--- Forwarded Message from Rachel Saury <[log in to unmask]> ---
>Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:13:38 -0400
>To: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum <[log in to unmask]>
>From: Rachel Saury <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: #5746 The LRC conundrum
>In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
------------------
Dear Ursula and friends,
Ursula, thanks for your thoughts. I have given much thought to this, as
well. At UVA, we have put in a "state-of-the-art" language laboratory: 60
student workstations, a video server, and the Tandberg
Divace/ICM. Everything was installed a year ago to the tune of $360,000
plus $600,000 for renovations of the space. Some nights, I would wake up
sweating thinking, "Oh my god, what if this cadillac doesn't get used--what
will become of us--what will become of me!?"
During the 2-3 years prior to the "upgrade" of the new lab, I did a great
deal of outreach to faculty (or "faculty development", as it is called in
our field), preparing them for what was to come. This endeavor continues
today in a more full-blown version. We now have what is called a "Support
Partner" program--these are graduate positions partially paid for by my
center and partially paid for by the Office of the Provost and the foreign
language departments (there are six, plus two other
departments--anthropology and religious studies--who also teach some odd
languages) to do outreach to and consultation with the faculty on how to
use the new technologies in teaching. My predecessor in this position,
Wynne Stuart, whom many of you know, also did a lot of drumming up interest
in technology during her 10 or so years in this position and Jackie Tanner
before her. I have also been lucky because the man who stepped into the
dean's position 3 years ago is a visionary and is interested in keeping UVA
at the top of the heap in the publicly-funded arena. He knew technology
was key in this game. Therefore, he was willing to advocate the use of
technology throughout the university and to throw money that way.
Because of prior history, the structure of the University (not having all
the language instructors in one department and our center reporting to the
dean), and the work we've done in the past 4 years, our lab was full prior
to the upgrade and continues to be full to the gills today--so full that we
are going to try making some materials accessible via the Web next Fall in
order to free up seats. However, this doesn't mean that the new
technologies are always being used innovatively--in other words, in ways
different than the way the old tape-based Tandberg lab we had was being
used before. A few are and there are intimations of interesting things to
come. But it has become very clear to me after one year of living and
working in this new facility that more is needed. Therefore, I am taking
more of a leadership role in suggesting new paradigms for teaching using
the technology. Part of this means hard lobbying of deans, department
chairs, individual faculty, and even graduate students. Nonetheless, it is
a slow process and it is a process that is specific to this setting. I've
become used to being the squeaky wheel and try to remind myself not to get
discouraged when I'm met with blank stares or even downright animus.
I think everything depends upon the culture of your own setting. In the
same way that we know certain foreign language departments here at UVA are
starting at a very rudimentary level in their use of technology--even on
their desktops--and therefore need more hand-holding and encouragement, I
think various institutions are at very different levels in the technology
adoption cycle (as identified by a variety of people, including Sir John S.
Daniels, Vice Chancellor of the Open University of the UK). You might be
interested in looking at some of these materials (you can find references
to them in a paper I've posted to the Web at
: http://www.people.virginia.edu/~res4n/presentations/VCCSkeynote.htm).
The basic premise is that first there are the "innovators", then there are
the "early adopters". They are the ones who are willing to take risks with
technology in their classrooms and who may also be able to take a tool and
figure out how to adapt it to their pedagogical goals and methods. After a
period of growth in the use of technology among these two groups, there
generally appears a chasm or a state that appears to be stasis or running
aground.
The next two groups, the "early majority" and "late majority" are generally
more risk-adverse, want to see direct and immediate pay-offs for the time
put into developing new tools. They are more conservative and harder to
convince. Yet they represent the mainstream. I think most institutions
right now are hovering at the edge of this chasm. Crossing the chasm not
only represents getting the mainstream group to adopt new technologies in
teaching, but also to adopt new paradigms for teaching--collaborative,
problem-based, student-centered, autonomous/self-paced, distance learning,
etc.
If we look at this chasm as a period of transition in our field, as well as
in the academy as whole, then new solutions can come to the fore. We can
tailor our approaches to what type of technology to install or use and what
type of development to do with faculty based upon where our institution,
where individual departments, and where individual faculty currently sit in
the technology adoption cycle. Therefore, various approaches to lab design
are needed. It may be that at one institution, a lab within 4 walls is not
necessary, while at another it may be critical. Clearly, Otmar Foelsche's
solution at Dartmoouth works there, while at UVA, having a
teaching/learning facility contained within 4 walls is essential and
probably will continue to be for years to come. Yet since technology as it
now works enables space to be virtual, there is no reason to think that
there must be a lab. Your server can reach outwards both in space and
time. As the technology develops, how that piece of hardware is used can
remain responsive to the needs and interests of the faculty and
students. It need not become obsolete.
I've been doing a lot of research in the area of distance learning, because
I think they've got their fingers on the pulse of where we're going with
technology and can inform and provide vision to those of us who are used to
thinking within 4 walls and within our own discipline--foreign
languages. Thinking about space and time as boundaryless and remembering
that the adoption of technology is a process that evolves over time along
with generational change has helped me leave behind the inevitable sense of
despair that we lab directors feel when we see our huge and expensive
servers and computers being used in limited and limiting ways--or not being
used at all. On the other hand, it is important to have those pieces of
hardware sitting there, because it is clear that without it, NOTHING will
happen. The tools have to be available for consciousness to shift.
A colleague of mine said to me the other day after we had spent hours
trying to figure out why the Chinese and Japanese students' posting to the
Web in Asian scripts had not been working, "You know, we're going to look
back 10 years from now and be amazed at what we were willing to try, what
we were willing to risk. We're pushing the edges here of what is really
do-able with the current state of the technology. It's not easy." Having
acknowledged how we all suffer over this stuff, maybe at Notre Dame, the
solution is to think of "cutting edge", and "state-of-the-art" as virtual,
not literal. Find ways to harness the power of the Web as the space for
innovation. Maybe the faculty can be shown how the Web can be used *more*
effectively, *more* dynamically--Web based course administration tools,
Web-based collaborative writing tools, chat rooms, audio- and
videoconferencing, Web-based interactive exercises. Can the Web or other
distance learning tools be used to create connections in our classrooms and
even our labs with Study Abroad programs and/or campuses overseas? Over
time as faculty are shown these things, perhaps Notre Dame's unique place
on the spectrum of technology use in teaching can be carved out as the
mainstream begins to see new possibilities. It may take 3, 5, 7 years or
more. But I believe it's coming there--it's coming everywhere. We just
need to realize that those of us who sit in our labs are among the
innovators and adopters. It is up to us to have the vision to see across
the chasm and to find the best path for our institutions, to lead the
mainstream.
Have a great conference up there and good luck!
Cheers!
Rachel Saury
At 08:31 AM 10/5/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>--- Forwarded Message from Ursula Williams <[log in to unmask]> ---
>
> >Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:40:30 -0500
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >From: Ursula Williams <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: The LRC conundrum
>
>Dear llti colleagues,
>
>I wonder if we could spend some time discussing two approaches to
>Language Lab design philosophy, if you will. I know the issue comes
>up from time to time in face-to-face discussions, but I do not recall
>seeing it in this venue, and I would be very interested in learning
>what your opinions are.
>
>The two approaches I have in mind are "Field of Dreams" (If you build
>it they will come) and what we could call the Needs-Based Orientation
>("Field of Needs?" Sorry.) I tend to look at these two approaches as
>being at the opposite ends of some continuum, so that there are
>points along a line that might include some of both bases; that word
>not being the plural of "base" as in "baseball" but rather of
>"basis," not wishing run (oops) too far with the baseball metaphor.
>
>The reason for opening this topic is that the Language Resource
>Center at Notre Dame is under review this year. One of the goals, as
>communicated by the Dean of Arts and Letters to the review committee,
>is for the LRC to be a part of the goal of elevating the stature of
>the University as a whole. (Yeah, we're only in the top 20 of US
>News; we want to be in the top ten. Really.)
>
>This brings to mind the phrase "state of the art." I could easily
>design a rip-snortin' whiz-bang 5000 Language Resource Center, but if
>it sat empty because our instructors don't feel the need to use it
>what would be the point? I don't think it would be ethical to have an
>LRC that would be showcased in some national magazine if, as we have
>experienced before, some of the equipment sits idle until the
>warranty runs out. On the other hand, this year the LRC does sit
>empty for an alarming amount of time, due to the fact that the
>Spanish program (about 1200 students) has eliminated the lab
>requirement, going instead to WebCT-based exercises, which do not, by
>the way, include an audio production component. (No telling what
>might happen next year.)
>
>Another facet: I joke with my staff that one of these years it'll
>just be me and a big old server, and that'll be the Language Lab. The
>joke works, I think, because there is a grain of truth in it; it
>certainly could be a possibility, if that's what the instructors and
>students need.
>
>So, at the risk of stealing an upcoming MWALL session, I ask,
>"Whither the Language Lab?" If we go 100% needs-based, will we always
>be out of date a few years later? If we go with the verdant field
>with night-lighting, will they come? Will we be out of date a few
>years later either way?
>
>
>Ursula
>Language Resource Center
>University of Notre Dame
>
>PS Please don't worry about the MWALL folks not having anything left
>to say at the meeting. That has never been one of their (our)
>problems.
Rachel E. Saury, Ph.D.
Director, Arts & Sciences Center for Instructional Technologies
P.O. Box 400784
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4784
(804) 924-6847 ph.
(804) 924-6875 fax
www.people.virginia.edu/~res4n
|
