Entry 13 IDT1415 Reflections on Prensky's Digital Natives or Immigrants?

Prensky (2001) claims that our students think and learn differently from their teachers because while the former are digital language native speakers the latter have, at best, learnt their digital language as a foreign language. Thus, while our students have native speaker intuition, teachers do not. 

As a language teacher, what is your reaction to the language learning/acquisition analogy made by Prensky?

Key words and concepts from Prensky's article:

Ss' radical change, singularity, different thinking and processing, N-gen and D-gen, 'accent', different socialisation experiences, parallel process and multi-task, graphics before text, random access (hypertext), networked, accept the change, reconsider methodology and content, legacy and future content, pc games to do the job, CAD example, digital native methodology, gaming, students to guide this methodology. 

My reflections on this article...

While I find Prensky's analogy interesting and I particularly agree with Henry that the bottom line is the need to keep on learning and training with the implication that it is as if we are constantly required to keep up with the times, I personally find this native/immigrant distinction a little discomforting because of the social implications behind these same words. It's true that it all depends on the stance one takes, but I cannot help thinking that this dichotomy means a disparity in terms of rights. When does one become a native or an immigrant? My first PC was also my older brother's PC, an Osborne processor in 1984 when I was 13 and which I used to do mechanical things like entering data for my brother's assignments and since then I have always been interested in and comfortable with all kinds of technology. Does that mean I am an immigrant? Does that matter?

Again, while I agree that my early experiences above must have marked my way of approaching technology, I refuse to believe that people have to be one thing or the other as this pigeonholing denies the belief  anyone can learn anything they want. It was until recently and thanks to MRI technology and developments in neuroscience in the last 20 years that the myth that people were right or left brained was dispelled as it is now known that different parts of the brain work in tandem (TeachersTV 2006). Along the same lines, I would argue that beyond either label what really matters are the facts and needs stated by Prensky (2001:1, 3) namely: students are simply differently wired now and this demands from us that we reconsider how we teach what we teach. I like Prensky's idea of Legacy and Future content and firmly believe that the solution is as he pointed out to 'Just Do it!'. Oliver (2012) in his CNN interview of Prensky reports his invitation to adapt - we are instinctively good at adapting, so this is what is required of us - we need to adapt to the ever changing teaching environment and accept the fact that for some we will be natives and for others immigrants without forgetting that what really matters is the difference we make in the classroom when we make informed decisions regarding tech implementation!

References

Joy, Oliver. 2012. What does it mean to be a digital native? [online] CNN Edition: International. 8 Dec 2012. Last accessed 13 Oct 2014 at: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/04/business/digital-native-prensky/

Prensky, M. 2001. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. In: On the Horizon, MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001. Online at: http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=1017630 [accessed: October 13, 2014] 

The Learning Brain. 2007. [online] TeachersTV March 2007. Last accessed Oct 13, 2014 at: http://archive.teachfind.com/ttv/www.teachers.tv/videos/the-learning-brain.html

Entry 12 IDT1415 Reflections on Chapelle's Technology and Second Language Acquisition & Levy's Technologies in Use for Second Language Learning

It seems to be that Chapelle's article is clearly an exhortation to the implementation of technology in SLA research and finishes her abstract by saying: '...therefore technology needs to be considered'. She provides evidence of studies done and what their results are to support her advocacy for the importance of technology in assisting and improving SLA research. She mentioned how CASLR tasks have demonstrated to be valid sources of data and how CALL also offers 'some conditions of interests for SLA' (p.99). Chapelle reports Doughty's concerns with the desperate (my emphasis) need for instructional designers to be able to make informed decisions when choosing software for classroom use. Some of the key concepts and ideas addressed here have also been addressed by Blake (2008), Mitchell (2009) and were also present in Warschauer (2001) namely: negotiation of meaning, interaction, noticing forms and also gaps in linguistic knowledge, making connections between form and meaning, social interaction, modified input, negotiation of form via CMC, and natural language processing (NLP) amongst a few others. She concludes that the way to in which learners can benefit from pedagogically sound CALL methodology lies in the success with which research will identify such principles. I believe though that the SAMR and TPACK models are a good place to start especially for those language teachers who do not have the background, training or immediate time to become fully acquainted with research results.

On the other hand, Levy's (2009) article provides a survey of a series of technologies already in use and their affordances in relation to specific language areas in second language learning which appears to be more 'teacher' friendly while still being academic thanks to his modular approach e.g. focusing on language and skills individually. He mentiones how ICALL developments have brought about concordances, text alignment, speech recognitions and the like which have had a big impact on the types of feedback available. Hot Potatoes, WordChamp,  LexTutor, ubiquitous mobile phones and audio files show the focus of CALL on vocabulary and grammar and a FonF approach. One of the recurrent ideas across the article and regardless of the focus is that of learner (and teacher) training in the use of such technologies and how some 'old' ones are underused e.g. Word's change tracking feature which is useful for collaborative work, and feedback with special attention on how it is delivered and when. In my current context, this learner and teacher training is an integral part of school life as we have 30min pop-in sessions every week on tech training and 1.5hr sessions once every three weeks. We used HotPotatoes a couple of years ago but feedback from teachers was mainly that it was rather time consuming at the time.  LexTutor on the other hand was seen as a positive addition especially for intermediate and above levels.

Levy highlights the benefits of multimodal interaction offered by VLEs e.g. breakout rooms amongst many others, the possibility of augmented interaction via chatterbots and avatars (Active Worlds and Second Life) which enhance exposure to L2 culture through CMC, telecollaboration, and VLEs such as BlackBoard and wikis.  All of these clearly linked to Vygostky's sociocultural theory while underlining the importance of methodology in cultural contexts because it is evident that more attention is given to it in order to avoid communication breakdowns between different cultures.  Levy concludes that 'teacher's or learner's understanding of what a technology can accomplish is critical in practice' (p777) and also quotes Bax (2003:23) who says that once technology is invisible to the user then it is 'normalised' as becomes part of the environment. However, the question that seems to become apparent is: How do you make it invisible? Levy's final words once again point at how technology does not necessarily mean more effective learning, that learner training is essential, and that 'technology is there to serve language learning not vice versa' (p779). I believe these added to practice using these technologies lead to this invisibility as a strategy is the conscious application of a technique while a skill is the unconscious application of said technique (Oxford 2011). In short, the goal is then skillful application of technology thus making it invisible.

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]

Mitchell, I. 2009. The Potential of the internet as a Language Learning Tool. In: Education and Digital technology: Foreign Language Learning with Digital Technology.  Continuum International Publishing. Online at http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=1017622 [accessed: October 10, 2014]

Oxford, R. L. 2011. Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies. Applied Linguistics in Action Series. Eds. C.N. Candlin and D.R. Hall. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Warschauer, M. (2001) Interaction, Negotiation, and Computer-mediated Learning. Online at http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=24802#section-3 [accessed: October 8, 2014]

Entry 11 IDT1415 Reflections on Mitchell's: The Potential of the Internet as a Language-learning Tool

Mitchell (2009) provides a wide range of internet and experience-based reading and listening activities which are in line with current methodology researchers such as Grabe and Stoller (2011) and Field (2008) respectively. At the heart of Mitchell's chapter is the concept of authenticity and the benefits derived from it: variety not available before and the possibility to make our learners more culturally aware via interaction with authentic sources. I particularly find encouraging the fact that a low tech option is also available e.g. print the headlines and put them around the classroom as technology is not ubiquitous.

As regards the activities suggested these are defined and clearly justified in terms of MFL teaching theory and practice such as the need to activate prior knowledge when preparing students for a receptive skills activity building the activities up in terms of difficulty by going from skimming to scanning while using simple tech to aid students in this respect and to stimulate their curiosity e.g. using Google Images, web-based listening activities or giving students the power to control the speed at which audio is rendered via programs such as Audacity. In addition, script availability enables not only the learner but the teacher by making it possible to for them to work out the nuances of spoken texts once skills work has been done (Field 2008:45). Pre-teaching vocabulary along with guessing word-meaning from context are also mentioned as strategies effective readers use and although not mentioned in the article the internet and mobile technology allow for ease of access with language at our finger tips which was not available before. Harnessed adequately lack of vocabulary provides a fertile ground for search techniques strategy training with the view of fostering independent training.

Mitchell's suggestions grounded in his classroom practice and as such they are feasible when similar conditions are met. I wonder though the amount of student training required/done when he mentions for instance the use of Audacity which is not the most intuitive piece of software for the novice user. On the other hand, his report on the popularity of the French 'momes' forum provides evidence of how more than ever the digital generation is in their element in this type of setting. At work, we have been using Blogs and VLEs like Edmodo for a couple of years to provide an excellent opportunity for students to interact amongst themselves in a safe environment while involving their parents as 'observers' of such activity with very positive results for those involved.

Last but not least, Mitchell wisely identifies how the internet allows for a wealth of authentic resources that are not only exploited for language development but also for 'crucial' cultural awareness raising opportunities which, in my opinion, cannot be divorced from language. It is the 'how' these resources now readily available are used that matters - the pedagogy behind technology, our competence that shapes our performance using Chomky's terms, our conscious learning through monitoring and practice of how we use tech and how our competence changes as a result of acquired skills in Krashen's terms (Blake 2008:15-20).

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]

Field, J. 2008. Listening in the language classroom. Language teaching library. Cambridge, Cambridge.

Grabe, W. and Stoller, F. 2011. Teaching and Researching Reading. 2nd ed. Harlow, Longman.

Mitchell, I. 2009. The Potential of the internet as a Language Learning Tool. In: Education and Digital technology: Foreign Language Learning with Digital Technology.  Continuum International Publishing. Online at http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=1017622 [accessed: October 10, 2014]

Entry 10 IDT1415 Are you driven by technology or by pedagogy in your teaching?

I would confidently say that my teaching is driven by pedagogy as I have become more aware in the last few years of how informed decisions regarding technology integration are at the heart of a sound approach.  Puentedura's SAMR model, Mishra and Koehler's TPACK Model and a personal interest in cognitive psychology with a passion for Guided Discovery as opposed to Guided Learning as it allows the teacher to combine action learning principles with scaffolded input to provide an enhanced experience that 'recognises the boundaries of cognitive load while encouraging the passion for student exploration' (Harvel 2010:169). These have informed and continue to influence my lesson planning and design on a regular basis. For instance, some of the questions I often ask myself when deciding whether a tool is to be integrated into a lesson or session and which have become a sort of self assessment criteria are:

1. What is/are my aims for the lesson (regardless of technology)?

2. What part of my lesson would be more engaging and cognitively challenging if I added technology?

3. Once No. 2 is clear, what tools do I know already or remember seeing somewhere which can help me enhance my lesson? Once there is an answer to this question, try and test the tool.

4. Will the lesson be the same without the chosen tool? If yes, discard it. If not, ensure it is recyclable.

5. How is the students' use of the language and learning experience enhanced by this tool? Identify this before moving on otherwise it'll be infotaiment!

6. Will my students need training? If yes, then how am I going to give it e.g. a quick screen cast? In or outside class? With lower levels usually in class to 'show' them what I mean. If not, what do they need to know to be independent enough to complete the self training stage before the next lesson?

In short, the above inform my (re)definition (note the 'R' for Redefinition in the SAMR model) of tasks that otherwise could be implemented without any technology. As a consequence, technology integration is not necessarily an element that is omnipresent throughout the curriculum but rather an ad hoc enhancing experience.

References

Harvel, C. 2010. Guided Discovery Learning. In: Heekap, L. 2010. 'Faith-based Education that Constructs: a creative dialogue between constructivism and faith-based education', Eugene, OR., Wipf and Stock Publishers, 169-173.

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 11, 2014]

Entry 9 IDT1415 Reflections on Warschauer's Interaction, Negotiation and Computer-mediated Learning

Warschauer 2001' s observations are primarily based on written CMC. However, CMC has developed a long way since Warschauer's article, especially with the introduction of more and more sophisticated voiced based tools. Discuss Warschauer's claims in view of voiced CMC.

Thanks to the fast development of VOIPs it is now possible to communicate orally and also via video with others. While I agree with Karina on most respects and especially on the fact that 'the pressure is on' when video is available, I believe that voiced CMC still holds true to many of the points made by Warschauer but to a lesser extent. For instance, from an input perspective comprehension is necessary for acquisition to take place and it is pointed out that asynchronous interaction allows for self regulation as planning time is increased (overlapping with output perspective). This may not be fully true of voiced CMC as technological advancement has provided for fast and powerful connections which mirror the conditions for video conferencing almost perfectly. Having said this, voiced CMC also adheres to netiquette rules and as such turn taking e.g. selecting the hands-up icon and waiting for your turn still allows for some 'thinking' or 'planning time'. Along the same lines, voiced CMC also requires a 'moderator' who ensures interaction takes place in an ordered way so I believe this also add to increased planning time. In addition, negotiation of meaning and the consequent 'interactional modifications that benefit acquisition' are also possible in voiced CMC as Long's repetition, confirmation, reformulation, comprehension checks, recasts, confirmation checks and clarification (1996 in Warschauer 2001) are still possible and even enhanced by some of the features video conferencing platforms offer e.g. chat boxes, drawing, screen and file sharing, etc. I believe that it is through these features that the third claim (noticing is beneficial to - and perhaps a requirement for - acquisition) can be fulfilled as negotiating meaning is not only allowed but also enhanced by these features thus permitting noticing.

As far as output perspectives are concerned, I already mentioned how voiced CMC also allows for increased (my emphasis) planning time so I now turn to the claims of fluency and accuracy. Key concepts highlighted were a nonthreatening environment and higher complexity in participant output in CMC duly noting that the latter did not necessarily mean accuracy. By adding voice to CMC I believe fluency and accuracy are also aided by the features mentioned before because of the 'repetition' opportunities these afford and how repetition as one of the Long's (op.cit) identified modifications also benefits acquisition.

Finally, I think that the sociocultural perspective is the one that benefits the most of voiced CMC as technological advancement allows for better 'social interaction' by granting users a reduced power of ubiquity - we can be present in a virtual room available in as many places as the technology allows it. Now, along these lines, I believe that voiced CMC has been and is still in the process of being enhanced as new features and affordances are added on a regular basis. For instance, the possibility of being a 'participant observant ethnographer' is still possible while also enriched by the variety of input modes now available which allow the observer the luxury of paralinguistic features. Of course the affordances of voiced CMC automatically renders observation active unless a 'lurking' roles is defined prior to interaction with the group. Speech activity and apprenticeship are also enhanced because the possibilities of interaction with others who can offer scaffolded encounters are of much better quality to that or oral interactions alone as it is possible, as I have experienced myself in video conferences, that on occasions when I have not been sure of something, I have been able to simply listen to the conversation and via the chat box ask the group for clarification which in turn allowed me to be better prepared to take a more active role at different times.

References

Warschauer, M. (2001) Interaction, Negotiation, and Computer-mediated Learning. Online at http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=24802#section-3 [accessed: October 8, 2014]

ALBION.COM and ROSS, S.T. (2011). The Core Rules of Netiquette [Online]. Last accessed on 8 October 2014 at http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html