DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE, LINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPHY
FD10A: ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES
Summary Analysis & Task
(Read the passage then critique and assess the four student responses using the grading guidelines on page 4 below.)
INSTRUCTIONS: Using about 200 of your own words, write a coherent and grammatically correct summary of Jones and Fortescue’s account of teachers’ attitudes toward computers as a teaching tool in the language classroom.
The Passage:
In the past twenty years or so, language teachers have been called upon to adopt a whole range of technical devices: teachers who themselves mastered a foreign language with the aid of nothing more technical than a book, blackboard and chalk are now expected to be able to use slide projectors, cassette recorders, overhead projectors, language laboratories, video recorders – and now computers. There is inevitably skepticism about whether all these aids are really needed, whether some are expensive gimmicks, to be discarded after a few years when novelty value has worn off.
In the minds of many teachers, computers are still inextricably linked to the idea of programmed learning: they are stuck with the image of rows of students hunched over computer keyboards, working alone and in silence at mechanical drills. The scenario is much the same as the traditional language laboratory, except the answers are typed rather than chanted. Such teachers feel that labs have little relevance to communicative methods of language learning and that computers, after their initial popularity has waned, will go the same way as labs.
On the other hand, there are many teachers who find language laboratories very useful. They do not, however, force their students to work through endless grammar drills – though these are available if that is what the students wish to do – and see the lab as a resource to be exploited in a variety of ways, not as a dictator of one particular approach to language learning. They use it as a ‘listening library’, where students can listen to cassettes in the same way as they might read books in a library; where they can borrow cassettes to take home, as they might borrow books from a library; where they can choose from a large selection of cassettes dealing not only with grammar and pronunciation exercises but also stories, songs, news broadcasts (preferably of that day’s news), weather forecasts (for that day), interviews, current affairs programmes, and radio features on a wide variety of subject matter. In other words, the lab has become a rich linguistic environment, where learners can be exposed to and increase their knowledge of the target language.
In such a laboratory, oral work still has a place, but it is far more communicative: instead of chanting repetitious drills, learners work in pairs on writing and recording dialogues; they listen to their recordings and analyse their performance; they re-record until they are satisfied, and ask the teacher to listen to their end product and make comments.
Because it is no longer necessary for the teacher to monitor and interrogate each learner via the microphone and headphones, the design of the laboratory can be changed. Learners need no longer sit in rows facing the teacher; working positions can be arranged in clusters around tables or around the edges of walls. Because of developments in microphone and headphone technology, the old partitions separating learners and reinforcing the cell-like effect can be done away with.
This language laboratory has little in common with the lab of the sixties. The equipment is similar, in cases identical: but the way in which it is used is very different. The language laboratory has become a medium that can be used with a variety of teaching methods and for a variety of purposes. It is no longer a method in its own right, now is it inextricably linked to any one method.
It is this point that is relevant above all others to computers in language learning. As we have tried to demonstrate, the use of computers is compatible with a variety of approaches, methods and techniques of learning and teaching. The computer is a resource: it is emphatically not a ‘programmed-learning machine’.
There are other ways in which computers and language laboratories are linked in many teachers’ minds. In both cases, there were early fears that they would replace the teacher, that the teacher would become superfluous (as indeed they were when the BBC started its schools radio service in the 1920s). In the case of the language laboratory these fears proved groundless, but many teachers remain worried that the computer may oust them from the classroom, an opinion which is not shared by those who have experience of using computers with language learners.
Although fears of the computer as some kind of a rival were understandable in the fifties, when the prevailing behaviourist theories had reduced the teacher’s role to mere drill-management, the arrival of communicative language learning has given the teacher a sure and lasting edge over any kind of mechanical or electronic ‘tutor’. Nor have teachers in schools where computer assisted language learning (CALL) is used found themselves suddenly underemployed; on the contrary, as we have seen in several cases, there is more work to do than ever.
Another common barrier to CALL is a fear among teachers of the technical aspects of computes, which finds voice in the claim that they are ‘teachers, not technicians’. Such feelings are reinforced when demonstrations by enthusiastic amateurs (and sometimes professionals) go hopelessly wrong: the program will not load, or ‘crashes’ when the user innocently presses the wrong key. If the experts have trouble, the reasoning goes, how can I be expected to manage with a class of students?
This is a real enough problem. Programs can fail to load, especially if cassettes are being used rather than disks, and programmers do have a tendency to display their wares publicly before all the ‘bugs’ have been ironed out. With a combination of a well-written program and a disk-based system, however, problems are likely to arise. After switching on the computer, the teacher or learner need only press a couple of keys to get the program up and running. And so far as mechanical reliability is concerned, computers should come as a pleasant surprise to those who remember the constant breakdowns of early language labs. Most makes of computer are very reliable, and robust enough to withstand the constant use (and occasional misuse) they will have to undergo in the language classroom.
All this is not to say that CALL is problem-free. The newcomer will encounter pitfalls which can only be avoided with experience and training. But there is nothing intrinsically difficult about using computers, and no reason for the computer-illiterate teacher to feel nervous or inadequate.
Just as harmful as uninformed prejudice against computers is its opposite: an uncritical enthusiasm for all things electronic. History reveals an alarming tendency in the language teaching profession to embrace wholeheartedly on method (or piece of technology) as ‘the answer’, only to reject it equally wholeheartedly for another as disillusion sets in. Victims have included, at different times, the use of the learner’s mother tongue, the teaching of grammar, drills, the use of labels and explanations, and the language lab. Those who tell us that the non-computerised lesson is in some way inadequate should be firmly resisted: they will be the first to abandon computers for some other bandwagon as time goes on.
Equally, we should beware of dogmatism within CALL, which insists that one particular use of the computer is its only ‘proper’ role in language learning. It can take many forms. One is that any program without graphics and sound ‘fails to utilise the full potential of the machine’. Another is the claim that the computer should be used only for word-processing, or only for drills, or only for simulations. Such narrow views can only do harm, as they deny the computer’s potential as a flexible resource, and claim a false identity between machine and method.
(1,260 words)
(Adapted from Christopher Jones and Sue Fortescue (1988). Using Computers in the Language Classroom (pp.98-101). London: Longman Ltd.)
GUIDELINES FOR GRADING THE SUMMARY
Distribution of marks: [TOTAL 15]
(6) Information: accepts and completes the specific task assigned in terms of substance as well as focus* no irrelevant points included. (6) Superior 4.5-6
(6) Conciseness: uses own words to present a brief, coherent (using appropriate logical transitions/sequencing of ideas) and comprehensive account of the relevant main points (Borrowing of one or two key terms allowed except where such borrowing suggests lack of understanding). Poor organization such as fragmentation into unnecessary paragraphs should be penalized here. (6) Superior 4.5-5
(3) U/E (use of English) – appropriate use of grammar, mechanics and style (as outlined in MOCAS scheme). (3) Superior 2.5
*Candidates failing to accept the task assigned should be awarded a holistic failing grade of 0.5-5/15. Any ONE of the following constitutes failure to accept the assigned task:
Ø ignoring word limit (uses 250 or more words)
Ø summarizing entire passage instead of the specified aspects
Ø presenting substantial amounts of irrelevant material either in place of, or along with, what is relevant
Ø misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the essence of the passage
Ø excessive use of the words from the passage in place of own words
A guide to the relative values of marks:
% / 6 / 340 / 2.4 (2/6=35%) / 1.2
50 / 3 / 1.5
58 / 3.5 / -
66.7 / 4 / 2
75 / 4.5 / -
83 / 5 / 2.5
91.6 / 5.5 / -
ACTIVITY:
Using the guidelines provided above, assess the quality of each sample response below (#1 - # 4).
SAMPLE RESPONSE # 1
TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD COMPUTERS AS A TEACHING TOOL IN THE LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
In Jones and Fortescue’s book, “Using Computers in the Language Classroom”, teachers have varying attitudes toward computers in the classroom. Teachers of ancient teaching methods doubt whether ‘expensive gimmicks’ are really necessary and believe that these will be abandoned eventually when the newness has diminished.
Some teachers fear that the computers would render them redundant, but those who were experienced in the use of computers with language learners disagreed. Another fear is that teachers feel inadequate to handle the technicality of computers as they are unskilled in that area.
There are others who seize enthusiastically the computer as the sole key to language learning but readily abandon this teaching tool if something more innovative comes along.
Even though many teachers embrace the use of computers in language learning, they believe that only one use is suitable thus undermining the computer’s full capability. One belief is that the computer is not fully functional without graphics and sound; the other is that computers should be used as one might a word processor. These ideologies are due however to the ignorance of the computer’s flexibility. (182 words)
SAMPLE RESPONSE # 2
According to Jones and Fortescue (1988) the past two decades have seen a shift in methodologies. Teachers who learned a foreign language through simple methodology are now forced to use technology in teaching. Many are cynical and see its use as temporary.
For many teachers, the use of computers will produced programmed learners. They feel that using computers are reminiscent of language laboratories and therefore have little relevance in a communicative classroom.
There are other teachers who feel differently. They see it as an added learning resource which enhances students’ knowledge. There are other advantages to using the language laboratory. It is far more communicative than drill-learning, aids in group work and fosters students’ learning at their own pace with little input from the teacher.
The new language lab facilitates flexibility and can be arranged to foster a more conducive learning environment. Although the equipment is similar to that in the sixties their use is different. The new laboratory facilitates new methodologies and is itself a method.
This feature makes computers comparable to the language laboratory. The computer is also comparable to a language laboratory especially in the minds of teachers who fear expendability. Their fears are groundless as not only are they indispensable but their workload increases. Technicalities in operating the computer also cause fear. These are not unfounded, but can be overcome with proper training.
Lastly we need to be aware that both uninformed and narrow-minded persons also help to prejudice computers’ use in the language classroom. (249 words)
SAMPLE RESPONSE # 3
Jones and Fortescue in their book Using Computers in the Language Classroom documented teacher to having positive and negative attitudes to computer technology as a teaching tool. In the last two decades language teachers are required to employ technological devices and skills in their classrooms. Teachers who used simple technical skills are expected to accept computers and other technical gazettes. Presently computers are associated with programmed- learning. Novice teachers view lab as irrelevant to communicative methods of language learning. However some teachers find language labs resourceful, and reliable since its mode of delivery is easily assimilated via user-friendly machinery rather than laborious rote memory. Computers incorporated in language classrooms serves as a “listen library” where learners acquire and maximize on knowledge of the target language. This is more communicable and pupil oriented as group work promotes documentation, analysis satisfaction and relies on the teachers for comments and supervision only. Computer in the Language classroom facilitates remodification of labs and fosters group efforts with the inclusion of audio technology. The usage of the language classroom is different from former years since this is a compatible medium that employs a variety of approaches, methods and techniques The computer is not a programmed- learning machine but a useful resource. Similarities of computer and language to the teacher are the fear that the device will redundant teacher from classroom .its longevity and failure of programme. The arrival of communicative learning language endorsed by amateur and professional gave teachers consolation over the mechanical and electronic tutors. The inadequacy of computer illiterate teachers can only be rectified with experience and training. (266 Words)