--- Forwarded Message from "David Pankratz" <[log in to unmask]> ---

>Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 10:58:59 -0600
>From: "David Pankratz" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: #5296.8 Technology and Enhanced Student Learning (!)

I would like to add support to the observation that technology has
made the "sights and sounds" of authentic culture more accessible to
students, and that alone is powerful. There is no doubt that through
video technology alone, our current students know more about what it
looks like, what it feels like, and how to go about handling
themselves in a foreign language environment. Their listening
comprehension skills, foremost, and to a perhaps lesser extent their
speaking skills are greatly improved if they are exposed to authentic
language and culture through video. Of course good teaching and
pedagogically effective use of the material is key.

You can probably tell that I personally think that video has made
perhaps the greatest impact on the _potential_ of using technolgy to
enhance foreign language teaching.  I think that thus far the verdict
on digital, i.e., computer technology, is mixed. Many of the grammar
based programs attain perhaps no more than hard study with book,
pencil and paper can achieve, at least for some students. But quick
and efficient access to again, the "sight and sounds" of the language
and culture, is of great value. Computers are good at providing this.
I suppose the bottom line is that engaging and interactive instruction
achieves more than passive absorbtion of the material, and this is
where technlogy can really shine. It seems I always return to the
"teaching" side, as have so many others who have commented on this
topic.

I think we should keep trying to mesure the benefits of "technology,"
but we also need to caution observers that it is very difficult to
quantitatively determine who has learned what using what technology.
On the other had, I understand the agony of administrators who have to
justify spending lots of money on technology without hard data on its
effectiveness. I think one of the roles we can play is trying to
minimize cost by looking really hard at what we believe is working and
effective, and recommend expenditures for those items only.
Ethically, we should understand that whenever we recommend large
expenditures for our university, our students will pay the cost. By
and large, it's their money we're spending. Our administrators will
respect our views more if they have the impression that we are
discerning, and that we are not always in favor of every bit of
"technology" that comes down the road.

That know that was long-winded, but I was energized by the excellent
discussion that is taking place here!

David Pankratz
Loyola University Chicago


Administrators are favorably mpressed by professionals who
distinguish between expenditures
>>> LLTI-Editor <[log in to unmask]> 11/04 7:48 AM >>>
--- Forwarded Message from Michael Bush <[log in to unmask]> ---

>Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 08:35:58 -0700
>From: Michael Bush <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: RE: #5296.4 Technology and Enhanced Student Learning (!)
>In-reply-to: <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum
   <[log in to unmask]>
>Importance: Normal

------------------
Cindy Jorth's provost asked her the following questions:
> "How have instructors integrated
> technology into their teaching, and
> does the use of technology enhance
> student learning?"   I.e. Whether
> or not the use of the technology
> enhances student learning in some
> measurable and discernable way.

Ursula Williams and Nina Garrett gave concise answers that are as
good
(probably better!) as any I have ever seen.  The bottom line is that
good
instruction is good instruction, no matter the medium of delivery.
Nevertheless, there are things that a teacher can do WITH technology
that he
or she cannot do without it.  We can summarize technology use under
the
heading, "enriching the language learning experience with the sounds
and
images of the target culture."  In other words, we can do things
today that
have been either difficult at best or impossible at worst in the
past.  The
really fun thing is that we are just getting started, given that we
are only
now pulling out of the Model A / Model T era of digital technology.
Sure,
technology has become increasingly available, but it has been
expensive,
often difficult to use, and not always reliable.  Fortunately, all
that is
changing fast.

The bottom line is that research has shown that there are things that
the
technology can do at least as well as a teacher.  (For a look
specific to
distance education see
http://cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/).  Yet we
know in
our heart of hearts that there are things that a good teacher can do
that
the technology will not be able to do for the foreseeable future.
The trick
is to figure out what those are so that instructional tasks can be
assigned
accordingly.

The really cool part of it all, is that those things that a teacher
does
best (activities that are dynamic, interactive, unpredictable,
open-ended,
divergent) are also those things that are the most fun for the
teacher to
accomplish.  Finally, Cindy's provost is not alone in wanting PROOF,
however, it is also becoming increasingly clear that programs can
adapt to
the digital future or cease to exist: "Technology will not replace
teachers.
Teachers who use technology will replace teachers who don't."  (We
often
attribute that phrase to Ray Clifford, although I had a visitor at
the Air
Force Academy who summarized things that way some time before Ray.  I
am
reasonably sure that Ray is the first to get it into print.)

Cheers,

Mike
Michael Bush
Associate Professor of French and
Instructional Psychology and Technology
Brigham Young University
[log in to unmask]
http://moliere.byu.edu/digital/