Thoughts on Posts 1-3

Before I have a go at the task set in Alex's post #4, I'll write down a few thoughts I had while reading the first three posts on this topic, simply because some issues were introduced there that I find crucial for understanding the why technology is viewed in a light so different from the criteria that seem to be common to evaluate other teaching approaches/materials. I find it interesting where the opposition to integrating technology into teaching comes from. I certainly don't have the answers, but I do have an idea.

To start with, my guess is that change is very often regarded as challenge.If a (relatively) new method or new tools for a certain activity, in this case something as traditional as teaching, a re introduced, "experts" (i.e. teachers and linguists - and to a certain extent learners) in the field in question, are extremely critical, because, in a way, new technologies challenge traditional ways of doing something - they are often not perceived as help but as an intrusion.

The introduction of new techniques, or technologies, always brings critque and a call for justification in its wake. Surely, this is a healthy thing. It's not advisable to simply "let loose" technologies for CALL on classrooms or homes. The tools that are introduced need careful examination. In one of the previous posts, Alex posted a list of criteria that he looks for in a good website. Certainly, all materilas, textbooks, handouts, lesson plans and of course technology require such examination - especially in an EAP context, where the tolerance for errors is (for good reasons) extremely limited.

The reason CALL and new technologies are to extra justification probably is that they require recipients to acquire additional skills. This goes back to the problems "technophobes" have when asked to use technology in the classrom. To be honest, the usefulness of smart boards (are they really smart???) still hasn't become very clear to me. If I were trained in their use, I guess I could utilise them to make things easier. But way I see it now, I simply do not need them, and the only good they do for me is to save whiteboard markers. But maybe I am missing something. Anyway, I believe viewpoints like this explain the demand for extra justification. Whether that demand is in itself justified or not, I cannot say.

I do remember when I studied translation, a new piece of technology was introduced, allegedly producing accurate translations. There was an uproar in the "translation community" seeing as we saw ourselves become obsolete. Of course, the thing was by far not as good as claimed, and translators remain an important asset to companies, law firms, embassies etc. around the world. The reason I am saying this is that the thought quite ties in with an idea from Alex's second post (Dehumanises teaching)"takes away control from the teacher. Often teachers perceive technology to be in control of the teaching and learning, relegating the teacher to the role of supervisor/monitor". Here, a teacher would move to the background of teaching, letting technology take over while the teacher pushes the (hopefully) right buttons. If technology is perceived as such a monster - as something that occupies a teacher's space, replaces his or her skills, enslaving the teacher to tickle it in the right place to come up with a good product - and I honestly believe that is how real technophobes perceive technology - then of course there is a huge problem. I guess, technolgy, like anyhting else that is "new", especially in academia (which, I think, can at times be a bit dusty), needs careful introduction and the above-mentioned scrutiny. However, I also think that discussion like this quickly turn into witch hunts where a new idea or an alternative is categorically rejected for no rational reasons.

To make SLA theory the basis for evaluation of CALL/new technologies seems a bit risky in the light of the diversity of theories... The theories of Second Language Acquisition provide so much material for discussion that it appears some "internal" problems should be sorted out first befor making them a central evaluation criterion for something else. All this seems too vague, and one can always argue, while assessing technology, that a certain innovation does not address, say, cognitive learning or it does not follow academic conventions or it is not visual enough (or too visual) for some learners etc. The discussion is endless and perhaps even pointless since it is highly unlikely that it facitlitates objective evaluation of technology.

One thing that is mentioned, however, is very important. It actually puts the student at the centre of the evaluation, not so much theories or teachers. And that is what this is all about - the students... So, coming from this angle might be a good idea to evaluate the sense or non-sense of technology - not in general but certain items. If something is really useful for the students, it fulfils a purpose. And I belive that technology, like the robot teacher from a few weeks ago, will not be able to replace the teaching profession. At least I will not live to see it. But, given students can benefit from it, introducing some new approaches or tools to the classroom or independent study, may be a thing worth considering.