Entry 17 IDT14156 Bax's CALL - Past, present and future: a critique of Warschauer

Do you think Bax's criticisms of Warschauer are valid? If so, in what way(s) does his approach deepen our understanding of the history of CALL?

First of all, I found Warschauer's introduction paper to CALL less accessible than Bax's in terms of description and definition of terms. Also, I somehow managed to position and identify myself and my own practice at different times throughout his article. For instance, I strongly agree with Bax when he says that 'CALL will be normalised when computers are treated as always secondary to learning itself, when the needs of learners will be carefully analyses first of all, and then the computer used tom serve those needs' (p24) and this statement positively reassures and reflects my own practice as described in my reflections to the question posed by Cecilia on whether our teaching was driven by technology or pedagogy here and which briefly addressed a set of self determined criteria applied to potential technology in my lessons. In light of Bax's argument and my previous reflections then I would say that if I have not reached normalisation yet, then I am on the right track and this is comforting. Also, I fully agree that in my local (not own) context at least, technology is more often than not considered a magic wand rather than, as Bax (p26) suggests, for the role it can play in the classroom with principals and state school teachers asking for advice on the app which will make their students' English improve overnight. 

I would also agree with Karina that the inconsistencies in Warschauer described and supported by Bax are distracting but also contradictory. I particularly find Warschauer's implication that 'language in authentic social contexts is post communicative' (p19) confusing as providing authentic social contexts for communication is still clearly part and parcel of teaching and reflected in most course books and my own practice. I feel the same as Victoria in regards to the need for a new categorisation which I believe to be more accurate or at least clearer and more in line with my own understanding and practice of CLT in a fortunate private sector school context which offers me the possibility to experiment with, implement and be an active part in the 'normalisation' process of CALL. 

References

Bax, S. 2003. CALL - past, present and future [online], Article from Science Direct, Online at http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=1017647 [accessed: October 21, 2014]

Warschauer M. (1996) "Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction". In Fotos S. (ed.) Multimedia language teaching, Tokyo: Logos International: 3-20 Online at http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/mod/url/view.php?id=1017646 [accessed: October 21, 2014]

Entry 16 IDT1415 Bennett et al. and Bayne and Ross' Critique of Prensky's Digital Personas

Although I clearly agree, as can be seen in my previous post, with the dissent from the idea of a simplistic binary: digital immigrant - digital native as it is called by Bayne and Ross (2011), I also believe that their critique is slightly over focused in the social implications of Prensky's metaphor. I fail to understand why professional development as prescribed by a technological advancement agenda has a harmful effect on teachers. Is not professional development an integral part of a teacher's DNA? Are we supposed then to teach all our lives without keeping abreast of advancement around us? Why is such professional growth then seen under such negative light? Professionals in the health sector continuously upgrade themselves as new viruses and medicines are discovered, studied and better understood for the good of the community. Why then expecting teachers to go along with technological advancement which can be put to the service of our students is to be avoided? I personally believe that more than a requirement set by the environment it is our obligation as teachers, as educators to be knowledgeable and prepared to address the needs of an ever changing world and students. I disagree with McWilliam's (2002 in Bayne and Ross 2011) deficit model and the idea that there is 'unlearning' to required in order to develop technological skills. My own past experience as a lecturer at university level tell me, on the contrary, that the unlearning needed is more related to how 'lecturing' often does not fully take into account students and therefore the deficit model applies not so much as to the lack of technological wisdom, but to the lack of a better understanding of how to reach out to those students who seem to continue to evolve while teachers remain immutable in front of them. I was once told by a colleague at the beginning of my teaching career almost 20 years ago, that all the preparation they required was to look at the page of the course book as opposed to all my cutting up paper, finding flashcards, asking colleagues to record role plays with me on tapes I bought out of my own pocket and the like. A great friend but still a colleague who had failed to move on with the times! 

I can fully identify with Clegg's (2003 in Bayne and Ross 2011): 'to embrace new media enthusiastically or to stand aside and watch its inevitable unfolding' as the choice educators have today. Also, it is safer to simply adopt a stance which is nuance-free and does not require 'binary oppositions' with negative connotations such as Fenwick's (2000 in op.cit.) educational colonising process and how digital immigrants are then put in a position of 'asylum seekers' with the related implications. Why cannot we simply be open minded, try and understand what and how these technological advancement can enhance our own professional lives rather than see it all as a potential threat? Or is it that for some such change simply translate into having to actually get out of their comfort zones and do some work?

Also, Bennett et al.'s (2008) suggested 'moral panic' seems to be a much more appealing stance for educators and more adequate term supported by the lack of empirical evidence available to support a case for a real state of affairs. Kvavik, Caruso and Morgan's study (2004 in Bennett et al. 2008) report a mere 21% of students creating their own content for the Web and a smaller percentage failing to match the expected skills of the so called 'natives'. Two more Australian studied also support the same trends while also showing a relation between differences amongst technology use based on 'socio-economic status, cultural/ethnic background, gender and discipline specialisation'. It is also reported how large-scale surveys have shown that although there is a lot of 'activity' between school-aged children this regards homework tasks and social communication which are not indicators of Prensky's 'Digital Wisdom' (2009), but rather a use more in line with Kvavik et al.'s (op.cit) wanting 'natives' skill level leading to believe that Howe and Strauss' (2000) 'Millenials' are more a questionable ideal than a wide spread reality.

References

Bayne, S. and Ross, J. 2011. 12. 'Digital Native' and 'Digital Immigrant' Discourses. A Critique. [Online], In: R. Land and S. Bayne (Eds.), Digital Difference: Perspectives on Online Learning. Sense Publishers. 159-169, Online at http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=1017632 [accessed: October 13, 2014].

Bennett, S., Maton, K., and Kervin, L. 2008, The 'digital natives' debate: A critical review of evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol 39 No. 775-786.

Prensky, M. 2009. H. Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom. Innovate. Online at http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=1017631 [accessed: October 13, 2014]

Entry 15 IDT1415 - 9 Facts about Digital Natives

How can you structure your lesson plans to appeal to this kind of student?   

http://facultysupport.abtech.edu/are-your-students-digital-natives

I believe the answer to this question lies in another question: How well informed are you about your learners and the technology they use? Once an answer becomes available then a potential action plan can be drawn. First of all, if they are bored by traditional lectures understanding that this simply means for them to sit down passively listening to the 'lecturer' then a more proactive approach is needed e.g. guided discovery for instance.  Confucius said something along these lines: 'I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand'. A principle as simple as this one is a powerful one as all it implies is turning around our teaching so that learners are 'doing more' and 'listening' less. Now, if 90% of children play video games, then we need to find that gaming element or elements which absorb learners so much and try and reproduce it in class e.g. is it competition? Repetition? Instant feedback on performance? Individual or group interaction? What? Next, comes multitasking and how it is reportedly to decrease brain efficiency by 50%. If this is so, how is it possible for my nephew to study while listening to music through his earphones, have his Facebook page open and constantly text via Wassup? One may ask whether his grades reflect his effort or not but generally speaking he is a successful student. Or is it that as Prensky (2009) says 'digital natives are wired differently' and is thus multitasking part and parcel of the status and yet not 'a magic bullet' (Dudeney et al. 2013:26)?


The next issue to address is that of female vs male use of the internet with social networking  for the former and gaming for the latter. Again, I would argue that an informed decision would be that of trying to find a relevant link between such uses and classroom activity to open a door to these tools to enter the classroom rather than keeping the students out of the classroom. And along of informed decisions learners also need help, native or not, to understand or better realise the potential of the technology they already use.  For instance, it is possible to often see natives using technology but more often than not it is for social networking or playing rather than for learning in a stricter sense of the word. I would argue again that they need more able users or better informed users/teachers to show them that Facebook is not just for social networking but that it can also be used as a learning tool that provides the 'grounds' where students can come together as a class 'privately' and share resources, links, videos, materials and views.

What does this information tell us about what is and what is not working in the classroom?
 I would say that what is working in the classroom is the technology students bring along (BYOD) and what is not working is that they do not bring it with a BYOD approach in mind! What works in today's classrooms in those environments where the technology is available is that only those teachers and learners who have gone past the primary use of technological tools e.g. Facebook for connecting socially with others, are those individuals who are moving on up to the next level: being digitally wise while putting those tools to a 'greater' use. What does not work in today's classrooms is not thinking of our learners and how to engage them more, how to meet them half way, how to initiate a dialogue which says I am here for you not against you! 

References

Prensky, M. 2009. H. Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom. Innovate. Online at http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=1017631 [accessed: October 13, 2014]

Entry 14 IDT1415 Prensky's H. Sapiens Digital and Digtal Wisdom

Prensky's Homo Sapiens Digital article offers a fresher and less politically implicated stance as one of the key concepts is that digital wisdom trascends the distinction between digital natives and immigrants which I personally found isolating, reclusive and stigmatising. Personal experience allows me to agree with his idea of how digital technology has enhanced memory both personal and collective as I can now have access to what other teaching professionals are doing in the world and learn from them and vice versa. The very fact that we are enrolled on this course is striking evidence of the wonders of digital technology. Prensky states that D-Tech will not replace human minds but that it does enhances them via these tools, as if they were extensions of our minds and body. We are now able to do things impossible before with the added value that if digitally wise we will be able to access cognitive powers otherwise dormant. He says that there is wisdom from technological use which provides us with the understanding of how to access these cognitive powers and wisdom in 'prudent' use which in turn 'enhance our capabilities' to make decisions. In other words, the way I understand it is that my use of a clicker tool such as Geddit has resulted in a better, let's say more confident', understanding of how the tool works (wisdom from use), and this has affected or enhanced my capability (wisdom in prudent use) to make decisions as to how to and when to intervene to help my learners.

As Ed-tech is permeating the environment and becoming a permanent fixture in contexts where this is possible (this obviously opens the door to a political discussion on whether this applies to only some countries as alluded to by Shah in Oliver's CNN interview of Prensky) then accepting these enhancements is a must as they become 'integral parts' of our lives. Once this divide is fully buried under the progressive development of our digital wisdom then it will be easier to make it also part of the curriculum as Prensky suggests. Digital literacies are already being address to one extent or another, so why not digital wisdom? I believe it is because digital literacies are seen as the first step or the equivalent of English 101 and Digital Wisdom a final year subject rather than concepts which can develop simultaneously as 'social practices' (Dudeney et al.2013).

References

Dudeney, G., Hockly, N. and Pegrum, M. 2013. Digital Literacies. Research and Resources in Language Teaching. Harlow, Pearson Education.

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. 2009. H. Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom. Innovate. Online at http://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=1017631 [accessed: October 13, 2014]