That's what I liked most of Luke's article. Think of all the available resources and their educational benefits in terms of the decisions that most teacher end of facing every class on teaching:
- committment to language skill development and best approaches to it
- differentiated teaching to honor individual differences
- provide best scaffolding
- ensure motivation and affect
Benefits of CALL seemed to be summarized as follows:
- More student collaboration
- More communicative competence development
- Wider and better connection to various L2 communities
- Better access to data and resources
- Individual learning and scaffolding opportunities
- Lower levels of anxiety in learning
Of course we know that the mere existence of technology does not ensure that these benefits (happen in the first place, but specially that they) translate into better teaching and learning. What else does it take? From the readings we have done so far, a good reconceptualization of teachers' role(s) and what this actually means in very concrete lesson planning and practice seems key. Of course the entire approach and udnerstanding of good vs. bad learning is the other big issue. How do we go about addressing these issues with teachers?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
On Arnold and Ducate
Hi all, since one of our readings was describing blogging's benefit for language learning as an opportunity and space to record thoughts and later go back to them, I'll try to summarize to the best of my ability and time available, what I see as the main point of the readings. You can skip it and go to the comment paragraph, if you're reading this at all!
Computer technology is revolutionizing education. It is seen as valuable by teachers but not really used in its full potential in the classrooms. The reasons seem to be institutional and ideological, i.e. cultural: lack of equipment, technical support and training; lack of decision-making power by teachers (the power is in the admin); lack of understanding of the actual apps, their potential pedagogical uses and benefits, as well as inadequate teaching philosophies to actually see and embrace IT's potential for education (its use is limited to be supplemental to instruction and not actually a fundamental part of it).
This might be obvious but given what seems (from the readings) a slow progress towards full "integration" of IT into l2lt maybe still relevant. I feel that whatever teacher training is happening trying to bridge this gap should be very aware and knowledgeble about teachers' specific contexts in terms of acces to IT, their levels of digital literacies, prior knowledge and beliefs about technology, i.e., the usually complex network of institutional or contextual factors around pedagogical practice and innovation. Approach to training should be very informed, dialogical (not lectury) and aimed at facilitating a process of awareness of teachers' own attitudes and feelings towards technology and its adoption in class, of course with the least judgement possible. If I put on my instructor hat what I also would also approeciate a very concrete, experiencial and situated approach: these are a few (as we read, on aspect of technology at a time) things we can do, this is how we use them and these might be their impact on learning when looking at learning this way. I tend to get overwhelmed by the idea that there is a million things out there that I could (should! and that makes it more overwhelming of course) do, that they are incredible and revolutionary, and by the fact that I (think) don't really know how to find them, where to start. I'm sure there's a list out there of those "aspects" of technology some of the authors we read recommended to take on one at a time. One of my expectations for this course is to leave with that list and maybe begin exploring one or two items. I guess by starting this blog, I've already started, right?
This brings me to the issue of translating identification of applications into actual lesson material or ideas. We've read a lot that there is already a lot developed out there and that there's no need to reinvent the wheel. But in practice laying hands or keystrokes/mouse? on it is not that easy in my experience. As a teacher with the best of attitudes towards contributing to tech integration into l2lt I would also appreciate guidance on building a clearer and usable picture of what and where those materials are, what access to them would involve. I'm sure it's often easier to think that it will be difficult, time consuming and fruitless to try is more attractive than give it a try. So a good informational and discussion effort on this side would at least eliminate that excuse. Of course I'm aware that this "list" or "pic" change very fast but getting a snapshot of what there is and how to access it seems basic. What other measures seem key to you to bridge the intention/actual use gap identified by Arnold and Ducate?
Computer technology is revolutionizing education. It is seen as valuable by teachers but not really used in its full potential in the classrooms. The reasons seem to be institutional and ideological, i.e. cultural: lack of equipment, technical support and training; lack of decision-making power by teachers (the power is in the admin); lack of understanding of the actual apps, their potential pedagogical uses and benefits, as well as inadequate teaching philosophies to actually see and embrace IT's potential for education (its use is limited to be supplemental to instruction and not actually a fundamental part of it).
This might be obvious but given what seems (from the readings) a slow progress towards full "integration" of IT into l2lt maybe still relevant. I feel that whatever teacher training is happening trying to bridge this gap should be very aware and knowledgeble about teachers' specific contexts in terms of acces to IT, their levels of digital literacies, prior knowledge and beliefs about technology, i.e., the usually complex network of institutional or contextual factors around pedagogical practice and innovation. Approach to training should be very informed, dialogical (not lectury) and aimed at facilitating a process of awareness of teachers' own attitudes and feelings towards technology and its adoption in class, of course with the least judgement possible. If I put on my instructor hat what I also would also approeciate a very concrete, experiencial and situated approach: these are a few (as we read, on aspect of technology at a time) things we can do, this is how we use them and these might be their impact on learning when looking at learning this way. I tend to get overwhelmed by the idea that there is a million things out there that I could (should! and that makes it more overwhelming of course) do, that they are incredible and revolutionary, and by the fact that I (think) don't really know how to find them, where to start. I'm sure there's a list out there of those "aspects" of technology some of the authors we read recommended to take on one at a time. One of my expectations for this course is to leave with that list and maybe begin exploring one or two items. I guess by starting this blog, I've already started, right?
This brings me to the issue of translating identification of applications into actual lesson material or ideas. We've read a lot that there is already a lot developed out there and that there's no need to reinvent the wheel. But in practice laying hands or keystrokes/mouse? on it is not that easy in my experience. As a teacher with the best of attitudes towards contributing to tech integration into l2lt I would also appreciate guidance on building a clearer and usable picture of what and where those materials are, what access to them would involve. I'm sure it's often easier to think that it will be difficult, time consuming and fruitless to try is more attractive than give it a try. So a good informational and discussion effort on this side would at least eliminate that excuse. Of course I'm aware that this "list" or "pic" change very fast but getting a snapshot of what there is and how to access it seems basic. What other measures seem key to you to bridge the intention/actual use gap identified by Arnold and Ducate?
On the Horizon reports
I enjoyed the opportunity to become familiar with the different kinds of applications and one interpretation of their meaning in education and thereby overcome the "this-is-not-really-my-topic-and-don't-really-have-time-for-it" which I know is pretty much a cover for "I-know-I-should-learn-about-this-but-I-feel-I-ll-never-understand-it-fully-and-will-feel-stupid". So, discovering that I did understand most of it and even enjoyed it felt good. No in terms of the actual content and more general views and "doings" behind the recount and appraisal, as I already told you in class, I was quite impressed by the authors' underlying thought that the more we use (sit in front of) computers (or computer like devices) the better. I'm very interested in how IT might be revolutionizing view of learning and teaching and I am extremely itnerested in understanding the principles behind the good learning and teaching some IT applications seem to promote and generate, but I would not want to become a prisoner of this medium to participate in and hopefully enable good, healthy and meaningful learning.
Another concern that came up, as I also hinted at in in class, was to find a way to keep IT users (and particularly our students) from "naturalizing" computer-mediated representations of the world we live in (for example through Augmented Reality apps). Images and stories can't be more powerful, for me in particular, but as far as I look around for most people too. Yet images and stories are part of the vast, diverse and fascinating network of Discourses and Conversations (in Gee's and many more other Discours Analysis scholars) and agendas for the distribution of social goods and services, which as wee know include and exclude. My concern is too at least stay aware of what these Conversations are, what sides there are and where we all position ourselves (surely in more than one side).
How does this concern translates into our attitude and concrete work with IT-mediated L2 teaching?
Another concern that came up, as I also hinted at in in class, was to find a way to keep IT users (and particularly our students) from "naturalizing" computer-mediated representations of the world we live in (for example through Augmented Reality apps). Images and stories can't be more powerful, for me in particular, but as far as I look around for most people too. Yet images and stories are part of the vast, diverse and fascinating network of Discourses and Conversations (in Gee's and many more other Discours Analysis scholars) and agendas for the distribution of social goods and services, which as wee know include and exclude. My concern is too at least stay aware of what these Conversations are, what sides there are and where we all position ourselves (surely in more than one side).
How does this concern translates into our attitude and concrete work with IT-mediated L2 teaching?
Prueba...
Hey all,
Can't believe I've made it this far...
Can't believe I've made it this far...
Ok, just to start a brief comment on the Bax article...
Bax proposes to reassess the history of CALL from an interpretive (as opposed to merely factual) perspective in order to learn from the past and set an agenda for the future. His goal is full integration of CALL technology into l2 learning which he contends has not happen yet. (We’re still at the stage of fear/awe for technology on our way to full acceptance of innovation) We'll know we've achieved true integration when technology has been 'normalized', i.e., become invisible, just part of learning the way pens and books are and of course do not even require mentioning when we speak of education. The means to this final goal is to produce more in-depth ethnographies and action research to gain a better understanding of the specific dynamics of local learning environments particularly in terms of all the other factors (beyond technology itself) which play a role in normalization of technology.
The idea of “invisibilization” of technology worries me! I don’t quite buy his analogy with pens and books. They seem to be a quite different type of 'cultural artifact'. Wasn't Kramsch (via Thorne) 'just' saying (read it this morning, :) ) that the 'authority' of technology in CMC is in itself already rendered invisible and that this fact doesn't exactly help users’ empowerment and self-determination?! Do we really want it invisible?? How can we integrated it, use it in all its potential, but stay alert at what it does, what people do with it and the extend we stay aware of it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)