When most people think about technology in the foreign language curriculum, they probably first think of the dreaded language lab with it's endless tapes to which they must listen and recite and record. I can think of nothing worse in my four years of college than the hours I spent reciting Chinese to an old, scratchy tape deck in the "new" language lab, over and over again. I can't help but wonder, Can this really be all technology can offer us?
A few months ago, I asked a middle school Latin teacher at a very technologically advanced school if she used a computer in her classroom. She immediately responded "Of course not, a computer couldn't teach you language." I wondered, But could an audio tape?
For a few years, I worked with a software development project that created an ancient Greek database on CD ROM, which included many texts in Greek and English, a lexicon and morphological tools. Having used this in my own studies and having interviewed other users, I was pretty sure that the computer could not teach students how to read Greek. But I also know that I taught myself, most of the time, how to read Greek. I had a teacher; I even had a tutor. But every night, I relied on the computer to help me figure out what I was reading. It helped me figure out the forms and meanings. I knew immediately if I was on the right track or totally off base. It was certainly a far cry from my learning experience with Chinese back at the language lab.
But the Latin teacher's comment made me wonder if I was the only person who thought a computer could guide a student's learning of a foreign language. In other classroom subjects, the computer is fast becoming part of the furniture and is often touted to be just the sort of hands-on learning students need. In my mind, learning a foreign language is certainly hands-on (Doesn't everyone copy out vocabulary lists and make endings charts?). I certainly do not think a computer could replace a teacher or that the computer acts as the agent of learning (as the tape deck does in the language lab), but I feel very strongly that it is an instrument for learning that should be utilized.
I began reading what other people, mostly foreign language teachers and curriculum developers, thought about the integration of technology into the foreign language curriculum. But first, I realized I had very little experience even thinking about the different approaches to teaching a foreign language. I simply knew what worked for me and the learners around me. So I started with the book Managing Curricular Innovation which presented six approaches to teaching foreign languages. Two of them jumped out at me as being perfect models in which to introduce technology. The process syllabus is a curriculum without predetermined content, methodology or materials. Instead, it is learning guided entirely by the problem solving of students. The procedural syllabus is similar in it's problem solving approach, but also is task based, emphasizes that communication abilities should emerge over an undetermined amount of time and corrects errors in meaning, not grammar. The author readily admits the weaknesses and improbability of these approaches being adopted, but I found the student-centeredness of them to be exactly what I thought the computer would facilitate. Armstrong and Yetter-Vassot verbalize my sentiment best: "It [technology] is about empowering the learner" (Armstrong & Yetter-Vassot, 483).
Furthermore, it started to become
clear that the integration of technology into the foreign language classroom
really is a curricular issue, not just a methods decision. Furstenberg stresses
that
we also need to accept the fundamental changes technology may bring to the foreign language curriculum and the new vistas it may open. [For instance,] it is clear that technology to some extent defies the notion of levels (Furstenberg, 25).
Jones also expects technology will help with "expanding the traditional venues of language learning" (Jones, 30). For instance, he suggests that language education will begin to move away from the current Eurocentric perspective and will begin to include more of the Pacific Rim languages, especially as these countries rise to worldwide prominence.
But what are the curricular advantages of this student-centered, computer integrated technology? Most importantly, what can technology offer that traditional textbooks and materials can not? The first advantage most often agreed upon by curriculum designers in favor of technology integration is the accessibility to the native language in the form of news, literature and speakers. The Greek culture CD ROM to which I earlier referred is an example of a program that contains almost all of the texts, in Greek and English, available in paper form. There are now also news service Internet sites that regularly offer a country's daily news in its own language. It is possible to bring a virtual "native speaker" into the classroom in any number of ways, including audio clips, video clips and text retrieved from language specific CD ROMs or World Wide Web sites. This accessibility will also allow the students to become, in effect, immersed in the language, without having to leave the computer. Technology offer the tools and tasks that will help them understand the cultural and linguistic peculiarities of their chosen foreign language.
The Internet also offers the advantage of communication between English speaking learners and native speakers, which is traditionally limited to teacher student interaction. Classes of students can easily communicate through email or on Internet bulletin boards and newsgroups with students in other countries, which enhances both their communication skills and their foreign language writing skills.
It is also possible, in the age of budget cuts, to extend distance learning of foreign languages through new technologies. Jones praises the five college consortium in western Massachusetts for pooling their limited resources which results in more languages offered in greater depth to more students. Technology can also make this possible for schools that are not geographically nearby.
Finally, and possibly most significantly,
technology can lead language learning across the curriculum. Patrikis explains:
The computer, operating in such modes, can serve the study of literature and expand the study of language in line with current trends in foreign languages across the curriculum (Patrikis, 38).
Furstenberg continues:
Technology is useful not just in language learning but in the study of literature, culture, and film as well...technology may end up being the medium that binds together the different areas of our departments, namely language, literature, culture, and film. Hypertext and hypermedia grant users access to the many dimensions of a text: linguistic, literary, cultural, historical (Furstenberg, 21).
I taught a class using the same Greek CD ROM mentioned earlier entitled "Women in the Ancient World." It was a culture course, not Greek, and none of the students in the class had any experience with ancient Greek. But because this software brought the language, history and art together, the students did learn certain Greek words that related to their individual interests. The idea of even looking at Greek often elicits the comment "It's all Greek to me" with a hearty laugh. But in this case, the students did not even falter at the idea of discussing Greek terms, their conceptual meanings and their visual representations.
Undoubtedly, there are certain problems that will arise during integration of technology. The first is the cost of the hardware, software and Internet connections. Many schools, especially K-12 schools and small colleges, do not already have the needed infrastructure or the initial money for such an investment. But, without the actual computers, these changes can not take place. This is something that must be overcome.
Secondly, teacher training and development are a necessity for successful integration. Not only will they need to learn the applications, they will need to learn how to develop the tasks the students will have to perform. It has been suggested that one part of the solution to this problem would be collaboration with other teachers. Quite simply, no one can tackle this undertaking alone. It must be done in conjunction with others and with the support of the department and school.
Another issue that arises is where
this new type of learning will take place. Will computers just replace the tape
players in the language lab or will they be on every classroom desk? Furstenberg
describes his ideal situation, somewhere between these two options:
The ideal classroom, as I see it, is equipped with workstations placed not at the center but against walls, available at all times as resources to multiply channels of communication and to diversify forms of interaction. For communication and interaction to change, we need to alter the physical space of the classroom as well (Furstenberg, 23).
Patrikis extends this notion that technology brings learning "to the computer
cluster (wherever it might be on campus), to the dorm, to the home, to the instructor's
office" (Patrikis, 38).
Finally, there is the temptation to forget that technology is still only a tool. It can not replace the teacher. At the same time, teachers must resist the appeal of using technology to teach the traditional curriculum. For instance, it could easily replace the tape recorders of the language lab with repetitive recitation exercises. It could replace the traditional workbook by being forms-based and just requiring the learner to fill in the blanks. It could replace the video player as a presentation tool for the instruction. But these methods neither take full advantage of the multimedia and interactive features offered through technology, nor address the real issues of curricular change.
There will also be curricular changes
that teachers and students should be prepared to witness. For instance, the
different levels of instruction may cease to exist, as alluded to earlier. If
each student can learn at her own pace, surely there will not be a need to predetermined
levels of proficiency. It will also be up to the learner to guide their own
learning. Patrikis explains the many different learning approaches supported
by technology:
some students demand a heavily cognitive approach, with everything explained and written out... Other students seem to learn inductively from example and require no such explanations... Some students can whiz through alphabetical vocabulary lists... Some students want to look words up in a lexicon to find a synonym in the target language; others want English equivalents... (Patrikis, 38).
Armstrong and Yetter-Vassot also stress that not only will the students learn
the language, they will learn that learning itself is not just memorization,
but that there is a pathway of exploration for them to follow towards understanding.
Finally, new responsibilities will fall to the teacher. The teacher will no
longer be the primary source for interaction or the dictator of what will be
learned and how. Instead, the teacher will have to create appropriate tasks
to guide the learning of the student.
Most importantly, I think it is essential that teachers and curriculum developers
not lose sight of the goals of technology integration. It may be too enticing
in many situations to revert to a traditional curriculum with a new piece of
furniture. The goal of language learning itself is to be able to communicate
on a global scale. At the same time, technology offers the physical capability
of worldwide communication. This is an opportunity that is just too good to
ignore. Technology can bring a whole world to a student's desk. If technology
is effectively integrated into foreign language learning, that same student
will be able to explore the world from her desk. She will have learned how to
explore, how to understand and how to learn.
*************
This paper was written by Jennifer Powers
for Education Theory and Practice 510 (Program Development) at the University
at Albany during the Fall 1997 semester.
*************
Copyright
2000 Jennifer Powers.
Please do not quote or use as your own without written consent.
