Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

15th Warwick International Postgraduate Conference in Applied Linguistics 26th 27th June 2012 ABSTRACT Technophilia refers generally

y to having a strong enthusiasm for technology. Technophobia, on the other hand, is a fear or dislike of advanced technology or complex devices. For 30 years or more, the successful operation of computers, laptops and other more recent forms of technology often depends on whether a person is instinctively one or the other type. I wish to argue that, far from being complex, technology is now as ubiquitous and as simple to use as it has ever been and that there is no need for technophobia amongst EFL teachers today. As part of my MA dissertation, I am exploring the area of teacher autonomy in respect of learning about ICT (Information Communication Technology) and the tools that can be used in and outside of the ELT classroom, beginning with the question of what are teachers actually doing now? I will be conducting several interviews , webinars and online chats with current EFL teachers, their motivation for using them in and outside of the classroom and the technical skills required to be confident of using them successfully. This may also cover the barriers or pressures involved. As an extension of the research carried out for my Professional Practice module, I may also investigate the benefits of using screen capture tools, the technical skills required and how teachers can develop online material for their students. I will also look at the attitude, beliefs and both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of the teachers to using web tools.

Philip Longwell 1163612

15th Warwick International Postgraduate Conference in Applied Linguistics 26th 27th June 2012

Some definitions.. Ive only got 20 minutes so I am going to get straight on with this and leave a possible 10 minutes at the end for Questions. In my abstract I make a bold claim that there is no need for technophobia amongst EFL teachers today. I am not actually going to argue that, because I cant. While generally you might agree that technology is ubiquitous and that you cant move nowadays for the people around you being connected to one kind of device or another, often simultaneously, you may be sceptical that these devices are as simple to use as ever. I could show you how simple it is to use some web tools, but this isnt really the time or place. Instead, what I will do, is take this opportunity to outline the theme of my dissertation research which is very much research in a state of flux, complete with flaws and questionable methodology. Your opinion on that dichotomous relationship that I highlight in the abstract possibly depends on whether you consider yourself a technophobe or a technophile, or more likely, somewhere in between. How you define or perceive yourself in relation to technology can impact on your capacity to develop in this area. So how can we define technophobia + technophobe? From Greek - techn, "art, skill, craft" + - phobos fear. The technophobe fears or dislikes technology, often
regarding some or all technology with fear. This may be as a consequences of fear of change, a prior catastrophic experience with technology or because it may lead to a process of dehumanization. This has been widely popularised in literature and film Mary Shelleys

Frankenstein; Fritz Langs Metropolis; Philip K. Dicks Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The Terminator movies and Asimovs I Robot. Definitions of technophilia or technophile: From Greek: - techn, "art, skill, craft" + philos love ... refers generally to a strong enthusiasm for technology, especially new technologies such as laptops, smart phones and tablets such as the iPad. So we might think of computer geeks, maybe gamers, programmers or of Stephen Fry. At the extreme end, these are the enthusiasts, the kinds of people who camp outside an It might be argued that it is far more common in
science fiction and many TV shows to portray benevolent machines coming to the aid of mankind. Just look at Star Trek, Knight Rider, and Wall-E.

The technophile sees most or all technology as positive, adopting technology enthusiastically, and seeing it as a means to potentially improve life and combat social problems. The term is used when examining the interaction of individuals with their society, especially contrasted with technophobia. Technophilia and technophobia are the two extremes of the relationship between technology and society.

15th Warwick International Postgraduate Conference in Applied Linguistics 26th 27th June 2012

Alternative typologies.. The only relevant study I have found in ELT which uses these terms from the outset (Lam, 2000) was a small scale study which looked at the decision to use or not to use technology when it was available to them. It concluded that the reasons for not using technology lay more in the lack of pedagogical benefits they saw rather than an outright fear. One implication was that it felt it necessary to convince them of the benefits of using it in the classroom (ibid, 411). It raised the issue of over-technophilic institutions possibly wasting money on equipment which lay dormant with blame being put on teachers, perceived as being technophobes. Technophobes and Technophiles might be seen on a continuum with these terms as polar opposites. I thought this might be a good way to frame my research, but there are other ways of describing peoples relationship with technology Digital Natives vs Digital Immigrants Another widely held distinction is (or was) that there is a cohort of digital natives (Prensky, 2001) or the net generation (Tapscott, 1998; Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005). This generation has been portrayed as having spent their whole lives immersed in technology, surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age (Prensky, 2001: 1). By the sheer volume of their interaction in this ubiquitous environment (ibid), they possess sophisticated knowledge of and skills with information technologies which, in turn, informs their learning preferences. A clear distinction is made between learners of a certain age and those who are older, so-called, digital immigrants. Despite not being born into it, the latter generation, have become fascinated by and adopted many of the newer technologies. Their foreign accent, which translates as having one foot in the past (Prensky, 2001: 2), however, never disappears entirely. Whilst the existence of an accent might be argued to feature in a whole generation of immigrants, it is often characterised by anecdotal evidence and appeals to commonly held beliefs (Bennett et al, 2008: 777). It is argued that there is little empirical evidence to the claims that this arbitrary divide exists. By not empirically backing up this contention, Prenskys words only sought to create an academic form of a moral panic. Whilst use of technology may, indeed, often appear to be more natural for a younger generation, it does not necessarily follow that the skill sets demonstrated are of a higher level, or that the emergent technologies that have come along with the evolution of Web 2.0, which includes YouTube and Twitter, have not been taken up predominately amongst younger users. In educational settings, teachers may well have found themselves learning these new web tools as a complement to their teaching practice, and as a recommendation by their peers, not because they find their students using them already. In this sense, the appearance of the use of technological devices might be
3

15th Warwick International Postgraduate Conference in Applied Linguistics 26th 27th June 2012

separated from the use of web or ICT tools. Both require learning, but I wish to propose an investigation of how that happens. For this, I will collect data from teachers, many of whom are born between those arbitrary years of 1980 1994. Of course, it is worth pointing out that Prensky postulated his typology in 2001. Now, in 2012, can we still operate within a relatively narrow framework of just what year you need to have been born in to qualify as a digital native? Digital Residents vs Digital Visitors A better and more recent typology has been proposed (White and Le Cornu, 2008/2011) which seems to more accurately define two contrasting but not polar opposite users of technology, especially the web. A visitor goes into a garden shed and selects a particular tool to carry out a task. It might not be ideal but it does the job and as long as progress is made, they are content. Visitors are unlikely to have a persistent profile online as they might be wary of their digital identity being known to all. The technophobic angle of fear comes to play in how they manage their online presence. Thus, a real friend has a greater value than a social network friend and while VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) services, like Skype, might be a great tool to have a conversation with that friend, a continuously updated status on Facebook is not the ideal way to maintain or improve that friendship. A resident, on the other hand, pictures the Web as a meeting place for exchanges of all manner of ideas, opinions and activities. A significant proportion of their lives is played out online. For residents, the Web is a place to express opinions, a place in which relationships can be formed and extended. Not only do they trust online shopping facilities but they maintain a digital identity, in the form of status updates, tweeting about an event they are attending and maintaining a blog. The metaphor of tool, ICT tool and web tool alike, fits the criteria of someone, a teacher, for example, who looks to the functionality of choosing something which does a job. Place, however, is more social. Many self-described technophobes, immigrants or even visitors may limit their online activity for good reason. It might not be simply having a lack of experience or being born at the wrong time. It can be a fairly conscious decision not to engage for fear of wasting time or being sucked into something which causes anxiety and frustration. The Visitors-Residents paradigm appears to represent a more fluid and engaging way to frame my exploratory research into how EFL teachers use ICT and web tools. How they learn about such tools may depend on to what extent they are a resident or merely a visitor. I now wish to move on to discuss what technology is and what is an ICT or Web Tool.

15th Warwick International Postgraduate Conference in Applied Linguistics 26th 27th June 2012

Some more definitions..[PRE-RECORDED] What is technology and what is an ICT/Web Tool ? Earlier this month I conducted my first webinar and asked this question in my virtual classroom. Immediately, someone suggested the pen and this is the pedants answer. Someone else suggested paper. But neither of these is new. Technology was said to be defined by the time it is introduced. Definitions widened to include anything we use to extend our natural capabilities, although now its often used to mean computer technology. Someone else said it was Everything more complicated than a pen and paper - starting from OHPs, any type of sound or video recorders, through to computers, smartphones and tablets. Some responded that an ICT tool is probably no different from a piece of technology that is used to extend our natural capabilities. So it can include laptops, smartphones and tablets. However, when placed alongside web tools definitions became more synonymous with the kinds of technologies found on the Internet, on the web, which can either be accessed and used directly or downloaded and used offline. Examples were materials creation tools, voice recording tools, podcasting tools, presentation tools, ones which can display a mixture of visual, sound and text elements, and integration tools, such as Wikis and Edmodo, which is a social learning network space where teachers and students can interact) Although the terms are interchangeable, my approx.. definition technology as
hardware; ICT/Web Tools as software.

There is now some association with a web tool being something which began with the arrival of the so-called Web 2.0, which evolved thanks to faster connection speeds, and more complex programming software, which enables every user to interact, collaborate, create their own content and to share.

Examples of ICT/Web Tools [PRE-RECORDED] As part of my MA I investigated a number of Web Tools that are either currently used by EFL teachers or have the potential to be used, writing about them on a blog. I eventually discussed about 16 tools, such as MailVu video email, Wallwisher a virtual noticeboard, Penzu an online journal creator, Bubblr a slideshow with captions maker, MyBrainshark a brilliant and versatile way to get students speaking, and Jing which I am sure many of you know about. But during that time and since then I have discovered hundreds more, but have not been able to fully try them out in the classroom because I am not currently teaching. I am not going to go into any detail about what each of these do. Suffice to say, there is a real relevance for language learning in the engaging, collaborative, constructivist characteristics they bring. To be attractive they usually need to be free, accessible, user-friendly both for teacher and
5

15th Warwick International Postgraduate Conference in Applied Linguistics 26th 27th June 2012

student, practical, and justified on pedagogical grounds. There is no point using a tool just for the sake of it. If a tool, such as MyBrainshark is to be effective an underlying reason, such as the need for students to practice and practice their speaking or to present a portfolio of work needs to be established first. Imagine a teacher, who also a digital visitor, going into the garden shed and selecting one of these tools for a purpose. It may not always be perfect, but it gets the job done. But despite the real benefits of these tools, many teachers would be reluctant or have built-in personal barriers or external constraints to using them. They may be overwhelmed by the sheer choice and need help selecting a tool. That is where work colleagues or the institution a teacher works for might not be enough. Online communities exist, but to what extent a teacher utilises them may well be up to their own autonomy. I am interested in how autonomous teachers are and looking at this as part of my investigation. Teacher-Learner Autonomy In terms of how autonomous teachers are when discovering and learning about new tools I will be using definitions of teacher autonomy. Back in 1991, David Little established the often quoted definition of learner autonomy a capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision making and independent action (Little: 4) on the part of the learner. This capacity is displayed in the way that the learner transfers what has been learned to wider contexts. Teacher Autonomy or more correctly, Teacher-Learner Autonomy can be seen as the ability to develop appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes for oneself as a teacher, in co-operation with others (Smith, 2003:1). In an analogous relationship to learner autonomy, it might also be defined as the capacity, freedom, and/or responsibility to make choices concerning ones own teaching. (Aoki, in Benson, 2007: 31). There is a strong link between definitions of learner autonomy and the expectations and motivations to foster this amongst students and a teachers own willingness to be autonomous themselves. Much of the literature treats teacher autonomy as a professional attribute, involving a capacity for self-directed professional development (Benson, 2007: 30). More recently, the emphasis has been on freedom from constraint and the teachers efforts to promote autonomy amongst their learners in constraining settings, often outside of their control (ibid: 30).

15th Warwick International Postgraduate Conference in Applied Linguistics 26th 27th June 2012

Ian McGrath (2000) attempted to identify different dimensions. McGraths separation of teacher autonomy as (1) self-directed action or development and (2) as freedom from control by others was the basis for a later distinction. In 2003 Smith expanded this. Prior definitions, he [Smith] argued, have tended to advocate one aspect to the exclusion of others, from teacher autonomy as a generalised right to freedom from control to teachers capacity to engage in self-directed teaching to teachers autonomy as learners. (Smith, 2003: 1) Action and development is not necessarily the same thing. In addition, a further similar distinction is required between capacity for and/or willingness to engage in self-direction and actual self-directed behaviour. 2003: 4) In this definition involving distinctive parts, there are three dimensions in relation to professional action and three in relation to professional development. Action can be seen as teaching and development as teacher-learning. I aim to explore these dimensions in relation to teachers learning and implementation of ICT and Web tools. Does a capacity or willingness for self-directed professional development affect actual teaching behaviour. Does a freedom from control outside an institution manifest into daily practice? I realise that I am looking at the area of ICT uptake rather than wholesale pedagogical change for the teacher. But I hope I can find a way to relate these dimensions to the area that I am investigating. Taxonomy of ELT use in ICT Right now I am investigating what is happening amongst currently practicing teachers. I have just devised a questionnaire and sent this out in the last few days. As of this morning, I had ____ responses. Some key questions are as follows: What are they doing in respect of professional development in this area? What technologies are they already using in their teaching practice? What ICT tools have they used or do they already use? (Smith,

Further Questions:

15th Warwick International Postgraduate Conference in Applied Linguistics 26th 27th June 2012

How do they find out about them? Do they expect training? (if Employed?) How autonomous are they in learning about the tools themselves and does their teacher-learner autonomy > teacher autonomy? Conclusion & Questions

References:
Aoki, N. 2000. Aspects of teacher autonomy: Capacity, freedom and responsibility. Paper presented at 2000 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Language Centre Conference. In Smith, R. 2003. Bennett, S., Maton, K and Kervin, L. 2008. The digital natives debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Education Technology. 39/5: 775-786. Benson, P. 2007. Autonomy in language teaching and learning State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching 40:21-40. Lam, Y. 2000. Technophilia vs. Technophobia: A Preliminary Look at Why Second-Language Teachers Do or Do Not Use Technology In Their Classrooms. The Canadian modern language review / La revue canadienne des langues vivantes. Vol 56/3: 389-420. Lamb, T., and Reinders, H. (eds) 2007. Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Concepts, Realities and Responses. Amsterdam. John Benjamins. Little, D. 1991. Learner Autonomy 1: definitions, issues, and problems. Dublin: Authentik. McGrath, I. 2000. Teacher Autonomy. In Sinclair B,. McGrath, I and Lamb, T (eds). Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions. Harlow: Longman. Prensky, M. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On The Horizon 9/5. MCB University Press. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/ypgvf Smith, R.C. 2003. Teacher education for teacher-learner autonomy. In Symposium for Language Teacher Educators: Papers from three IALS symposia (CD-Rom), J Gollin, G Ferguson and H Trappes-Loman (Eds.) Edinburgh. IALS. University of Edinburg. Also available online: www.warwick.ac.uk/~elsdr/Teacherautonomy.pdf Accessed 7 May 2012. White, D and Le Cornu, A. 2011. Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday. 16/9. Available online at: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3171/3049. Accessed 13 June 2012. First aired on a blog: http://tallblog.conted.ox.ac.uk/index.php/2008/07/23/not-natives-immigrants-butvisitors-residents/ <DISPLAY montage image> from: http://learningtolead.edublogs.org/files/2010/05/Web-20-Collage-v2by-nickrate.jpg>

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen