

Learners with positive attributions may remain positive and motivated in the face of repeated failure. However, the attributions of the pessimistic learner may lead them into a state of learned helplessness, where the desire to achieve is overwhelmed by resignation and futility with creates a cycle of failure (Harvey & Martinko 2010, p.149-51, Ushioda 2008, p.27).

Given the importance of the subjective nature of attributions it is important that learners have a positive memory of learning experiences. Carefully scaffolded opportunities to reflect can also present learners with the occasion to challenge negative attributions (Williams et al 2004, p.20, Garrison & Kanuka 2004, p.98). This does not mean a rose-tinted glasses view of learning which focuses solely on achievement. Constructive reflection can be used areas to identify areas which need more attention and work yet placed in the positive context of learning as an achievable process.


Project Based Learning

Well it’s about time…

The idea of the Memory of the Experience is built in to good PBL design.

For Thom Markham “The PBL process is a nonlinear problem-solving process. A good PBL teacher knows how to manage the work flow throughout the project and prepare students to present their best work at the end, including planning powerful exhibitions to public audiences. at the culmination of well-executed projects, students experience the feeling of mastery.” (2012, p.xii) The product of a well-completed project leaves the learners with a sense of achievement – a positive memory.

In fact in a well designed PBL project each stage will contain its own achievement goals. Crucially reflection on learning as well as the process of the project are ongoing features of PBL.  Finally “the project does not end on the day of the presentations or the final test. On your project schedule, allot time after the final presentations for reflection.” (Markham 2012, p.106)


In Summary:

– If you get the chance, go and see Neil Young and Crazy Horse

– There is a difference between Experience and the Memory of Experience.

– The memories of an experience are most influenced by our last memory of the experience.

– Teachers should consider our learners’ Memories of the Experience of Learning

– Praise, ‘Fun and games’, planning and timing are some immediate practical areas we may wish to consider to enhance the memory of the experience of learning.

– I believe that encouraging reflection, aside from its other benefits, can help in constructing positive memories of the experience of learning.

– The field of positive psychology suggests that our subjective perceptions are closely related to motivation and belief in self-efficacy. Reflective practice can help to create positive, yet realistic, memories of the experience of learning that can in turn help in creating positive attributions.

– In PBL a memorable final achievement and reflection are key components.

What do you think?

These are my thoughts, again intended to be a short post. I would love to hear your thoughts too.



Dörnyei, Z 1994, ‘Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom’, The Modern Language Journal, vol.78 no.3, pp.273-284.

Dörnyei, Z 2003, ‘Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language Learning: Advances in Theory, Research, and Applications’, Language Learning, vol.53 no.1, pp.3-32.

Garrison, R. and Kanuka, H 2004, ‘Blended Learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education’, The Internet and Higher Education, vol.7 no.2, pp.95-105.

Harvey, P & Martinko, M J 2010, “Attribution theory and motivation”, In N Borkowski (Ed), Organizational behavior in health care, 2nd edn, Jones and Bartlett, Boston, pp.147-164.

Kumaravadivelu, B 1991, ‘Language-learning tasks: teacher intention and learner interpretation’, ELT Journal, vol.45, no.2, pp.98-107.

Markham, T 2012, Project Based Learning. Design and Coaching Guide, viewed 1st May 2014, http://www.thommarkham.com/index.php/philosophy/buy-pbl-deign-and-coaching-guide

Oxford, R & Shearin, J 1994, “Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework.” Modern Language Journal, vol.78 no.1, pp.12-28.

Usioda, E, 2008, “Motivation and good language learners”, in C Griffiths (ed), Lessons from Good Language Learners, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.19-34.

Williams, M, Burden, R, Poulet, G, & Maun, I 2004, ‘Learners’ perceptions of their

successes and failures in foreign language learning’, The Language Learning Journal, vol.30 no.1,pp. 19-29.

Markham, T 2012, Project Based Learning. Design and Coaching Guide, viewed 1st May 2014, http://www.thommarkham.com/index.php/philosophy/buy-pbl-deign-and-coaching-guide

Related Articles

Applying PBL to English Language Teaching

Creative Commons License
Experience, Memory, Motivation & Neil Young by Andrew Bosson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Of Digital Natives and God Particles

This is a 16-19 minute read. (There is a summary towards the bottom of the page.)

In this post I use the concept of the ‘Digital Native’ to explore some of my opinions regarding the way we should consider the use of technology in ELT teaching. These are my opinions (at the moment) and although intended to be provocative –  they are stated to promote debate to help us enhance teaching and learning. If you have a different opinion or other ideas I would love to hear them.


So let’s go….

Higgs Bosons

In July 2012 CERN announced it had found the ‘God Particle’. Well actually they didn’t they announced they had found something that had the characteristics of the long-sought Higgs Boson. Many particle physicists don’t really like the moniker ‘God Particle’ as they feel it misrepresents the Higgs Boson. Peter Higgs , after whom the boson is named, dislikes it because he thinks it is misleading and also, as an atheist, he does not wish to offend people with religious views. The ‘God Particle’ has now become an unstoppable meme in popular culture – after the publisher of Leon Lederman’s 1993 book on the Higgs Boson refused to allow him to refer to it as the ‘Goddam Particle’. Lederman it believed to be more appropriate name for a particle that took 50 year to find after its existence was posited.


Digitial Natives

As an ELT teacher I sometimes feel that the term ‘Digital Native’ is our ‘God Particle’. Marc Prensky, largely referring to North American school children (not in an ELT context) coined  ‘Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants’ to describe modern learners and their teachers. Whilst I am sure he doesn’t regret his terminology, it seems to me that in ELT discourse these phrases have become shorthand for concepts that Prensky did not intend.

‘Digital Natives’ like the ‘God Particle’ has a nice ring to it and hints at an easy understanding of the people who are digitally native. The message often boils down to a simple and misleading message – modern learners like technology – they are ‘tech savvy’ so we, as teachers, should use technology in our teaching. This path leads to novelty in teaching and learning – whilst novelty is fun and can be interesting it is different from innovation. The other message is that as a generation they are fundamentally different, to the point of having different brain structures to previous generations.


Novelty, Innovation & Normalisation

I am not opposed to novelty, I use Socrative, an online student response system in my teaching.  I think I am using it in a principled way and have found one way to use it that is somewhat innovative. The learners’ enjoy using it and I think it brings value to the learning process. But in some ways it is a novelty in the way wheeling the video player and TV was in the 1990s. Innovation is something more fundamental and is only likely to come about in technological terms when normalisation occurs. Books and pens are normalised technologies. For Bax

“Normalisation is therefore the stage when a technology is invisible, hardly even recognised as a technology, taken for granted in everyday life.” (2003,p.23)

Normalisation means that we focus on the affordances (Conole & Dyke, 2004, p.116) of the technology – the additional benefits it brings rather than the technology itself. And if there is any message for teachers to come from ‘Digital Nativism’ it is the importance of principled innovation. Prensky comes to the same conclusion, as have many other educators, that it is time to reassess teaching methods promoted in the past that are now made possible through the affordances of technology. This does not require teachers to be ‘Tech Savvy’.


The evolution of Prensky’s Digital Native

Although he is not the only voice in the debate, as the father of the ‘Digital Native’ it is worth looking at what he said.

2001 – Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, pt.I & Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, pt.II, Do They Really Think differently?

In his first two articles addressing the issue of ‘Digital Natives’, Prensky speculates that young people’s brains have been changed as a result of growing up in Digital World. Indeed he starts his article with this startling and somewhat worrying pronouncement

“Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach.”(2001a,p.1)

Their brains are fundamentally different from learners from previous generations with the result of the complaints that teachers have about their ability to learn. He cites Neuroplasticity and Social Psychology to explain how this brain change has come about. The argument is superficially attractive but extremely speculative and the figures he uses to support his argument are somewhat, to use the technical term, iffy (1). Nonetheless he argues that as educators we need to change the way we promote and encourage learning. In these articles he promoted learning through well designed computer games.

I find this argument for brain transformation to be spurious on two counts. Firstly, I suspect the scientific foundations are not so solid – Neuroplasticity is not in doubt but Prensky’s arguments are built on speculative connections to the science. As Bennet notes

“He relies on anecdotes, conjecture and speculation” (2012, p.3)

Secondly, I suspect that there isn’t really a generational difference. Rather the truth is closer to the fact that one generation always finds fault with following generations – probably in exactly the same way that preceding generations found fault with them. Did teachers only start complaining about their learner’s abilities, in comparison to their own, in the late 1990s?

This also leads to the reactionary “If It was okay for me, it should be ok for them” view of education. Ken Robinson’ wry observation (9mins 34 secs) that the function of public education appears to be to produce university professors, would seem to be in this vein . Teachers are former learners who were able to succeed in their educational system – so what is there to change? “It was okay for us” ignores the fact that it was probably not okay for a lot of other learners – who are not now in the business of education.

Research reported by Bennet (2012) and Helsper & Enyon (2009) casts doubts on generational  differences . They indicate that gender, breadth and experience of use of technology, educational background were more likely predictors of nativism. Bennet also states that there are larger discrepancies within generations than across them.

Helsper & Enyon also suggest that ‘Digital Native’ is a term being used as an overgeneralization, concluding that their

“data indicates is that the opposite is true – that contemporary society is a continuation of the past and technology, while important, is not the only determining factor in our lives.” (2009, p.18)


Don’t forget your salt.

If you are writing a paper, giving a conference presentation, delivering staff training, talking to colleagues, listening to others…on the concept of ‘Digital Natives’ please take these articles with a BIG pinch of salt.

That’s not the end of the story Prensky’s 2010 book ‘Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning’ displays a marked shift in his emphasis.

2010 – Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning (2)

In this book Prensky does not speculate on a mechanism for Digital Nativism – rather he just seems to focus on learners as young people who exist in the latest version of the modern world and are not brain-mutated versions of previous generations. In fact, the really nice thing about his book (the first chapter is available here) is its relentlessly positive approach to young people as learners. According to Prensky in this modern world

“More and more young people are now deeply and permanently technologically enhanced, connected to their peers and the world in ways no generation has ever been before. Streams of information come at them 24/7. More and more of what they want and need is available in their pocket on demand. “If I lose my cell phone, I lose half my brain,” comments one student.” (2005)

Whilst many educators may view this student’s comment with horror, it is reality, and isn’t this a perfect example of Gardner’s distributed intelligence. When she says that she has lost half her brain this does not mean she was using less of her brain originally – rather it could be an acknowledgement of the power of connection to information acting as a cognitive aid to enhance her skills and knowledge (Thomas, 2000, p.26). It is interesting and relevant that in losing the phone the learner is not so much upset about the phone itself but the information it can access (although I’m sure her parents are not too happy about this). This is the point that we as teachers need to understand. Digital Nativism (if it exists) is not about having a detailed knowledge of technology being ‘tech savvy’, it is rather about a relationship to information – this is what I understand Prensky to means by ‘attitude’ in the following quote

“Obviously, no student knows everything there is to know about technology. Some know a lot, and some know surprisingly little. (That doesn’t, by the way, make them any less digital natives, a distinction which is more about attitude than knowledge.) Many teachers, of course, are extremely technology savvy.” (2005)

Young people, with access to the technology, expect to be able to communicate with their friends instantly, to find out the latest news, to find answers immediately… I think this point is key and often missed – therefore as teachers we focus on the technology itself not what the technology can do. Apps and web tools (notice we no longer really talk of CALL) of course have a place in the classroom but when we are considering a pedagogy (or androgogy) we should look deeper.


Web 2.0 (Natives!)

An interesting thing that happened during the period between Prensky’s first article and his 2010 book (although the first chapter available on his website is dated 2005) is the advent of Web 2.0 technology.

Dating from around 2003 Web 2.0 refers, very generally, to technologies where users can play an active part in the creation and use of web content. This co-creation of knowledge and content is constructivism in action and as Prensky indicates points to ideas espoused be (socio)-constructivist educators from the past.


You are going to go on about PBL aren’t you?

Well yes. If you remember Prensky (in 2001) argued

“Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach” (2001a, p.1)

As I have discussed, it is my contention that the education systems that we have (and had) were never designed to adequately educate all then of the learners in the system. Prensky suggests that turning to pedagogy from a pre-digital age is a potential solution to meeting our learners needs. This would seem to be a tacit admission that young people, as learners, have remained essentially the same over the passage of time.

“Ironically, it’s the generation based on the expectation of interactivity that is ripe for the skill-based and ‘doing-based’ teaching methods that past experts have always suggested are the best for learning, but that were largely rejected by the education establishment as being too hard to implement.” (Prensky 2010, p.xv)

Prensky uses the umbrella term Partnering  to describe a range of learning techniques that include Project and Problem Based Learning.

My own experience of Problem Based Learning benefitted from the technologies now available. A criticism of Problem Based Learning is its staff intensive nature (Hmelo-Silver 2004, p. 261) – however by basing projects around a wiki I, as a single teacher, was able to monitor the progress of several groups and take action as necessary.

Wikis are the epitome of Web 2.0 software design and philosophy and offer great opportunities to promote learning.  With their ease of use, interactivity, democratic conceptions of access and contribution, wikis posses great collaborative potential (Mclaughlin &  Lee 2007, p.669, Parker & Chao 2007, p.57) that can be harnessed for socially constructivist learning (Notari as cited in Parker & Chao, 2007, p.59).


A Question for You Dear Reader!

This has been a relatively long post – but it isn’t a New Yorker length article. Have you made it so far without: checking your email/messaging software, checking the news, sending a text message…?

My guess is probably not. But then I don’t think there is anything wrong with that – the fact that you are reading this blog means that this is the world you inhabit.

Okay – maybe you made it through without some other digital distraction but if you read it online (rather than printing it to read) I bet you clicked the odd link or checked a reference. This is the nature of reading online – each reader creates their own text through as they navigate the text, links and the links from those links (Coiro 2003).

You do not have to be a ‘Digital Native’ to read this way – it is normal and something we should be embracing as teachers. (We should be helping our learners to understand this form of reading rather than solely focussing on the printed text. We can also deal with study skills for the modern information age – to deal with the problems caused by an overload of information when multitasking.)

So, do you consider yourself a ‘Digital Native’? Perhaps were all just Digital Inhabitants (3).


In Summary

Just in case all the multi-tasking has distracted you from the post here is a summary of my thoughts:

  • The term ‘Digital Natives’ when used as shorthand to describe a generation of learners as fundamentally different from previous generations is misleading. So is the implication that they are ‘tech savvy’. This often leads to the conclusion that “technology is the answer”. This is novelty rather than innovation (and considered use of technology) in Teaching and Learning. It threatens to lead us down a pedagogical rabbit hole.
  • This shorthand version is different from Prensky’s later conception of the ‘Digital Native’. Someone who has an expectation of instant (and universal) access to information afforded by the current technology.
  • There isn’t really a generational difference between learners – just rose tinted glasses and the fact that those in the business of the education system are those that benefitted from it themselves. The “well it was ok for me” effect.
  • The original conception of the ‘Digital Native’ does not really stand up to the subsequent research.
  • The affordances of technology, specifically constructivist Web 2.0 technologies, make experiential, enquiry based learning a practical reality. These are sort of educational experiences advocated by constructivist educators such as John Dewey and Jean Piaget.
  • PBL embraces technology as a cognitive aid that is used in a naturalised context and not as a novelty.
  • As these forms of learning are a practical reality, for internet accessible learners, it is only us as teachers that are holding this back. We can, and do, put up many ifs and buts in the way – however these are just excuses for inaction.
  • Any user of Digital media displays signs of ‘Digital Nativism’ – as demonstrated by the way you read this text (especially if you just skipped to this summary!)


A Final Thought About Digital Immigrants

A final thought, the shorthand version of the “Digital Native / Digital Immigrants” message is a hindrance to educators who are, according to the message, ‘Digital Immigrants’. It can appear daunting, discourage professional development, innovation and experimentation in teaching if you are told you are a fundamentally different from the learners you are teaching.  So it is nice to end with Prensky’s suggestion of Partnering for Learning as a symbiotic relationship which lets

“students focus on the part of the learning process that they can do best, and letting teachers focus on the part of the learning process that they can do best.” (2005)
We have to build a pedagogy that embraces the affordances of technology to enhance learning for all our learners.



(1)   To support his claim of brain transformation Prensky makes the following statement

“Our children today are being socialized in a way that is vastly different from their parents. The numbers are overwhelming: over 10,000 hours playing videogames, over 200,000 emails and instant messages sent and received; over 10,000 hours talking on digital cell phones; over 20,000 hours watching TV (a high percentage fast speed MTV), over 500,000 commercials seen—all before the kids leave college. And, maybe, at the very most, 5,000 hours of book reading. These are today’s ―Digital Native‖ students(2001b)

In his footnotes he explains his calculation of these figures. They are based on a young (North American) person doing / being exposed to the activity every day for 15 years. Prensky’s article was published in October 2001. A 15 year old in 2001 would have been born in 1986 – how many of these technologies were available then – leaving aside their proficiency as newborn instant messagers! So he cannot be talking about school age youngsters in this scenario. I could go on to talk about the research he cites but the point is that this argument is pretty speculative.

(2)    The first chapter of the book is available online and I fully recommend it, not necessarily as a guide to teaching ‘Digitial Natives’ but, as an example of a wonderful way to view our learners.

(3)   Neuroplasticity is an established fact in adults as well as young people. Remarkable results have been seen in adults with brain injuries – it is also true that our brain changes every time we learn something new. So, in this article claiming brain changes, when novice web-surfers are guided in web-searching, what really seems to be being reported is not brain-mutation but just changes that occur from learning or doing something new. These people undergoing ‘brain change’ are actually adults so really the ‘Digital Native’ in this case is someone who learns to use the technology.

The article is interesting in the discussion of reading. However, online reading is not going away so we should focus on helping our learners to work in the world of unlimited and instant access to information. Just as in the pre-digital age learners were introduced to media literacy so modern learners need to learn digital-media literacy (but that’s a topic for another post).



These references exclude those that are hyperlinked in the text.

Bennett, S 2012, “Digital natives”,  In Z Yan (Eds), Encyclopedia of Cyber Behavior: Volume 1, pp. 212-219, viewed 1st June 2014, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27739/1/Digital_natives_(LSERO).pdf

Helsper, E  & Eynon, R 2009, ‘Digital natives: where is the evidence?’ British Educational Research Journal, viewed 1st June 2014 http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27739/1/Digital_natives_(LSERO).pdf

Conole, G & Dyke, M 2004, ‘What are the affordances of Information and communication technologies?’, ALT-J, Vol. 12, no.2, pp.111–123.

Hmelo-Silver, C E 2004, ‘Problem based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn?’, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp.253-266.

Coiro, J 2003, ‘Reading Comprehension on the Internet: Expanding Our Understanding of Reading Comprehension to Encompass New Literacies, Reading Online, viewed 10th June 2014, http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/rt/2-03_column/

McLoughlin, C & Lee, M 2007, ‘Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era.’, ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007, viewed 3 April 2011, via http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf

Parker, K R & Chao, J T 2007, ‘Wiki as a teaching tool’, Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, vol.3, pp.57–72.

Prenksy, M 2001a, ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.’, On the Horizon, vol.9, no.5, viewed 1st June 2014, http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Prenksy, M 2001b, ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II Do they really think differently?’, On the Horizon, vol.9, no.6. viewed 1st June 2014, http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf

Prensky, M 2005, Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning. Introduction:

Our changing world, Technology and Global Society, viewed 1st June 2014, http://marcprensky.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Prensky-TEACHING_DIGITAL_NATIVES-Chapter1.pdf

Prensky, M 2010, Teaching Digital Natives. Partnering for Real Learning, Corwin, California

Thomas, J W 2000, ‘A review of research on project-based learning.’, viewed, 18 July 2005 from http://www.autodesk.com/foundation


Related Posts

The Affordances of Technology  – Coming Soon

The Normalisation of Technology in Teaching and Learning – Coming Soon

Technology as a Cognitive Aid – Coming Soon

PBL & the Affordances of Web 2.0 Technology – Coming Soon

Applying PBL to English Language Teaching

“It was good enough for us, it should be good enough for them.” – Coming Soon

Digital-Media Literacy – Coming Soon
Creative Commons License
Of Digital Natives and God Particles by Andrew Bosson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://beginswithaproblem.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/of-digital-natives-and-god-particles/.

Motivation to Produce Outcomes of High Quality.

This is a 5-6 minute read.

“PBL must be designed around a process of excellence, using drafts, prototypes, peer protocols, thinking and brainstorming exercises, and clear performance standards.” (Markham 2012, p.xii)


This blog is still in its early stages, about a week old, and it is taking its character and shape along the way. Inevitably things will change – layouts, my writing styles, organisation of posts and pages, revising and editing pages, correcting typos…etc.

I have been working on the “What is PBL?” pages as a starting point and thought I had those pages nailed down. Yesterday I realised that actually they could be reorganised. This involved some rewriting, reorganising of text and three pages becoming four. And this started me thinking about how I value the work I do – and naturally how this relates to PBL.

I could have left the pages as they were – they were fine – but I knew they could be better. They would be easier to read and expressed my thoughts more clearly and concisely. I knew that it would take an hour or so – time I could spend writing the other things I want to add to the blog but I knew I wouldn’t be happy unless I addressed these issues.

This is a common occurrence. Many is the time I have completed work on an activity, resource or worksheet for my learners only to realise that, although it is fine as it is,  it is not the best piece of work I could do at the time. It may only be a case of the layout or formatting of a document (not the content) yet I feel it is worth the extra time it takes. Naturally this also applied to my MA work and presentations I have given. It also happens with non-teaching administration too.



So why is this? When did I start to value the quality of my work? When did it stop being sufficient for my work to be good enough?

Looking back I don’t think I was that great a student. I think my higher education studies were good enough but not the best they could be – I was happy with that at the time. I had the same attitude we complain about our learners having to their studies.

The difference is I am doing a job I love doing. I love working with the learners and colleagues. I enjoy the challenge of finding the most effective way to teach English to my learners. I enjoy the intellectual challenge of my own professional development – this blog included. I could go on…


Sometime in the last 20 years of teaching – probably when I realised this was something I was good at, I enjoyed and could make a career out of.




The short answer would be intrinsic motivation – but where does that come from. Well from what I have said about my job – I obviously value what I do and place a great importance on the quality of the work I do. I have audiences:

  • my learners – I wish to give the best experience I can.
  • my colleagues – again I feel it is important to respect them with a high standard of work.
  • myself  – well, this blog may not read by anyone else but I still want to produce something I feel good about. Also I completed my MA two years ago with a Distinction. It was a distance course and I completed it in two rather than three years. I started the course just after relocating to Turkey and had started working in a new environment. I’m not trying to blow my own horn here but once again it would have been easy* to settle for passes in my modules rather than trying my absolute best – I would still have passed the MA.


In that last sentence I mentioned that it would be easy to settle – except it wouldn’t. I would have  found it very hard. In these situations, which matter to me, l feel good when I produce work I consider of high quality. Of course what I consider high quality may not be up to other people’s standards!

I have talked here about what happens outside the classroom (and in a professional context) – these comments could also apply to what happens in the classroom. They also apply to other parts of my life. That said there are parts of my life where good enough is OK. My office mates would probably think the organisation of my desk is not good enough but it’s good enough for me – it will only get messy again.



And what about PBL?

Well the point, of what was going to be a short post, is that it seems PBL is an opportunity to encourage learners to think about producing high quality work they can take pride in and that good enough is not actually good enough or satisfying. Of course there are many facets of PBL that can encourage this outlook and this is why, it seems, PBL should not be implemented half-heartedly.

Essential factors include need for an expectation of quality as well as help in guiding the learners to the creation of a quality outcome. It is also clear that the outcome should be one that is valued by the learners – learner choice and voices are important here. The outcome should also have a clear audience who will recognise and value the outcome.



Markham, T 2012, Project Based Learning. Design and Coaching Guide, viewed 1st May 2014, http://www.thommarkham.com/index.php/philosophy/buy-pbl-deign-and-coaching-guide


Applying PBL to English Language Teaching and Learning

This is a 6-7 minute read.


Along with the benefits described on previous pages I believe PBL has a lot to offer teachers and learners of English.

Input of Language and Skills

We could just say that for content based instruction PBL offers potentially more interesting and motivating source materials because the topic and materials are chosen by the learner.

According to Thom Markham “PBL offers teachers the opportunity to teach, observe, and measure the growth of real-world skills” (Markham, 2012, p.x). In the case of ELT these may be the skills needed for academic study or those required to become a successful language learner. It also offers us the opportunity to consider the linguistic skills and knowledge needed to master these skills and take this into consideration when designing projects.

Language and skills specific input can be linked to specific stages of the scenario. For example, in the  scenario described on the Problem Based Learning page*  the discussion of the patient’s symptoms and potential illness could be preceded by a teacher’s input on the use of hypothetical language. The individual research stage may lend itself to work on reading skills, or note-taking, before the learners start researching. It is unlikely that an English teacher would exhaust the potential learning possibilities – rather the challenge is to limit the input and not overload the learner.

The observation of learners as they work on the project also enables teachers to monitor for remedial or further (guided) input.

But that scenario was for medical students*!!

True, so unless we are teaching in an ESP medical context the problem may be inappropriate. However, we do not need to stick to the simple scenario described – it is not difficult to imagine adding stages and tasks relevant to ELT as well as relevant scenarios and topic areas.

It must be said that, although I describe this scenario as simple, it quickly becomes quite complex the more we consider what is needed to successfully achieve the task. We then, as teachers, need to consider the staging and scaffolding of the Problem.



PBL as natural vehicle for Communicative Language Teaching

We may be in a post-method (Kumaravadivelu, 2001) ELT world yet there is a broad commitment to a communicative approach. Project Based Learning, when combined with Web 2.0 technologies (more to come on this), offers many opportunities to promote language use and acquisition in real-life contexts. Boothe et al provide a rational for the creation of an information gap that can be exploited for language teaching purposes.

“The basic premise of PBL is that learning begins with a problem presented in the same context as it would be encountered in real life. When presented with the problem, students begin by organizing their ideas and previous knowledge to define the problem’s broad nature. Inevitably they reach a point at which they realize they are missing essential information or do not understand aspects of the problem”

Naturally will want much of the problem solving to take place in English – reading and writing are easy to ensure, speaking and listening not so easy because projects will entail independent work – we can create outcomes that require the demonstration of spoken English. I have done this in my own PBL tasks.



Motivating our learners

Boothe et al also mention the motivation fostered by undertaking tasks that prepare learners for future studies or professional careers. My own research, conducted using Problem Based Learning (unpublished 2012), suggests that learners recognized the development of skills that hinted at future utility – for example how collaborative working prepares for a professional career.  This corresponds with Dörnyei’s Motivational Self Theory and identity goals (Ushioda 2011) – indicating that if learners are able to see the skills and knowledge developed though PBL they are likely to be motivated in undertaking the project. Furthermore, from an ELT perspective if learners are able to creates a link between the learners use of L2 and their views (and hopes) of themselves as future users of the language.



Trying to capture and acknowledge more learning…and encouraging mastery approaches to learning

It is important to make a distinction between teaching and learning. Teachers have an idea of what we want our learners to learn and plan and deliver our lessons accordingly. However, we cannot determine what learners will learn. They may learn what we have intended to teach – they may also have learned something in addition. They may have actually learned something totally different to the teacher’s intentions. Should we disregard the learning – which was important to the learners (otherwise it wouldn’t have happened) or try to capture and recognize it.

PBL allows us to capture this learning and development which is lost when we make judgments based solely on traditional assessment or teachers narrow judgments of learning. Traditional assessment promotes passive performance orientated learning which tends to be short-term. PBL can foster mastery learning which is deeper and encourages reflection on and recognition of a wider range of achievement.



PBL, ELT and globalization of English

Warschauser argued, way back in 2000, that globalization with English as its common language, along with advances in Information Technology makes PBL an essential approach in ELT.

“new information technologies will transform notions of literacy, making on-line navigation and research, interpretation and authoring of hypermedia, and synchronous and asynchronous on-line communication critical skills for learners of English. The above changes, taken together, will render ineffective curricula based strictly on syntactic or functional elements or narrowly defined tasks. Rather, project-based learning incorporating situated practice and critical inquiry, and based on students’ own cultural frameworks-will be required if students are to master the complex English literacy and communications skills required by the emerging informational economy and society” (2000, p.511)

…and as I write this it is 2014.



Examples of PBL in practice

This section has been longer than I had intended so let’s finish this page with a couple of positive examples of PBL used in English Language Contexts.

Among the successful ELT Projects (Duzer & Moss, 1998,pp.3 & 5) mention are lesson planning and teaching other learners (following a PBL cycle) and an amazing sounding project in New York that led to the founding and running of  café and catering business.



Boothe, D Vaughn, R Hill, J & Hill, H 2011?, ‘Innovative English Language Acquisition Through Problem-based Learning’, viewed 15th May 2014, http://conference.pixelonline.net/edu_future/common/download/Paper_pdf/ITL27-Boothe,Vaughn,Hill,Hill.pdf

Kumaravadivelu, B 2001, ‘Toward a postmethod pedagogy.’ TESOL Quarterly, vol 35, 537–560.

Markham, T 2012, Project Based Learning. Design and Coaching Guide, viewed 1st May 2014, http://www.thommarkham.com/index.php/philosophy/buy-pbl-deign-and-coaching-guide

Moss, D & Van Duzer, C 1998, ‘Project-Based Learning for Adult English Language Learners’, ERIC Digest. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education, ED427556.

Ushioda, E 2011a, ‘Language Learning motivation’ self and identity: current theoretical perspectives’, Computer Aided Language Learning, vol.24 no.3, pp.199-210.

Warschauer, M 2000, ‘The Changing Global Economy and the Future of English Teaching.’ TESOL Quarterly, vol 34, no.3, pp.511–36.


Related Posts

What is Project Based Learning

Problem Based Learning

Project Based Learning


Problem Based Learning

This is a 2-3 minute read.


What Problem Based Learning means to me

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I first encountered Problem Based Learning during my MA studies. It struck me as a potential approach to answer a host of perennial questions English Language teachers ask – how to motivate, engage, foster autonomy…etc in our learners whilst helping them to develop their English language skills and knowledge. At the time I was teaching on the English language preparation program at another fine university in Istanbul where these were issues teachers frequently discussed.


A bit of history

Problem Based Learning emerged in North American medical schools in the 1960s as an alternative to lecture based learning. The technique has since spread to other areas such as business, law and engineering. One teacher/facilitator worked with a small group of learners over an extended period of time as they worked together to solve a medical problem.

A simple scenario might look like this:

Stage 1

  1. The facilitator sets the problem – describing the symptoms of a fictitious patient.
  2. The learners discuss the symptoms to identify possible medical condition the patient may be suffering from.
  3. The learners narrow down the potential illnesses and agree on areas of further individual research.

Stage 2

Each learner conducts individual research into their agreed area.

Stage 3

  1. The learners reconvene and share the information they have discovered during their research.
  2. Using their shared knowledge they collaborate to diagnose the fictitious patient’s true medical condition.

It must be said that, although I describe this scenario as simple, it quickly becomes quite complex the more we consider what is needed to successfully achieve the task. We then, as teachers, need to consider the staging and scaffolding of the Problem.

We will come across my application of this model in my PBL scenario.



Barrows, H S 1986, ‘A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods.’, Medical Education, vol.20, no.6, pp.481–486.

Colliver, J A 2000, ‘Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory.’, Academic Medicine, vol. 75, no. 3, pp.259–266.

Hmelo-Silver, C E 2004, ‘Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn?’, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.253-266.

Savery, J R & Duffy T M 2001, ‘Problem Based Learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework.’, Center for Research on Learning and Technology, Technical Report no. 16-01viewed 10th May 2011, <http://www.dirkdavis.net/cbu/edu524/resources/Problem%20based%

Wood D F 2003, ‘ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: problem based learning.’, British Medical Journal, Vol. 326, pp.328–330.


Related Posts

What is Project Based Learning

Project Based Learning

Applying PBL to English Language Teaching and Learning

Project Based Learning

This is a 4-5 minute read.


It’s usually a good idea to start with

A definition

A nice starting point is Thom Markham’s concise definition

“PBL can be defined as an extended learning process that uses inquiry and challenge to stimulate the growth and mastery of skills.” (2012, p.x)



So, what are the features of Project Based Learning?

In a great review of PBL research Thomas (2000) lists the following essential features of Project Based Learning:

  • Projects are complex tasks based on realistic, challenging questions or problems.
  • The questions or problems involve learners in design, problem-solving, decision making or investigative activities.
  • Learners have the opportunity to work, fairly, autonomously over extended periods of time.
  • The culmination of the project is a realistic product or presentation.
  • In undertaking the project collaborative and cooperative working is promoted including the formation of communities of enquiry. Lifelong learning skills are promoted.
  • Technology, when used, is viewed as a cognitive tool.
  • Reflection on learning and the process is central.


…and what makes it Project Based Learning

Thomas (2000) identifies a set of 5 criteria to judge if you project is actually PBL:

  1. The Project is central to the curriculum. The project is the central teaching strategy and the central learning strategy, learners encounter the concepts to be learned through doing the project.
  1. The Project revolves around a central driving question or problem. The question or problem should promote learner engagement between the project activities and the concepts we wish to encourage.
  1. The Project should engage the learners in a constructive investigation. The project should be challenging – leading to new knowledge and skills for the learner. Each project should have a clear goal which can be achieved through a process of inquiry, building knowledge & finally resolution.
  1. The Project should be student-driven. It should prioritise opportunities for learner autonomy, choice, unsupervised work time and responsibility.
  1. The Project should be realistic. The focus of the project should be an authentic (not simulated) problem or question that requires a real-life challenge to resolve. The resolution will be practical and applicable to real-life situations.

Thom Markham lists seven principles for PBL (2012, p.xiv). I will not address all of these at the moment but I think it is worth noting two of them for those concerned that PBL is a woolly, anything goes approach.

  1. The Project should focus on quality. Teachers/Facilitators have an expectation of quality work and outcomes. Quality in both working and results are more likely as a result of purposeful task.
  2. The Project should have clear assessment criteria. Before the learners embark on their projects they will know and understand the specific criteria against with their project will be assessed. The assessment will not be solely based on the final product – which encourages a performance based approach to learning. Rather a mastery approach to learning is encouraged through focus on (amongst other criteria) process, identification of skills and knowledge developed an acquired, self-reflection….


Project Based Leaning is not…

…well from the discussion so far we can say that PBL is not just hands-on project work under another name. Neither is it, in the field of ELT, Task Based Learning (Willis & Willis 2007).



What does this bring to the learner?

This form of active, inquiry based learning is firmly rooted in the socio-constructivist tradition. Amongst the claims made for its use are that it:

  • is learner centred.
  • employs high-quality, real life scenarios.
  • develops problem-solving, communication and respect for others.
  • encourages cooperative and collaborative learning.
  • encourages self-directed learning and responsibility.
  • encourages meta-cognitive self-awareness of learning.
  • is challenging and motivating.
  • encourages communities of practice with learners becoming the experts in the chosen area.
  • encourages the development of information and digital literacies.
  • promotes critical thinking through negotiation.

Quite a nice list!



Colliver, J A 2000, ‘Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory.’, Academic Medicine, vol. 75, no. 3, pp.259–266.

Hmelo-Silver, C E 2004, ‘Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn?’, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.253-266.

Markham, T 2012, Project Based Learning. Design and Coaching Guide, viewed 1st May 2014, http://www.thommarkham.com/index.php/philosophy/buy-pbl-deign-and-coaching-guide

Thomas, J W 2000, ‘A review of research on project-based learning.’, viewed, 21st July 2014  from http://w.newtechnetwork.org/sites/default/files/news/pbl_research2.pdf

Ushioda, E 2011a, ‘Language Learning motivation’ self and identity: current theoretical perspectives’, Computer Aided Language Learning, vol.24 no.3, pp.199-210.

Willis, D, & Willis, J 2007,  Doing Task-Based Teaching: A practical guide to task-based teaching for ELT training courses and practising teachers, OUP, Oxford


Related Posts

What is Project Based Learning

Problem Based Learning

Applying PBL to English Language Teaching