Entry 8 IDT1415 Reflections on Blake's SLA, Language Teaching and Technology 2

Discuss the statement: "technology only provides a set of tools that are, for most part, methodologically neutral" (Blake 2008 ch 1)

I agree with Victoria and Jennifer in that tools are not neutral because of the affordances they come with and that these are shaped by the user as without an agent they are useless. I would also say that four of the key concepts that captured my attention in this reading are crucial for and in line with our ideas here, namely: know-how, pedagogical planning, informed selective filtering approach, and complementation. 

I also believe that they are all interconnected as know-how is essential as we cannot teach others how to use a tool we do not know how to use ourselves otherwise it would be a case for the blind leading the blind which often happens and translates into a waste of time and resources or using technology for the sake of it. Consequently, this know how plays an important role in the kind of informed decisions we make and how or whether our choices add value to the learning process. Being able to select amongst a myriad of options (filtering without frustration) enables us to complement our teaching while firmly based on pedagogical principles. In light of the above, one can conclude that tools are methodologically neutral as their affordances and their users, in this case intended as 'teachers'.

Entry 7 IDT1415 Reflections on Blake's SLA, Language Teaching and Technology

What is your experience with respect to the four myths about technology discussed by Blake?

The resounding idea throughout the chapter is that of 'interaction' and how this interaction is at the heart of SLA because it is social and natural, which is also supported by Revees and Nass's (1996:5 in Blake 2008) research.  Increased exposure to target language through social interaction is claimed to be the way to speed up SLA so the question posed is how this can be done efficiently and the role technology can play when used wisely. Blake states that tools are 'for the most part methodologically neutral', but that applied linguists disagree because of the affordances they provide (Zhao et al. 2005; Levy 2006:13-15 in Blake 2008:3). He then advises that technology integration should follow a theoretical model (CALL) which makes me immediately think of Mishra and Koehler's TPCK framework or Puentedura's SAMR Model thus allowing for the alignment of SLA theory and practice in different but similar ways.

An important social aspect Blake (p.4) alludes to is the fact that unless we provide decision makers with positive evidence of the positive effects of what informed tech integration can offer second language learning then the support needed will be wanting. To this extent Swaffar (1998 in op.cit.) summarises the benefits of CMC as allowing individuals to 'engage more frequently, with greater confidence and greater enthusiasm in the communicative process...' Again, interaction being the crux of language learning and in line with Kramsch's (1993 in op.cit.) work when he says that SLA is more than acquiring skills and using such skills effectively, but that it also has to do with culture. It seems then obvious that through scaffolded interaction with others learners become more linguistically and culturally aware.

I found interesting Blake's claim that reluctance to the integration of technology today is a consequence of the 'failed promises of the audio-lingual lab of the 1960s' as I wonder how many people outside scholarly circles would be aware of this. However, I do agree with him that, in my own experience, this ca be attributed more to the fact that people do not really know what technology 'means for L2 learning'.

As regards the four myths about Tech and SLA, there are key terms and concepts in each section which immediately captured my attention. In 'Technology is Monolithic': know how, rapidly changing, CMC and scaffolding and L2 input quality made me think about how these have affected in one way or the other my own professional development and that of those under my aegis. As for 'Technology constitutes a Methodology': leap between theory and practice, favorable conditions for L2 learning, tech culture of practice is not neutral, repetition, automaticity, accuracy, and pedagogical planning simply reaffirmed the concepts and ideas we have all mentioned in our posts recently which is reassuring as they are based on sound assumptions regarding our pedagogical beliefs. In 'Technology is all we need': constant change, and technology as a catalyst for change brought back recent memories of trainees and colleagues complaining about this constant change and how frustrating it can be trying to catch up. This is why it is essential to develop a critical and selective approach so that we can filter what is useful to us in our own context and discard the rest. Finally, in 'Technology will Replace Teachers': complement teaching not threaten, and teachers who use technology will probably replace those who do not (Clifford 1987:13 in op.cit.). I could not agree more as more often than not in my position as a recruiter for the institution I work for, I often make decisions based on the above. I have also been asked extensively at job interviews about this.

Finally, 'noticing' also seems to be a recurrent concept in the discussion of SLA theories from Chomsky, to Krashen to Swain as well as how explicit instruction enables this noticing and how technology can support this.

References

Blake, R. J. 2008 Brave New Digital Classroom: Technology and Foreign Language Teaching. Georgetown, University Press. Online at http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=24802 [accessed: October 4, 2014]

Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J. 2006 'Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge', Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-54.

Puentedura, R. R. 2006. 'Transformation, Technology, and Education'. Online at:
http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/ [accessed: October 3, 2014]

Entry 6 IDT1415 Fast Changing Needs: Should (language) education aim to keep up with these?

“Needs” change fast and may be even artificially created – to what extend should (language) education aim to keep up with these change and how sustainable is it?

A very interesting question Cecilia! I believe that education should aim at keeping up with these changes because by doing this it proves that at least someone is aware of them and is trying to address them.  Now, how successfully this is being done is another question! I think that there is a fine line between 'real' and 'artificial' needs, especially when it comes to technology and educational contexts. Often, I am surprised by the fact that many state schools here have smart boards which nobody ever learnt how to use or are under used as projectors and little is being done to integrate technology in an informed way as it is more often than not left to the enthusiastic teacher without training being an important part of the process. As regards sustainability, I think that unfortunately, it is only wealthy and developed countries who are able to invest, not necessarily prepared for doing it in the best of ways. I have often been asked by principals about  'what' technology they should buy and yet none of them have asked 'how' they should go about it once they have it! In my role as an academic inspector for AISLi (Italian association of language schools) and assessor on Cambridge Teaching Awards I have the opportunity to visit many schools and more often than not the focus is on the 'what' and not on the 'how'. So, in going back to your question I think the focus should be 'how' these needs are being addressed and even more importantly a definition for 'needs' would be required to be able to then measure more accurately how they can be addressed. I think that keeping up with language education needs would be sustainable if these needs were approached not only from the 'what' but also from the 'how' point of view so that informed decisions are made by trained staff who know how to use the technology they have - in a 'less-is-more' way.

May technology, per se, become more disruptive than motivating?

In turn, this question is directly related to my reply above as technology may become disruptive when it is there as a status symbol rather than as a support mechanism to add value to the learner's experience.  I believe that understanding where ed tech adds value to a lesson determines whether it is disruptive or motivating. For instance, when using Geddit (a clicker web tool that works on web-enabled devices in the classroom) learners have a chance to show the teacher without necessarily exposing themselves to their peers on how they are doing on a given task. It may be argued that a non-threatening atmosphere would allow for learners to be able to do this without the need for such a tool, but reality is that not all students are the same and as Susan Cain implies we cannot impose extrovert behavior on all students applying a one-size-fits- all approach without acknowledging individual differences and being inclusive of all regardless of how good one's rapport is with the class.

Is collaboration (group work) everyone’s “cup of tea”? - http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts

Now, although I agree that collaboration is not everybody's cup of tea, I believe that from a Vygotskian point of view, as social beings we are, it is our (the teacher's) role to ensure everybody has equal opportunities to interact in class so as to maximise their use of language and in my own experience I have found that a tool integrated well into the plan will often add that 'umpf' which motivates learners to give their best. For instance, using the audio and video recording features of smart phones and tablets to record short dialogues, interviews, etc., or while writing entries on class blogs learners tend to pay more attention to the quality of their contributions because they are aware of the fact that they will be seen/read by their peers and so this element of extrinsic motivation and the use of a simple tool adds value to their use of that specific language activity. Finally and risking being repetitive I believe  it is Mishra and Koehler's (2006) concept of aligning one's knowledge of the content, pedagogy and technology  and Puentedura's SAMR (2009) model which provide a sound approach to the integration of ed tech into any classroom.

References

Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J. 2006 'Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge', Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-54.

Puentedura, R. R. 2006. 'Transformation, Technology, and Education'. Online at:
http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/