Our experts

advise on
Humanizing
Technology
in Language Learning and Teaching
 What is this paper about?

Technology can often seem at odds with education.

There are problems with privacy, security, and ethics,
and teachers and learners can feel a sense of digital
disarray. Added to that, technology can dehumanize the
learning experience and there are often concerns about
its pedagogical foundations.

Technology needs to be humanized so that it

works for the benefit of teachers and learners.
There needs to be more discussion about the
outcomes that matter and we should strive to
give teachers agency over decisions.

T In order to create a better balance between

the worlds of technology and education, this
paper puts forward four key recommendations: E
1 2 3 4
Becoming Developing Humanizing Using data
digitally digital the learning in positive
literate well-being experience ways

So,
what should
happen next?
We should aim to increase teacher capability In the
use of technology, encourage teachers to respond
flexibly to change. And, most importantly, give
teachers more agency in what technology they use
and how they use it.

© Oxford University Press 2

 Key take-aways

Becoming digitally literate

We need to equip teachers and learners with the
digital literacies needed to prepare for, engage
with, and adapt to ever-changing technologies.
They need the skills to understand the risks, seize
new opportunities, and prepare for the future.

Develop digital well-being

We need to help learners maintain
their digital well-being in the face of
emerging technologies, equipping
them to avoid the risks of additional
stress, distraction, digital disarray, and
invasion of privacy.

Humanize the learning experience

We should ensure technology is used to
promote meaningful human relationships
instead of superficial interactions,
encouraging positive communication and
supportive collaboration between members of
our learning community.

Use data in positive ways

We should empower educators to
use data constructively, so they are able to
identify the most relevant information for
their teaching context and use it to inform
decisions and boost learner progress.

© Oxford University Press 3

 Contents

Introduction 5

1 The problem with technology 6

2 Humanizing technology 14

3 Pedagogical practices 18

4 What is next? 25

Conclusions 27

Glossary 28
Further reading and resources 29
Endnotes 30
References 31
ELT Expert Panel 33
The experts consulted for this paper 34

© Oxford University Press 4

 Introduction
Most teachers recognize and directly benefit from the enormous potential
of technology to enhance learning and teaching. However, there is a growing
sense of unease as technological developments increasingly dictate the
agenda and appear to be taking control away from us. The ways in which
algorithms, big data, and, more recently, artificial intelligence are shaping
education, seem to be increasingly far removed from (and increasingly
difficult to understand by) those to whom it matters the most: the learners
and teachers themselves.
This paper argues that the response should not be to reject technological
developments, but instead to reclaim the place and purpose of technology to
serve our values and pedagogical needs.

Sections
The paper does this by firstly problematizing the role of technology in education.
It critically considers a number of often implicit assumptions underlying new
technologies to help readers better understand how education might be impacted.
The aim is to enable better-informed decisions about the potential roles of
technology in a specific environment.

Secondly, it introduces the idea of ‘humanizing technology’, which involves a

values‑first approach to technology. This empowers teachers and learners to
consider the outcomes that matter to them—and only then considering if and how
technology might help support achieving these outcomes. This also involves using
data in a positive manner to support teachers and provide learners with insight into
their learning, thereby giving them agency over their decisions.

The third section offers four key recommendations for pedagogical practices
teachers can engage in to humanize technology in language education: becoming
digitally literate, developing digital well-being, humanizing the learning experience,
and using data in positive ways.

Finally, this paper considers the next steps to take: how to give teachers more
agency in their use of technology, and how to make teachers feel more confident to
respond flexibly to change.

Conclusions
The paper concludes by stating that technology
should serve learners’ and teachers’ interests
and be used to develop human well-being.

Glossary, References, and Resources

Key terms in bold are explained in the Glossary.
Further reading, Resources, and References can be found
at the end of this paper. © Oxford University Press 5
 1
2
3
4

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

The problem with
technology
This section deals with a number of challenges around technology’s
role in education, including: privacy, security, and ethical issues; the
topic of digital disarray (the negative impact of technology use on
learners and teachers); the potential for technology to dehumanize
the educational experience; as well as a number of pedagogical
concerns.

Benefits at a price
Technology has many undoubted benefits for language learning and
teaching. Computers have made the production and distribution of
educational materials easier, less expensive, and accessible to more
people. The internet enables more forms of communication between
learners, teachers, and communities. Smartphones have expanded social
interactions to out-of-class spaces and offer numerous apps that support
learners, from translation and vocabulary acquisition to recording of
lectures, as well as digital conversation partners such as chatbots that offer
opportunities for extended listening and speaking practice.

More recent developments, such as those in artificial intelligence (AI),

augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR), as well as those less
visible to most end users, such as the availability of big data (the collection,
distribution, analysis, and subsequent use of large sets of data) and the
tools for its analysis, are starting to have a growing impact on many aspects
of the education system. Some developments are very impressive but at
the same time present significant concerns for many. The capabilities
of generative AI (artficial intelligence that can create new content), for
example, not only enable teachers to develop materials quickly but also
enable learners to produce work such as academic writing without deep
engagement or reflection.

Also, there are tools that may seem far removed from the language learning
classroom which are rapidly making their way onto the market and possibly
soon into schools. For example, AR glasses, or ‘always-on’ devices such
as the Rewind Pendant and Humane’s Ai Pin, enable users to audio or
video record everyday interactions for later retrieval. Although this is

© Oxford University Press 6

 1
undoubtedly helpful to remember events or to look for information (a user 2
could ask and be shown all the instances in which the past simple tense
was used in class), it leaves many people worried about the implications for 3
privacy and security, as well as the potential for excessive self-monitoring
and addictive behaviours. At a deeper level there is, to many, something 4
unsettling about this type of life-logging (the action or practice of making
a continuous record of one’s daily activities by means of a digital device or
computer application), which prioritizes identifiable and quantifiable data
over, for example, our emotions, our internalized memories, and even our
spiritual experience.

Other technologically impressive advancements in the area of spatial

computing (technologies that bridge the physical and digital worlds) such
as AR glasses and wearable lenses, overlay what a person looks at with
digital information. So, in principle, a teacher could look at a student and

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

see that person’s name, their test grade history, whether they were in
school yesterday, and so on. The potential benefits are undeniable, but
many questions emerge. Beyond issues of data security, is it possible that
this will encourage human interaction that is driven by data? Will seeing
that someone did not turn in their homework make a teacher respond to
a student more negatively (and in so doing, turn an innocent observation
into a reality)? And, what if certain biases are introduced in the data (for
example, ‘this student comes from a socio-economically disadvantaged
background, so they will probably act in a certain way in class’)? These
questions may still seem irrelevant to many teachers in 2024, and yet smart
glasses and headsets dominated the most recent Consumer Electronics
Show, the world’s biggest trade show for new technological products.

Despite the many impressive technological developments we have seen, it

is important to remember that they are unevenly distributed across the
world. According to UNESCO,1 just 40% of primary schools worldwide have
access to the internet. Many schools also lack electricity, especially in Africa
as well as Central and Southern Asia. In sub-Saharan Africa, only 32% of
schools have electricity. And, internationally, about one third of students
were unable to attend online classes during the pandemic. This digital
divide is of ongoing concern, despite the now several decades in which
technology has played a significant role in many nations. Perhaps this is
the most important aspect of ‘humanizing technology’. It is possible that
new developments, like those in generative AI, will democratize education
by giving learners access to resources and support that were previously
unavailable to them. But, equally, it is possible that it will give the wealthy
a growing advantage over others.

© Oxford University Press 7

 1
Regardless of the extent to which technology is currently available, there 2
are major concerns about both the increasing—or perhaps increasingly
obvious—downsides it carries. For one, many teachers are unsure when 3
to use technology or which technology to use, as it is often unclear what
benefits it will bring, and at what cost. Here, we categorize current 4
challenges into four broad areas, before offering an alternative approach in
the next section.

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

Privacy, security, ethics
Privacy, security, and ethical concerns around technology have long
been discussed by language teachers. In particular, the role of big data
has received increasing attention with the arrival of the internet and the
move away from local (for example, on a learner’s computer or phone)
to cloud-based (on the internet) storage and processing. Smartphones
have made the potential threats to individual privacy and security worse
because of their geolocation tracking (the ability to know the location of
a device), their audio and video capabilities, and the fact that most users
carry their devices with them at all times. The ‘internet of things’ (or IoT,
a catchphrase for the ways in which physical objects like cameras, sensors,
and everyday objects such as fridges and cars are connected to digital,
online networks) is making technology a part of every aspect of our lives.
Having smart watches and digital assistants like Alexa and Siri means that
even when we leave the workplace or the home we are still generating and
interacting with data. Questions such as who owns and controls the data,
what it can and should (and should not) be used for, how long data should
be stored, and so on, have been heavily debated.

Generative AI has made these issues more pressing, especially because of

how easy it makes it for learners to use copyrighted materials and carry
out other types of unethical behaviour. The responses to these issues have
been varied, from outright bans to the development of guidelines (and
legislation) for the use of AI (with the Asimolar AI Principles being one of
the first, formulated in 2017 via the Future of Life Institute2).

© Oxford University Press 8

 1
2
Questions for reflection 3
Consider the following questions, perhaps with your colleagues:
4
• Does your organization have rules or guidelines pertaining to
technology use? Do these spell out privacy, security, and ethical
considerations?
• How are recent developments such as AI, as well as hardware devices
like smart glasses, covered?
• Who is responsible for drawing up these guidelines?
• How do you introduce these guidelines into your classes?
• Below are a number of recommendations. What is your view of these?

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

❯ Only use local AI tools (for example, AI chatbots that only
draw on files teachers have on their own computer, and that
do not connect to the internet) with younger learners.
❯ Require all learners to disclose their use of AI.
❯ Ask learners to:
• justify 1) their particular choice of AI tool, and 2) their reason for using it
• describe their prompting and search strategies and how they revised
these
• describe and justify which elements of the output they accepted and
rejected
• review the quality and usefulnuss of the AI and its output
• consider the potential biases evident in the output
• consider copyright and other ethical concerns.

Digital disarray
The world of education is experiencing never-before-seen levels of mental
health issues, low job satisfaction, and declining numbers of teachers. The
2023 Teacher Wellbeing Index3 shows a worsening of key indicators, as
evidenced by some of the statistics in Figure 1.

78%
of all education staff are stressed
(3% increase on 2022)

89% 78%
of all senior leaders (rising to 95% of school teachers are stressed
among headteachers) and 78% of (6% increase on 2022
school teachers reported feeling stressed and the highest of all job roles)

of school teachers reported

36% 51%
of staff experience insomnia
experiencing burn-out or difficulty sleeping
(9% increase on 2022) (6% increase on 2022)

Figure 1. The decline in physiological responses among UK teachers as reported by the

2023 Teacher Wellbeing Index3.

© Oxford University Press 9


Smartphone users
interact with their phones
an average of 85 times a
day.
in Adrian Ward et al.
digital disarray includes:
› digital distraction
› digital disorder
› digital disconnection
1
In principle, technologies and data use are supposed to ease teachers’ 2
workloads, helping them with record keeping and decision-making, and
so on. But, in practice, many teachers experience technologies as neutral 3
at best, or, at worst, a negative impact on their lives. This may be in part
because of what has been called ‘digital disarray’.4 The first form of this 4
is digital distraction, or a lack of focus due to technology’s ubiquity in
our lives. Constant interruptions have serious consequences for our ability
to maintain attention and are affecting our cognitive capacity. Even just
having your smartphone in sight, whether it’s turned over or turned off,
can be a distraction from some tasks. This was demonstrated in one study
involving over 500 college students, and which referred to distraction by
phones as a ‘brain drain’.5
One effect of this is that many people are experiencing what Linda Stone
has called ‘continuous partial attention’. This refers to trying to pay
Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching
attention to everything (i.e. multi-tasking), but failing to focus on anything
at a deep level.6 This is likely to become worse with the growth of the IoT
and wearable devices.
Another form of digital disarray is ‘digital disorder’, which involves the
sharing of misinformation, disinformation, and fake news. Especially
with AI and its abilities for voice synthesis (creating or changing voices)
and image manipulation, this is likely to become an ever-increasing
challenge. This can be a problem, for example, in the context of chatbot
conversation partners that may not only produce inappropriate content
but also grammatically incorrect language. The third form is ‘digital
disconnection’, which Pegrum describes as the inability or unwillingness
to deal with different viewpoints.7 This is particularly clear with the rise
of social media, which has led to the radicalization of opinions and public
discourse. This is well documented in both public culture (see the Netflix
movie The Social Dilemma) and evident in a number of high-profile court
cases by governments against big tech companies.
Dehumanization
A related but separate issue is the potential for dehumanization, where
technologies are developed and evaluated mostly for outcomes other than
those that improve humans’ lives. This can happen in different ways.
Firstly, it is important to recognize that most of our relationships are now
mediated by technology. When a learner communicates with a classmate
through social media, or when a teacher sends a message to a colleague
on the school network, the message is encoded at one end and decoded at
the other, sometimes with significant losses of meaning along the way. For
example, not being able to see someone’s facial expressions or hear their
tone of voice can make it harder to understand the message and connect
with others at a personal level. Online classes are difficult for both teachers
and learners precisely because of the lack of ‘embodiment’ such as a
person’s body language, eye contact, proximity, and the like. ‘Embodied
cognition’,8 or our ability to make sense of the world (and our need to do so)
by physically acting within it, is increasingly limited as we interact more
online. This has both well-documented impacts on our experiences and
what we learn from them, as well as how we see other people, going so far
as to lead to fewer friendships and real-world relationships.
© Oxford University Press 10
 1
Secondly, much of our daily life is now driven by data, and education is 2
no exception. Algorithms suggest what we watch, who we might like to be
online friends with, and—especially in the case of AI—what we might want 3
to express and how. It becomes increasingly difficult to know where the
technology ends and where we begin. In education this is referred to as the 4
‘datafication’ and ‘algorithmization’ of learning and teaching. Computers
decide what materials learners are given, how tests should be scored, and
how teachers’ performance is evaluated. All this can lead to teachers feeling
a loss of agency, as well as learners and parents worrying about how their
personal data is used.9

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

Pedagogical issues
In addition to the above issues, there are important questions about the
pedagogical foundations of some technologies and the way they are used
in education. In part because quantitative data is easier to recognize,
categorize, collect, and analyze, much of the educational technology
available to us focuses primarily on content and skills that can be easily
transmitted in digital form. For example, vocabulary is easily displayed
and tested using rote learning apps, whereas pragmatic competence is
not. This has led to most available resources, especially those intended
for self-study, being very limited in terms of their content and scope, and
often being highly prescriptive, with an emphasis on habit formation (a
behaviourist approach to learning).

An often-heard argument in favour of technology is its potential for

personalizing learning.10 To some extent this is understandable. If learners
have access to the internet and the necessary hardware and software, as
well as the know-how to use technology meaningfully, a tremendous

© Oxford University Press 11

 1
amount of language materials and exercises can be made available for 2
free. Unfortunately, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, much of that
content will be limited in scope and pedagogy. In addition, even where 3
learners are able to access such resources, the majority lack the skills to
successfully regulate their own learning (see Oxford University Press’s 4
position paper on self-regulated learning11). This extends to learning with
technology where learners are unable to truly personalize their learning.12,13
Perhaps they manage to find suitable materials that match their interest or
language level, but they still won’t be able to set personally relevant goals,
choose appropriate strategies, or monitor their progress.

There is a deeper issue in relation to personalization. Usually it refers to

the selection of resources (for example, language learning materials, test
items, instructions) from a pre-existing bank of options.14 The learners’
prior performance (for example, how well they scored on an online quiz)

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

determines what content they see next. But, this means the available
options have been determined by the machine and not the learner. In
educational contexts, such ‘personalization’ is further limited in that the
overall goals of the curriculum have already been set, and thus what there
is to personalize is only a small part of the entire educational experience.15
The benefits of this type of personalization, as demonstrated by research,
are mixed at best.

More worrying is the fact that many decisions drawing on big data are
themselves problematic. Take for example the role that learning analytics
can play in introducing or strengthening biases.16 This involves ‘the
measurement, collection, analysis, and reporting of data about learners
and their contexts for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning
and the environment in which it occurs’.17 Many language learning
programs and learning management systems (LMSs) have a dashboard that
allows teachers or administrators to easily look up learner performance
data. This makes it easy, for example, to notice that a certain group of
learners performs worse than others. This may lead to learners from
that group being treated differently. Perhaps more support will be made
available, but it is equally possible teachers may adjust their expectations
and behaviours towards those students as a result. This is known as the
‘interpersonal expectancy effect’. Another consequence of uncritically using
such data is that all learners are compared to some—sometimes quite
random—average. An example of how this has a negative impact is when
a group average on, let’s say, a homework task masks a wider variation. In
that case, the average is not meaningful because no one individual in the
group would perform at that specific level. But, the dashboard may still
tell learners that they are X% below the group average, and this may be
demotivating.

© Oxford University Press 12

 1
2
What do I need to know? 3
4

The problem with technology

In summary, despite real benefits, technology comes
with many challenges. Perhaps one of the most

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

important is how, in many ways, technology has led to
the continuation of existing problems, assumptions,
and biases; it has not been used to challenge core
assumptions. For example, even where technology-
supported personalization is possible, most school systems
still operate on a fixed timetable set to standardized
curricula with summative assessments. On a related
note, a technology-driven approach to education appears
to favour (and certainly facilitates) an emphasis on
standardization and performativity, as opposed to true
individuality of expression and experience—something that
many teachers feel increasingly uncomfortable with.18

We will next look at some alternative ways of approaching

the potential role of technology in transforming education
by starting where it should: with the learners, teachers, and
other human stakeholders at its heart.

© Oxford University Press 13

 1
2
3
4

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

Humanizing technology
We argue in this paper that the starting point for the role of
technology in language learning and teaching should be with the
learners and teachers themselves. We use the term ‘humanizing’
to emphasize the human-centred nature of this approach. Below,
we will describe the origins of this idea in positive psychology and
digital well-being and give examples of what humanizing technology
looks like in practice.

Positive psychology
The last 20 or so years have seen a gradual change from viewing mental
health as something focused on fixing problems to recognizing insights
from psychology and many other disciplines to enhance human well‑being.
The World Health Organization now defines mental health with reference
to the presence of social and psychological well-being, not just the absence
of a disease.19 Psychologist and teacher Martin Seligman was one of the
first to coin the term ‘positive psychology’ to describe proactive efforts to
support people in leading more fulfilling lives.20 By viewing well-being
as something that can be proactively developed, it no longer belongs
exclusively to the area of psychology and can instead be integrated
into many aspects of everyday life. Education plays an important
role here, as many of the skills and mindsets required for
well-being can be modelled and developed within the
classroom. The interest in social and emotional learning
(SEL) exemplifies this. The US‑based Collaborative for
Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL)
offers a model that integrates the development
of self‑ and social awareness, self‑management,
responsible decision-making, and relationship skills, at
various levels in and beyond a classroom (see Figure 2).21

The growing interest in such topics as SEL is also visible

in the field of language teaching. Recent years have seen
what some have described as an ‘affective turn’,22 with a

Figure 2. The interactive online ‘CASEL wheel’ framework allows users

to click on an area of relevance and to receive information around best
practices for social and emotional learning in different settings.21

© Oxford University Press 14


I believe that teachers
cannot be entirely
replaced with AI–powered
technology because
we have unique human
qualities like emotional
intelligence and an
intuitive sense of whether
students understand
something or not.
Ultimately, I think both
teachers and AI-tools
will travel the path of
education together.
Khinemin Soe, English
Language Teacher, Myanmar
1
much greater emphasis on understanding and working with emotions in the 2
language learning (and teaching) process. Perhaps the most investigated has
been second language (L2) anxiety, but positive emotions such as interest 3
and enjoyment are also starting to be researched more, and their significant
impact on language learning success is now much better understood. 4
Focusing on such non-academic skills is not a luxury. Recent studies have
shown worsening levels of well-being among students. For example, in a
recent Qualtrics survey, only 51% of respondents said they felt they belonged
at school.23 (And, belongingness is a key contributor to academic success.24)
The next section of this paper therefore asks: How can technology be turned
to our advantage and be used to enhance human well-being?
Positive computing and design for
Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching
digital well‑being
Positive computing and (design for) digital well-being are two related and
relatively new fields ‘dedicated to the design and development of technology
that supports well-being and human potential’.25 The aim is not simply to
avoid harm from technology use, but rather to proactively use technology
to improve the quality of our lives. Developments in this area draw on many
fields in addition, of course, to the education sciences, including: psychology
and neuroscience, design (for example, values‑sensitive design and
emotional design), healthcare, informatics, UI (user interface) design, and
UX (user experience) design, among many others.
To better understand how technology affects its users, the METUX model
was developed.26 METUX stands for ‘Motivation, Engagement, and Thriving
in User Experience’ and, as can be seen in Figure 3. The METUX model
places the user at the centre in order to understand: 1) how technology is
adopted (for example, why a learner might choose an app to manage their
vocabulary learning); 2) how users interact with it (for example, do they
read new words, do exercises, share new words with others, compete on a
leaderboard); 3) what they regularly do with it (the exercises they do, the
tests they take); 4) how this affects their behaviour (whether they spend
more time engaging in language learning); 5) how it impacts their lives
(whether they improve their language proficiency as a result); and 6) how
it potentially impacts society. The user in the model could be a runner (as
shown in Figure 3), a patient, or a learner. In the case of a new educational
technology, the model can be used to ask such questions as ‘Does the use of
this tool help build meaningful and beneficial habits?’ and ‘What positive
impact will this tool have on the learner in the long term?’ For example, the
use of ChatGPT or Copilot by a learner to recommend a learning plan may
be of short-term benefit, but this ‘outsourcing’ of self-regulated learning
skills has been shown to have a negative long-term impact, as it reduces
cognitive and metacognitive growth.27
© Oxford University Press 15
 1
2
what we regularly do with it what we couldn’t do before
3
Behaviour
how it changes our life 4
Life
Tasks

Society
Adoption Interface

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

how we interact with it METUX: Motivation, Engagement and Thriving
in User Experience (Peters, Calvo & Ryan, 2018)

Figure 3. The user experience of well-being—spheres of experience within which

technology can influence well-being (adapted from Peters et al.26).

Questions for reflection

METUX

Here are some questions to help you and your colleagues reflect on the
potential impact of a new technology.

• Does the technology align with the goals of the teachers and learners?
• Is the technology easy to use?
• How is the technology used to create and support learning activities?
• What learning behaviours does the technology aim to encourage or
improve?
• Does the technology integrate with learners’ lives?
(Questions from H. Reinders, Technology & Motivation Toolkit,
available from: https://innovationinteaching.org/toolkit.pdf)

A word on making technology more human-like

Powerful new
technologies can
serve both good and
bad causes–so let’s
strengthen the good side
and promote human-
focused values through
technology.
Agnes Kukulska-Hulme
‘thank you’), giving praise to the AI, engaging in role-play, and using AI for
There is a long history of attempts to make technology more accepted by
humans, as well as make technology better at understanding and adapting
to humans. Affective computing, for example, involves the interpretation
and simulation of human emotions in order to give computers features of
emotional intelligence and develop the ability to show empathy towards
users.28 Coupled with AI, the results can be very impressive. It is not
uncommon for people to believe they are interacting with a human being or,
even when they know they are not, to ascribe emotions to AI agents, such
as chatbots. Research by Marriott and Pitardi shows that people do this in
four ways: being courteous to an AI agent (for example, saying ‘please’ and
companionship.29 It is clear that in some situations humans do interact with
AI in ways similar to human beings (this is referred to as ‘social surrogacy’).
This can have benefits, for example, to reduce isolation and loneliness
among older people, and it can potentially also be harnessed to encourage
language learners to interact in free conversation practice. This is likely
to increase when developments in robotics are combined with AI to create
physical ‘characters’ that can be interacted with in the physical world.

© Oxford University Press 16

 1
2
What do I need to know? 3
4

Humanizing technology

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

It is important to recognize, though, that this does not
mean the technology has become ‘humanized’ as we
used this term in previous sections. A robot or AI agent
can sound and look like a human and still encourage
or enable people to do inhumane things, or simply
not foster well-being and human flourishing.

© Oxford University Press 17

 1
2
3
4

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

Pedagogical practices
In this part of the paper we look at the practices teachers can
engage in to ensure technology is used in positive ways that
put learners and other stakeholders (for example, parents and
colleagues) first in the educational process.

© Oxford University Press 18


I think it’s going to
completely revolutionize
teaching and learning
in ways we can’t really
imagine yet.
Sonjie Kennington,
Language Coach, Spain
Al Literacy
Competencies and
design considerations
What is AI?
Competencies
1. Recognizing Al
2. Understanding Intelligence
3. lnterdisciplinarity
4. General vs. narrow
What can AI do?
Competencies
5. Al’s strengths and weaknesses
6. Imagine future Al
1
2
Recommendation 1:
3
Become digitally literate 4
Positive technology practices require that teachers and learners have
the necessary digital literacies. These include awareness of technology’s
impacts, both positive and negative, the knowledge and skills to plan
for the most beneficial use of technology, and the ability to respond
flexibly in the face of change.30 At a practical level, organizations like
Ireland’s Webwise31 include such digital literacies as: online safety skills,
critical thinking, functional skills, communication and netiquette (how
to communicate appropriately and politely in online contexts), finding
information, collaboration and creativity, and digital culture.
Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching
Recent technological developments and growing insights into the impact
of technology across society require this skillset to be expanded. Two
key areas include AI literacies and attentional literacies. The need for AI
literacies development comes as a result of the fast growth of AI in all
aspects of life, including education, and it is an extension of data literacies
(the ability to critically evaluate and use big data) and algorithmic
literacies (the ability to understand how algorithms impact learning and
teaching). Teachers are faced with urgent questions about the potential
harm to learners from AI, the ease with which it enables plagiarism,
copyright violations, and many other issues. Resources such as Harvard
University’s AI Pedagogy Project32 aim to help bring a critical lens to the
role of AI in education and offer classroom activities to help introduce AI to
learners in a responsible manner, provide sample policies that teachers can
adapt for their own context, and resources for teachers to learn more about
the topic. For example, Long and Magerko identified the 15 competencies
and design considerations shown in Table 1.33
How does AI work? How do people perceive AI?
Competencies Competencies
7. Representations 17. Programmability
8. Decision-Making
Design considerations
9. Explainability
10. ML steps
4. Promote transparency
5. Unveil gradually
11. Data literacy
6. Opportunities to program
12. Learning from data
7. Milestones
13. Critically Interpreting data
8. Critical thinking
14. Action and reaction
9. Culture
15. Sensors
10. Support for parents
Design considerations 11. SociaI interaction
1. Explainability 12. Leverage learners’ interests
2. Embodied interactions 13. Acknowledge preconceptions
3. Contextualizing data 14. New perspectives
15. Low barrier to entry
What should AI do?
Competencies
16. Ethics
Table 1. A conceptual framework of competencies and design considerations in AI literacy.33
The second addition to the digital literacies toolkit that teachers need is
attentional literacy, or ‘the ability to intentionally direct one’s attention,
in the present moment’.34 Especially in light of the issues with ‘digital
disarray’ (see page 9), it is increasingly important for learners to recognize
how their attention is (often highly subtly) manipulated, to be open to
other viewpoints, and to strengthen one’s ability to stay focused on a
chosen subject or task.
© Oxford University Press 19

I strongly believe that
AI should be part of the
curriculum. We may not
understand it now, but
AI is here to stay and will
continue growing. It’s our
responsibility to prepare
students to live with it and
make good use of it.
Blanca Eugenia Romero,
Writer, Mexico
Psychological systems
Attention system
Motivation system
Self-system
Social cognition system
1
2
Questions for reflection 3
Attentional literacy practices
4
Below is a list of classroom practices teachers can use to enhance learners’
attentional literacy. Which of these could you implement in your context?
• Help learners understand how our attention system works.
• Demonstrate how our attention can be interrupted.
• Discuss the drawbacks of multitasking.
• Demonstrate (and recognize learners’ improving ability to use)
strategies for maintaining attention.
• Introduce the notion of ‘viewpoint diversity’ (the ability to be open to
and constructively engage with different ideas).
Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching
• Monitor how aspects of your teaching such as lesson sequence, choice
of task types, variation between quiet and noisy activities, and so on,
affect attention levels in class.
Recommendation 2:
Develop digital well-being
Recent years have seen the growth of what has been called the
‘contemplative turn’ in the social sciences.35 This involves an increased
recognition of the benefits of mindfulness and spiritual or contemplative
practices across educational settings. Such a perspective has been proposed
in opposition to an ‘educational climate that highlights accountability,
standardization, and performativity’,35 and could be argued to represent
a genuinely human-centred approach. Contemplative practices operate
on four psychological systems: the attention, emotion, the self, and social
cognition systems. Digital well-being practices, or the use of technology
to improve human flourishing and avoid harm from technology use, can
likewise be used to strengthen those systems. Table 2 presents Robert
Roeser’s summary of common learner dispositions (our everyday attitudes
towards and beliefs about ourselves and the world) and the impact that
mindfulness practices can have to shift those.36
Default skills / dispositions – Cultivated skills / dispositions
Mind-wandering – Stable, focused attention
Mindlessness – Clear-mindedness
Forgetfulness of intention – Remembrance of intentions
Emotional reactivity – Emotion regulation
Certainty orientation – Curiosity orientation
Self-interest – Generosity
In-group favouritism – Altruism
Narrative self-awareness – Experiential self-awareness
Fixed mindset – Growth mindset
Self-judgement – Self-compassion
Singular perspective – Social perspective taking
Social stereotyping – Empathic curiosity
Social judgement – Kindness
Social fear / distrust – Social connection / trust
Table 2. Learner dispositions within psychological systems.36
© Oxford University Press 20

AI-powered technology
in education holds
immense potential. It can
automate administrative
tasks, allowing teachers
to focus on personalized
instruction. AI tutors
offer round-the-clock
assistance, addressing
individual learning gaps.
Data analysis enables early
intervention. However,
careful implementation is
crucial to ensure ethical
use and to maintain
human-centric education.
Seyedrouzbeh Banihashemi,
English Teacher, Thailand
1
Digital well-being practices can develop the desired skills in two ways. 2
The first way is by developing learners’ digital literacies so they can avoid
digital distraction, disconnection, and disorder. For example, learners 3
can be taught how social media is designed to trigger strong emotional
reactions in order to capture and maintain their attention and how to 4
regulate their responses more carefully (i.e. moving from ‘emotional
reactivity’ to ‘emotional regulation’). Second, a more proactive form of
digital well-being practice uses technology to develop such skills. For
example, certain text processing applications like Scrivener and Ulysses
are designed to minimize distractions and enhance creative thinking, thus
enhancing ‘stable, focused attention’. And, journalling apps like Rosebud
use AI to encourage learners to set personally relevant goals and monitor
their progress (re. developing a growth mindset).
Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching
Recommendation 3:
Humanize the learning experience
One of the most obvious ways technology can be used to humanize the
learning experience is by enhancing the relationships between people
in educational settings. In practice, however, technology is mostly used
for transactional forms of communication, such as a parent submitting
an absentee form for a sick child through the school portal, a teacher
administering an online test through a LMS, or students discussing a
homework assignment on an online forum. As useful as these forms of
interaction are, they are seldom explicitly designed to improve how people
relate to each other, develop understanding, empathy and compassion,
or otherwise improve those aspects of our social cognition system that
determine the quality of our educational connections. And, rarely is
communication technology used to cross existing boundaries between,
for example, administrators and teaching staff, or between in-class and
out-of-class contexts. Perhaps the most common way this is attempted
is through various forms of social media (for example, to connect parents
and schools) and, of course, learners themselves regularly use this to
communicate with school friends. The downsides of social media on young
learners in particular are well documented.
It is less clear whether social apps designed for use in school such as
ClassDojo or Kahoot are, on balance, a positive influence on learners or
not. Such apps often advertise their benefits for relationship building, but
what they mostly do is encourage teachers to recognize positive behaviours
in the classroom. For example, when a learner offers the wrong answer,
this might traditionally have been marked as a type of failure. However,
if the teacher recognizes that the learner took a risk and tried their best,
it would allow them to give the learner some form of recognition for
their efforts. Usually this takes the form of ‘stickers’, emojis, or points.
Although potentially beneficial, this can also lead to unhealthy competition
and encourage a level of conformity that many teachers would feel
uncomfortable with. The continuous handing out of ‘awards’ may result
in learners not developing intrinsic motivation and not experiencing
enjoyment from the learning activity itself. There is also a deeper concern
about the pedagogy underpinning such ‘motivational behaviour tools’ (as
programs like Classcraft describe themselves), that is, applications that
encourage teachers to engage in ‘behavioural management’. Some teachers
feel uneasy with such a perspective on learners and their learning and the
research on its benefits is mixed.37 Teachers and their schools will need to
carefully monitor the impact of such tools.
In previous position papers we discussed the impact technology can have
on motivating learners and on supporting learners to take on greater
© Oxford University Press 21

Artificial Intelligence can
customize personalized
learning paths based on
students’ learning styles,
abilities, and interests.
By analyzing a student’s
learning history and
performance data, the AI
system can recommend
topic-specific learning
materials, practice
questions, or lessons
that meet each student’s
needs to improve their
learning outcomes.
Primary teacher, United States
1
responsibility for their lifelong and lifewide learning.38,39 These papers 2
include many examples of technologies that could be used to enhance
relationships and humanize education, such as: 3
• using digital games to connect in-class with out-of-class learning and
to lower anxiety by allowing learners to assume the role of an avatar
4
• using digital storytelling to encourage learners to share more about
themselves and their interests, especially when they do not yet have the
linguistic proficiency, or the confidence, to do so with text only
• using backchanneling or online communication tools for learners to
share their thoughts and questions, for example, through in-class
chat apps
• having learners use AR to create tours of their home or public places.
Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching
Recommendation 4:
Use data in positive ways
Huge amounts of data are currently being generated at all levels of the
education system, from class grades and school attendance, to state and
government-level academic performance data and international rankings.
In addition, with an increasing number of instructional materials in digital
form, a great deal of highly detailed data about learners’ behaviours and
interactions with apps, websites, and other educational software is also
collected. As already mentioned in this paper, there are many concerns
about the amount of data and its ownership and use, as well as privacy
and security issues. Leaving these aside for now, at the pedagogical level
there are a number of steps teachers can take to ensure such data is used
constructively.
The first is to recognize the difference between data and information. We
can think of information as data that is useful to a particular person at a
particular time for a particular purpose. For example, medical records
potentially offer valuable information to a doctor, but not to a teacher.
Similarly, data about learners’ performance on a speaking app is of limited
use when preparing a writing class. It is clear that the majority of data does
not provide teachers with information; just because something is being
recorded, it does not mean it has to be processed or acted on. A useful
recommendation is to identify a particular pedagogical challenge first (for
example, ‘I noticed that students’ engagement levels seem to be dropping
off as the semester progresses. I wonder what is causing that?’) and then
look for data that might help you understand and respond to it better.
Learning analytics is the process of turning educational data into
information. A widely available source of such data is recorded by LMSs
like Moodle, Blackboard, Google Classroom, and Canvas. This includes:
attendance, grades on assignments, the number of times students log in
to the system, the amount of time they spend there, the number of online
tasks they complete and their performance, how often students posted on
various discussion forums, and so on. Such data can be mined for insights.
For example, it may be possible to identify measures that indicate certain
learners might be at risk of getting behind or even dropping out. At the
University of Maryland, for example, it was observed that students who
obtained low grades used the college’s LMS 40% less than students
who obtained higher grades.40 This correlation was then used to identify
at-risk students by simply monitoring LMS usage. Whereas previously
the university would have had to wait many months to see student
performance and identify students in need of additional support, now
performance can be predicted based on which students log in to the LMS
in the first two weeks of the semester. Obviously, some of those students
will simply have practical (for example, illness) or technical (for example,
© Oxford University Press 22
 1
not having received a password) reasons for not using the LMS, but many 2
would otherwise be likely to fall behind to a point where it might be too
late to support them to recover. Such a predictive indicator is called a proxy 3
measure, and it can be tremendously beneficial for early intervention and
targeted support. 4
Another example is the use of task performance data. This may reveal
which topics or questions learners struggle with or show how the more
successful learners go about certain tasks and what strategies they use. This
can help the teacher prepare follow-up lessons. More broadly, academic
performance indicators can be compared between teachers, classes, and
even schools and districts to identify successful programs. The insights
from this can then be shared to the benefit of all.

These potential benefits come with a number of challenges, however.

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

At the classroom level, there is a potential for over-monitoring and
micro‑managing learners and losing sight of the individual in the learning
process. Teachers may end up focusing more on numbers and metrics
and less on the students. More broadly, there is a growing concern that
technology reduces teaching to a number of simple behaviours, each
of which can be observed and measured. In practice, most teachers will
argue that teaching is far too complex for this and, in any case, it is rare
for instruction to have an immediately visible impact on learners. Another
issue is the developing ‘wariness of systematic data logging if perceived
as a control or surveillance mechanism rather than as a tool for greater
pedagogical support’.41 The potential for a ‘big brother’ (re. George Orwell’s
Big Brother ‘character’ in his novel 1984) in the language classroom is very
real for many teachers. Where educational data is compared uncritically
between schools, an impersonal and punishing system may result. Many
teachers would argue that a number of elements make up individual
schools, making a direct comparison between them problematic. Where
teachers are asked to share classroom data for such purposes, they must be
prepared to ask questions about its intended use.

Another potential downside is that educational data is often used on

learners, not with learners. More positive approaches empower learners
by giving them access to their own data and teach them how to gain
meaningful insights from this to guide their learning process.41 This has the
potential added benefit of giving learners a greater sense of ownership of
their learning. Digital portfolios such as Seesaw (for young learners) and
the (free) European Language Portfolio can enable learners to maintain
a record of their progress even when they move between schools. When
combined with analytical resources, they can be a powerful tool for learners.

© Oxford University Press 23

 1
2
What do I need to know? 3
4

Pedagogical practices
There are a number of positive actions that can be

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

undertaken so that learners, teachers and other
stakeholders lead technological progress, rather than
being led by it. The first of these is to become digitally
literate and secondly to develop digital well-being. Thirdly,
technology should aim to put the human first and lastly,
critical thinking needs to be applied when using data–
acknowledging that there is a difference between data and
information.

© Oxford University Press 24


AI has great potential
and is still developing, we
cannot imagine or define
how far it will go.
Aysun Kaban, Teacher, Türkiye
1
2
3
4
Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching
What is next?
To humanize technology, it is important to recognize that individual
teachers can only do so much to implement the ideas in this paper.
There are certain conditions that have to be created within a school
first. For teachers to have agency in their use of technology, they
need to develop the knowledge and skills to confidently assess
its value and implement it in beneficial ways. This is perhaps
particularly true in the case of disruptive technological changes
where opportunities for professional learning can have a big impact.
For example, a recent study showed that teachers with high levels of
AI readiness tended to perceive low threats from AI and innovated
their teaching with AI, as well as having higher job satisfaction.42
But, capability and competence go beyond just developing technical
skills. Helen Haste argues that teachers need to develop the ability
to respond flexibly to change, to actively work together and support
each other, and to become role models in the ethical and responsible
use of technology.43 Clearly, this is a long-term process and requires
a collaborative approach to professional learning.
Additionally, the positive approach to technology advocated for in this
paper raises significant questions about a community’s values and vision.
These cannot be decided or realized by individuals but require ongoing
collaboration and exchange of ideas and experiences, and a shared effort
at all levels of a school or organization. In other words, educationally
sustainable practices have to be in place that involve everyone in this
process.
The intent of Sustainable Learning and Education is to create
and proliferate sustainable and renewable curricula and
methods of learning and teaching that instil in people the skills
and dispositions to thrive in complicated, challenging, and ever-
changing circumstances, while contributing positively to making
the world a better place.
Jay Hays & Hayo Reinders44
© Oxford University Press 25
 1
This may seem somewhat abstract, but in essence what this points to is that 2
Digital technologies are educationally sustainable communities:
now our co-workers in
• actively reflect the values of the community they serve 3
education and–just like
our human co‑workers– • focus first and foremost on the long-term well-being of their members 4
we can learn which ones and environment, and
share our aims and values • are resilient in the face of change and stick to their vision.
and choose who and what
These three characteristics are particularly beneficial—even necessary—
we work most closely with.
in the case of developing and implementing a positive response to
Anna Wilson technological change. And this response will need to involve a wide range of
stakeholders, from teachers and learners, to administrators, (IT) support,
school counsellors, parents, and many others.

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

Questions for reflection
Educational sustainability

• What are the values of your community, both those stated explicitly
(perhaps in the form of a school slogan, a charter, goal statements, and
policies and plans) and those that are implicit?
• What are your community’s values in relation to technology? How do
the ideas in this paper resonate with different stakeholders?
• How can technology be used to support the community’s well-being?
• What is your community’s readiness for technological change and how
could this be improved?

Finally, teachers will need to (be supported to) play a more active role
in innovating educational practices. This means being on the lookout
for changes as they happen and being proactive about making informed
decisions about how to respond. It also requires a willingness to have
one’s thinking challenged, as true innovation involves a change in the
‘underlying philosophy of learning and teaching’.45

What do I need to know?

What is next?
Some of the technological changes discussed in this paper
are radical. Whether they will have a radically positive
influence on education remains to be seen. But clearly,
much of that depends on our ability to humanize the role
of technology in language learning and teaching. In other
words: it starts and ends with us as teachers and learners.

© Oxford University Press 26

Conclusions
This paper has argued for a critical response to the rapidly
changing role of technology in education.

Specifically, we maintain that technology should primarily

serve learners’ and teachers’ interests and be used to
develop human well-being. Such a ‘positive technology’
approach recognizes the dangers that exist, while

Humanizing Technology in Language Learning and Teaching

recognizing its benefits and actively striving for educational
sustainablity. At a practical level, we have argued for: the
The best response in increased development of digital literacies, the inclusion
the face of enormous of digital well-being practices, a humanizing of the
technological change in
learning experience, and more constructive ways of using
education is: stay true
to your values. educational data. By taking a values-first approach, we are
optimistic about the possibility of using technology in ways
Hayo Reinders
that will positively impact language education.

Key take-aways
1 Becoming digitally literate
We need to equip teachers and learners with the digital
literacies needed to prepare for, engage with and adapt
to ever-changing technologies. They need the skills to
understand the risks, seize new opportunities, and prepare
for the future.

2 Develop digital wellbeing

We need to help learners maintain their digital wellbeing in
the face of emerging technologies, equipping them to avoid
the risks of additional stress, distraction, digital disarray and
invasion of privacy.

3 Humanize the learning experience

We should ensure technology is used to promote meaningful
human relationships instead of superficial interactions,
encouraging positive communication and supportive
collaboration between members of our learning community.

4 Use data in positive ways

We should empower educators to use data constructively,
so they are able to identify the most relevant information
for their teaching context and use it to inform decisions and
boost learner progress.

© Oxford University Press 27

Glossary
agency educational sustainability
A sense held by individuals that they have control over The fostering of educational communities that: actively
their actions. reflect the values of the community they serve, focus
on the long-term well-being of their members and
algorithmic literacy environment, are resilient in the face of change, and stick
The ability to understand how algorithms impact learning to their vision.
and teaching.
generative AI
artificial intelligence (AI) Artificial intelligence that can create new content.
The study and development of computer systems that can
copy intelligent human behaviour. information
Data that is useful to a particular person at a particular
attentional literacy time for a particular purpose.
The ability to intentionally direct one’s attention, at the
present time.30 Internet of Things (IoT)
The ways in which physical objects such as cameras,
augmented reality (AR) sensors, and everyday objects such as fridges and cars, are
Technologies that overlay digital information on top of connected to digital networks like the internet.
the physical world, for example, with the help of mobile
phones or special glasses. learning analytics
‘The measurement, collection, analysis, and reporting
big data of data about learners and their contexts for purposes
The collection, distribution, analysis, and subsequent use of understanding and optimising learning and the
of large sets of data. environment in which it occurs’16 and the process of
turning educational data into information.
contemplative turn
An increased recognition of the benefits of mindfulness life-logging
and spiritual or contemplative practices across The action or practice of making a continuous record
educational settings. of one’s daily activities by means of a digital device or
computer application.
data literacy
The ability to critically evaluate and use big data. METUX
This stands for Motivation, Engagement, and Thriving in
digital disconnection User Experience.
The inability or unwillingness to deal with different
viewpoints. motivational behaviour tools
Applications that encourage teachers to engage in
digital disorder ‘behavioural management’, or the encouragement of
The sharing of misinformation, disinformation, and fake desired learning behaviours.
news.
positive technology
digital distraction Technology use for the purposes of enhancing human
A lack of focus due to technology’s ubiquity in our lives. well-being through education.

digital divide proxy measure

Unequal access to digital technologies.
digital literacy
The ability to safely and effectively navigate the digital
world, including online safety skills, critical thinking,
functional skills, communication and netiquette (how
to communicate appropriately and politely in online
contexts), finding information, collaboration and
creativity, and digital culture.
digital well-being practices
The use of technology to improve human flourishing and
avoid harm from technology use.
Something used as a measure when a direct indicator is
not available.
social and emotional learning (SEL)
Learning by applying social and emotional skills to
develop better attitudes and behaviours towards others.
(Also called ‘socio-emotional learning’ and ‘social-
emotional literacy’.)
spatial computing
Technologies that bridge the physical and digital world.
virtual reality (VR)
Computer-generated environments that create an
immersive experience.

© Oxford University Press 28

Further reading and resources
Artificial ntelligence
Teaching English with Oxford. (2023). Artificial intelligence: The
impact on language teaching (Talking ELT Episode 1) [Video].
YouTube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPfU5XSIzmc&t=3s
Privacy, ethics, security
Polonetsky, J., & Tene, O. (2015). Who is reading whom now:
Privacy in education from books to MOOCs. Vanderbilt Journal
of Entertainment & Technology Law, 17(4), 927–990..
Learning analytics
Learning Letters. Open-access journal.
Journal of Learning Analytics. Open-access journal.
Positive computing
Positive Computing. www.positivecomputing.org
Values, mindfulness, and educational sustainability
Hays, J., & Reinders, H. (2020). Sustainable learning and
education: A curriculum for the future. UNESCO International
Review of Education, 66(1), 29–52. doi: 10.1007/s11159-020-
09820-7
Langer, E. J. (1993). A mindful education. Educational
Psychologist, 28(1), 43–50.
Mercer, S., & Gregersen, T. (2020). Teacher wellbeing. Oxford
University Press.
Other
Buckingham Shum, S., Ferguson, R., & Martinez-Maldonado,
R. (2019). Human-centred learning analytics. Journal of
Learning Analytics, 6(2), 1–9. doi: 10.18608/jla.2019.62.1
Cukurova, M. (2019, May). Learning analytics as AI
extenders in education: Multimodal machine learning versus
multimodal learning analytics. In T. Mitchell (Ed.), Proceedings
of AIAED 2019, 1–3.
De Lano, L., Riley, L., & Crookes, G. (1994). The meaning of
innovation for ESL teachers. System, 22(4), 487–96. doi:
10.1016/0346-251X(94)90005-1
Duke, É., & Montag, C. (2017). Smartphone addiction, daily
interruptions and self-reported productivity. Addictive
Behaviors Reports, 6, 90–95. doi: 10.1016/j.abrep.2017.07.002
Our experts
advise on
USING TECHNOLOGY TO
MOTIVATE LEARNERS
Free to download from: ISBN: 978 1 382 04052 5
www.oup.com/elt/expert www.oup.com
Gaggioli, A., Riva, G., Peters, D., & Calvo, R. A. (2017). Positive
technology, computing, and design: Shaping a future in
which technology promotes psychological well-being. In M.
Jeon (Ed.), Emotions and affect in human factors and human-
computer interaction (pp. 477–502). Elsevier Academic Press.
Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed
cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer
interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction, 7(2), 174–196. doi: 10.1145/353485.353487
Larson, E. J. (2021). The myth of artificial intelligence: Why
computers can’t think the way we do. Harvard University Press.
Lim, L.-A., Buckingham Shum, S., Felten, P., & Uno, J. (2023).
Belonging analytics: A proposal. Learning Letters, 1, Article 4.
Lodge, J. M., Horvath, J. C., & Corrin, L. (Eds.). (2018). Learning
analytics in the classroom: Translating learning analytics research
for teachers. Routledge.
Markauskaite, L., Marrone, R., Poquet, O., Knight, S.,
Martinez-Maldonado, R., Howard, S., Tondeur, J., De Laat,
M., Buckingham Shum, S., Gašević, D., & Siemens, G. (2022).
Rethinking the entwinement between artificial intelligence
and human learning: What capabilities do learners need for a
world with AI? Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3,
100056. doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100056
Mavrikis, M., Geraniou, E., Gutierrez Santos, S., &
Poulovassilis, A. (2019). Intelligent analysis and data
visualisation for teacher assistance tools: The case of
exploratory learning. British Journal of Educational Technology,
50(6), 2920–2942. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12876
Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Felt, J., Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A.,
Lara-Ruiz, J. M., Mendoza, J. S., & Rokkum, J. (2014). Media
and technology use predicts ill-being among children,
preteens and teenagers independent of the negative health
impacts of exercise and eating habits. Computers in Human
Behavior, 35, 364–375. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.036
Vezzoli, Y., Mavrikis, M., & Vasalou, A. (2020). Inspiration
cards workshops with primary teachers in the early co-
design stages of learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Tenth
International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge
(LAK ’20). doi: 10.1145/3375462.3375537
ISBN: 978 0 19 400311 7 ISBN: 978 0 19 442399 1
www.oup.com/elt/teacher/folt www.oup.com/elt/teacher/
exploringpsychology
© Oxford University Press 29
Endnotes
1 The problem with technology 22 Pavlenko (2013)
23 Qualtrics (2022)
1 UNESCO (2020)
24 Dewsbury et al. (2022)
2 Future of Life Institute (2017)
25 Calvo & Peters (2020 p. 1)
3 Education Support (2024)
26 Peters et al. (2018)
4 Pegrum & Palalas (2021)
27 Molenaar (2022)
5 Ward et al. (2017)
28 Picard (2000)
6 Stone (2009)
29 Marriott & Pitardi (2023)
7 Pegrum (2019)
8 Shapiro (2019)
9 Martens et al. (2023) 3 Pedagogical practices
10 Cobo (2016) 30 Pegrum et al. (2022)
11 Reinders (2023) 31 www.webwise.ie/teachers/digital_literacy
12 Greene & Azevedo (2007) 32 aipedagogy.org
13 Järvelä et al. (2013) 33 Long & Magerko (2020)
14 And much of what has been discussed in the literature is not 34 Pegrum & Palalas (2021 p. 8)
explicit about what is meant by the term in the first place; see 35 Ergas (2019)
Bartolomé et al. (2018)
36 Roeser (2016)
15 Selwyn (2016)
37 Gillies (2011)
16 Another widely used term is educational ‘data mining’.
38 Reinders et al. (2022)
Technically there is a difference between ‘data mining’ and
‘learning anaytics’, but here we use them interchangeably. 39 Reinders et al. (2023)
(See Rienties et al., 2020, for a discussion on their 40 Hanover Research (2016)
differences.)
41 Gelan et al. (2018)
17 Long & Siemens (2011)
18 Reich (2020)
4 What is next?
42 Wang et al. (2023)
2 Humanizing technology
43 Haste (2001)
19 WHO (n.d.)
44 Hays & Reinders (2020, p. 40)
20 Seligman (2011)
45 De Lano et al. (1994, p. 487)
21 CASEL (n.d.)

Acknowledgements
p.9 Figure 1 is from Education Support (2023). Teacher Wellbeing Index. Education Support, London, UK. ISBN: 9781739986070. https://www.educationsupport.org.uk/
media/0h4jd5pt/twix_2023.pdf; p.14 CASEL; p.16 infographic ‘METUX – Motivation, Engagement and Thriving in User Experience’ from ‘Designing for Motivation,
Engagement and Wellbeing in Digital Experience’ by Dorian Peters, Rafael A. Calvo and Richard M. Ryan in Frontiers in Psychology, 28 May 2018, Volume 9. Reproduced by
permission of the author; p.19 infographic ‘AI Literacy Competencies & Design Considerations’ by Duri Long and Brian Magerko in ‘CHI ‘20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems’, April 2020, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. Reproduced by permission of the author; p.20
table from chapter ‘Mindfulness in students’ motivation and learning in school’ © 2016, from Handbook of Motivation at School by Kathryn R. Wentzel and David B. Miele.
Reproduced by permission of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, a division of Informa plc.

Cover photograph reproduced with permission from: Shutterstock/ Zyabich

Illustrations by: Tim Bradford/Illustration X

The publisher would like to thank the following for permission to reproduce photographs:
Shutterstock (buteo, DimaBerlin, fizkes, Hyper-Set, IWD, lcrms, LightField Studios, matthew25, New Africa, Sakemomo, Sweet Art).

© Oxford University Press 30

References
Bartolomé, A., Castañeda, L., & Adell, J. (2018).
Personalisation in educational technology: The absence of
underlying pedagogies. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 15(14). doi: 10.1186/s41239-
018-0095-0
CASEL. (2020). What is the CASEL framework? Retrieved
from casel.org/fundamentals-of-sel/what-is-the-casel-
framework
Calvo, R. A., Peters, D., Vold, K., & Ryan, R. M. (2020).
Supporting human autonomy in AI systems: A framework for
ethical enquiry. In C. Burr & L. Floridi (Eds.), Ethics of digital
well-being: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 31–54). Springer.
Cobo, C. (2016). La innovación pendiente: Reflexiones (y
provocaciones) sobre educación, tecnología y conocimiento
[The pending innovation: Reflections (and provocations) on
education, technology, and knowledge]. Penguin Random
House.
Dewsbury, B. M., Swanson, H. J., Moseman-Valtierra,
S., & Caulkins, J. (2022). Inclusive and active pedagogies
reduce academic outcome gaps and improve long-term
performance. PLOS ONE, 17(6), e0268620. doi: 10.1371/journal.
pone.0268620
Education Support. (2023). Teacher Wellbeing Index.
Retrieved from www.educationsupport.org.uk/resources/for-
organisations/research/teacher-wellbeing-index
Ergas, O. (2019). A contemplative turn in education: Charting
a curricular-pedagogical countermovement. Pedagogy, Culture
& Society, 27(2), 251–270. doi: 10.1080/14681366.2018.1465111
Gelan, A., Fastré, G., Verjans, M., Martin, N., Janssenswillen,
G., Creemers, M., Lieben, J., Depaire, B., & Thomas, M.
(2018). Affordances and limitations of learning analytics for
computer-assisted language learning: A case study of the
VITAL project. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(3),
1–26. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2017.1418382
Gillies, V. (2011). Social and emotional pedagogies: Critiquing
the new orthodoxy of emotion in classroom behaviour
management. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32(2),
185–202.
Greene, J., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Adolescents’ use of self-
regulatory processes and their relation to qualitative mental
model shifts while using hypermedia. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 36(2): 125–148. doi: 10.2190/G7M1-2734-
3JRR-8033
Hanover Research. (2016). Learning analytics for tracking
student progress. Retrieved from www.imperial.edu/ivc/
files/Institutional_Research/Research_Planning/Learning_
Analytics_for_Tracking_Student_Progress.pdf
Haste, H. (2001). Ambiguity, autonomy and agency:
Psychological challenges to new competence. In D. Rychen &
L. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp.
93–120). Hogrefe & Huber.
Hays, J., & Reinders, H. (2020). Sustainable learning and
education: A curriculum for the future. UNESCO International
Review of Education, 66(1), 29–52. doi: 10.1007/s11159-020-
09820-7
Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., & Hadwin, A. (2013).
Exploring socially shared regulation in the context of
collaboration. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology,
12(3) 287–305. doi: 10.1891/1945-8959.12.3.267
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy?
Competencies and design considerations. In Proceedings of the
2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
doi: 10.1145/3313831.3376727
Long, P., & Siemens, G. (2011). Message from the LAK
2011 General & Program Chairs. In Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge
(LAK ’11). Association for Computing Machinery.
Marriott, H., & Pitardi, V. (2023). One is the loneliest number…
Two can be as bad as one. The influence of AI Friendship Apps
on users’ well-being and addiction. Psychology & Marketing,
41(1), 86–101. doi: 10.1002/mar.21899
Martens, M., De Wolf, R., & De Marez, L. (2023). Datafication
and algorithmization of education: How do parents
and students evaluate the appropriateness of learning
analytics? Education and Information Technologies, 1–27.
doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12124-6
Molenaar, I. (2022). Towards hybrid human-AI learning
technologies. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 632–645.
doi: 10.1111/ejed.12527
Pavlenko, A. (2013). The affective turn in SLA: From ‘affective
factors’ to ‘language desire’ and ‘commodification of affect’.
In D. Gabrysi-Barker & J. Bielska (Eds.), The affective dimension
in second language acquisition (pp. 3–28). Multilingual Matters.
Pegrum, M. (2019). Mobile lenses on learning: Languages and
literacies on the move. Springer.
Pegrum, M., Hockly, N., & Dudeney, G. (2022). Digital
literacies. Routledge.
Pegrum, M., & Palalas, A. (2021). Attentional literacy as a new
literacy: Helping students deal with digital disarray. Canadian
Journal of Learning and Technology, 47(2). doi: 10.21432/
cjlt28037
Peters, D., Calvo, R. A., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Designing for
motivation, engagement and wellbeing in digital experience.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9. doi 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797
Picard, R. W. (2000). Affective computing. MIT press.
Qualtrics. (2022, August). Only half of high school students
feel a sense of belonging at their school. Retrieved from www.
qualtrics.com/news/only-half-of-high-school-students-
feel-a-sense-of-belonging-at-their-school-qualtrics-
research-shows
Reich, J. (2020). Failure to disrupt: Why technology alone can’t
transform education. Harvard University Press.
Reinders, H., Dudeney, G., & Lamb, M. (2022). Using
technology to motivate learners. Oxford University Press.
Reinders, H. (Author), Ryan, S. (Consultant), Thomas, N.
(Consultant), & Phung, L. (Consultant) (2023). The key to
self-regulated learning: A systematic approach to maximising its
potential. Oxford University Press.
Rienties, B., Køhler Simonsen, H., & Herodotou, C. (2020).
Defining the boundaries between artificial intelligence in
education, computer-supported collaborative learning,
educational data mining, and learning analytics: A need
for coherence. Frontiers in Education, 5, 128. doi: 10.3389/
feduc.2020.00128
Roeser, R. W. (2016). Mindfulness in students’ motivation
and learning in school. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele
(Eds.), Handbook on motivation at school. Taylor & Francis.
Seligman, M. E. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding
of happiness and well-being. Simon and Schuster.
© Oxford University Press 31
Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education? Polity Press.
Shapiro, L. (2019). Embodied cognition. Routledge.
Stone, L. (2009, November 30). Beyond simple multi-tasking:
Continuous partial attention. Retrieved from lindastone.
net/2009/11/30/beyond-simple-multi-tasking-continuous-
partial-attention
UNESCO. (2020, April). Startling disparities in digital learning
emerge as COVID-19 spreads: UN education agency. Retrieved
from news.un.org/en/story/2020/04/1062232
Wang, X., Li, L., Tan, S. C., Yang, L., & Lei, J. (2023). Preparing
for AI-enhanced education: Conceptualizing and empirically
examining teachers’ AI readiness. Computers in Human
Behavior, 146, 107798. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107798
Ward, A. F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., & Bos, M. W. (2017). Brain
drain: The mere presence of one’s own smartphone reduces
available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for
Consumer Research, 2(2), 140–154. doi: 10.1086/691462
WHO. (n.d.). WHO remains firmly committed to the principles set
out in the preamble to the Constitution. Retrieved from www.who.
int/about/accountability/governance/constitution
© Oxford University Press 32
ELT Expert Panel

Oxford University Press

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It
furthers the university’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide.

ELT Expert Panel

The ELT Expert Panel is a group of leading researchers and practitioners in
education who advise us on the key issues shaping language learning today.
The discussion topics are informed through research as well as by listening
to our global ELT community. Bringing together a wide range of insights,
the Panel offers evidence-based recommendations to support teachers and
learners in their future success.

ELT position papers

The ELT position papers are the result of consultation with members of
the Panel, selected for their specialism and research expertise. With these
papers, we offer guidance to the following readers:

• Teachers
• Teacher educators
• Head teachers
• Directors of Studies
• School owners
• Curriculum developers
• Policymakers
• Ministries of Education

For expert advice on the key issues shaping language education, download
all our position papers at: www.oup.com/elt/expert

To cite this paper:

• Reinders, H. (author), Kukulska-Hulme, A. (consultant), & Wilson, A.
(consultant) (2024). Humanizing technology in language learning and
teaching [PDF]. Oxford University Press. www.oup.com/elt/expert

© Oxford University Press 33

 The experts consulted
for this paper

Hayo Reinders
Hayo Reinders (http://www.innovationinteaching.org) is
TESOL Professor and Director of Research at Anaheim
University, USA, and Professor of Applied Linguistics at
KMUTT in Thailand. He is founder of the global Institute
for Teacher Leadership and editor of Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching. His interests are in out-of-class
learning, technology, and language teacher leadership. Hayo
is the author of this paper.

Agnes Kukulska-Hulme
Agnes Kukulska-Hulme is Professor of Learning Technology
and Communication in the Institute of Educational Technology
at The Open University, where she leads the Learning
Futures Programme. Her work encompasses online distance
education, mobile learning, language learning, and education
for migrants and refugees. She is on the Editorial Boards of
ReCALL, International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, and
RPTEL. She leads and works on large-scale research projects in
Europe, Africa, and Asia, investigating diverse experiences of using
technology and the English language in education, and for access to
online services. Agnes is a consultant on this paper.

Anna Wilson
Anna Wilson is Reader in Interdisciplinary
Research in Education at the University of
Glasgow and Deputy Director of the Centre
for Research and Development in Adult
and Lifelong Learning. She is interested
in how technologies shape expectations,
possibilities, practices, and experiences in
education. Anna is a consultant on this paper.

© Oxford University Press 34