In the section on “word processing and the reinvention of writing” we were introduced to the idea that spelling tools in modern word processing technologies might induce teachers of composition to rethink the manner in which their students use digital writing technology. I have found this to be unequivocally true and would like to add to this by highlighting the manner in which I have had to rethink composition as the teacher of beginners language classes, where digital writing technology and online translation services have come to play an increasingly more prominent role.
My experiences as a language teacher have put me in a unique position to observe the transition from paper-based writing to digital writing technology, particularly as it relates to beginner language learners in the language classroom. My students are typically 13 years of age, they have had some exposure to the target language but are only beginning to formulate coherent paragraphs. The school requires all students to be in possession of a MacBook laptop and each class has virtually controlled access to the internet. However, students are still expected to write with pen and paper, particularly when they take quizzes and exams.
Most of our work is done online. Typically, students make use of digital writing technologies such as Google Docs to compose their work. It reduces the amount of paper used, allows for easier storage and organization, and it looks tidier. What I have observed is that students rely heavily on certain functions of writing software such as editing tools in order to produce work of a high quality. Furthermore, students also make excessive use of online translation tools simply because they have access to them. In the end, what this means is that the work the teacher sees is not really an accurate reflection of a student’s ability to use the target language.
However, when students are required to write on paper, the resulting work is a far better indication of a student’s ability to use the language. Students are visibly more engaged with the writing process. They ask questions more readily, which enables the teacher to gauge the areas in which they need assistance (e.g. the use of connecting words or conjugation of verbs). When students are prohibited from excessive reliance on digital editing tools, they make the language errors which are so essential for the language learning process.
I would argue that it is the ease of access to digital writing technology and online translation services that presents the biggest problem to language learning. Plugging a sentence from one’s mother-tongue into Google translate is a rapid and effective means of producing writing in a target language. Unsurprisingly, and particularly at the beginner level, translated sentences are relatively free of significant grammatical errors, further encouraging the use of digital writing technologies. But access is not the only problem. Word processors and editing tools mean that students do not have to remember how to spell.
We have already heard about the deterioration of memory upon the advent of writing technology (Ong, 2002). This phenomenon coincides with the remediation of verbal production by writing technology. Word processing tools render the memorization of a word virtually obsolete. This, in itself is not significant. However, for the most part students are still required to put pen to paper for their tests and final examinations. This is when word processing technology has put them at a disadvantage. Their reliance on word processing technology to correct their spelling (and in some cases even conjugation) has meant that they are unlikely to spell correctly. Knowing words, including their spelling, constitutes part of what it means to know a language.
As digital writing technology and online translation software becomes more readily available and more accurate, the challenge for the beginner language teacher will be to temper its use in the classroom in the interests of facilitating proper acquisition of the target language. In other words, it is up to the beginner language teacher to find a way to use digital writing technology to support language learning rather than supplant it. Writing technology can be an extremely powerful tool for composition, provided it is properly used and does not detract from the language learning process, one instance being memorization as it pertains to spelling.
(Words: 719)
References:
Ong, W.J. (2002). Orality and Literacy: Technologizing the Word. New York, The United States of America: Routledge.
See also:
Sagar-Fenton, B. & McNeill, L. (2018). How many words do you nee
bradley forsyth
July 4, 2018 — 12:03 pm
Hi George,
I found your post very interesting and thought provoking, particularly the effects of translation tools in language learning. I completed my second language requirements for my undergrad through online distance education a number of years ago, and can attest to both the positive and negative qualities of translation services such as Google translate. The obvious difficulty in attempting to learn a language by distance education was the absence of peer contact. I found I could learn the rules of the language and how to read and write easily enough, but was severely lacking in the ability to communicate orally in a natural fashion. I needed to memorize my answer to predetermined questions ahead of time. I often used Google translate, which was not nearly as accurate as it currently is, to check my answers, but it was certainly easy to become too reliant on the tool rather than to allow myself to make mistakes and fully explore why they were made. I can imagine the temptation would be similar if not greater for younger students, so I can certainly appreciate grappling with the appropriate use of such technology in the classroom.
Outside of education I can see the value in translation technologies in a globalized world, such as the ability to use live translator applications while travelling for basic communication. I use Google translate quite often in my line of work to translate documents that need to be assessed, although, it still only works accurately on more basic sentence structures despite how advanced the technology has become. For me, this is sufficient, but as a method to learn a language it is certainly limited in its ability to recognize the nuances of a language. Relying on an intermediary crutch disrupts human connection and undermines the value of learning a second language.
As I was briefly researching this topic some common themes I noticed was the argument for the need to rethink our educational system and second language learning, as the increasing accuracy and accessibility of translation tools will make language learning obsolete. I found these arguments to be a bit extreme, but found parallels in the questions posed by Kaplan and Moulthrop (1990) regarding the rise of the word processor- do we need to redefine these subjects and what role should technology play in teaching? These questions will continue to arise with further technological advancements. Kaplan and Moulthrop contend that “technological change calls for ways of seeing that are broad, not narrow.”
Garcia and Pena (2011) conducted a study exploring the effects of translation machines on language learning for beginners and found that they could help beginner learners write more and marginally better with less effort, but acknowledge that more learning may not necessarily be taking place. Enkin and Mejías-Bikandi (2016), on the other hand, conducted a study exploring the use of translation machines by more advanced second language learners in universities, and found this technology was increasingly used for various purposes and students displayed a positive attitude towards their use. The authors conclude by recommending that instructors carefully consider incorporating this technology into their classrooms to ensure they are being used effectively since many students are already using them. One such example that I found interesting was a suggested exercise to teach students to post-edit machine translated text to check for grammatical, lexical and communication errors (p.196). I would certainly be interested in learning more on this topic as it seems that much has changed technologically and in teaching practices for language learning since I was a student.
References
Farzi, R. (2016). Taming translation technology for L2 writing: documenting the use of free online translation tools by ESL students in a writing course. (doctoral thesis). University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved from https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/34585.
Garcia, I., & Pena, M. (2011). Machine translation-assisted language learning: writing for beginners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 471-487. Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/abs/10.1080/09588221.2011.582687 .
Kaplan, N., & Moulthrop, S. (1990). Other ways of seeing. Computers and Composition, 7(3), 89-102. Retrieved from
http://computersandcomposition.candcblog.org/archives/v7/7_3_html/7_3_9_Kaplan.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
chris clarke
July 5, 2018 — 4:57 pm
Hi George,
You make some interesting points. I’ll actually be teaching English Language Learners (ELL) next year, which I’m assuming is along the same path that you’re describing. What I found interesting about your post was how I was able to connect it to a paper I’ve been looking at in another ETEC course. You describe a school with a heavy focus on digital tools, and yet it sounds like the students are more successful when they have pen and paper. The students are being given assessments using a different medium than they normally work with. Russell & Haney (1997) investigated this idea of working in one medium and testing in another. They were curious if the students were being accurately assessed with the changing media. It turns out, students performed better when they were working in a medium they were most used to. This doesn’t seem to correspond with your observations, but I believe this may be due to very controlled variables used in the study. In particular, a number of assessments were multiple choice, which would have no bearing on students using translation apps to convert sentences out of their native language.
I’ve definitely noticed it’s not just students that rely on digital translation programs when it comes to learning a new language. I’ve often seen teachers simply hand an ELL student an Ipad and call it a day. By doing this, the student misses out on the important interpersonal interactions that can connect language to action. Ong (1982) talks about the importance of repetition and gestures in the development of oral language. In many classrooms there are daily routines that allow the student to practice repetition through patterns and gestures. Connecting the non-verbal components to language acquisition can add another level to ELL student development.
Ong, W. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
Russell, M., & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers: An experiment comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper-and-pencil. Educational Policy Analysis Archives 5(3).
sara segovia rocha
July 6, 2018 — 2:35 pm
Hi George,
I really enjoyed reading your post, it made me think about what I experienced when learning English as a Second Language (ESL) and how it was learning through the traditional way of paper-based writing compare to this other way that digital technologies provide. Also, some years later I was teaching ESL to kids on their first and second school year, and even though we were not using much digital technology or digital translators in the classroom at the time, some peers talked about how easier it would be if we were using any of these and allowed them to do it too.
The functions of these promising digital writing tools can be highly beneficial, but I would argue as well that it is also important to rethink the manner in which we are making use of them in certain contexts, for example in this case, for a beginners language class.
For the progression of learners´ language development is known that even though learners are variable in their acquisition of a second language, on the “first stages, students usually go through a random error stage where a learner is only vaguely aware that there is some systematic order to a particular class of items” (Brown, 2000). In this sense, I agree with you that making language errors is very important for the learning process.
In a way it looks like for beginner language´s learners, editing tools or Google translate can provide a quick right answer to facilitate a task, but due the technical qualities of these tools, I think there is a risk on overusing them and skipping basic thought processes that are essential in the early stage of language´s acquisition.
This is quite a little reflection about this complex interaction, so it would be great to hear other perspectives on this topic and learn more about it.
References
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching.
adam sheard
July 6, 2018 — 4:07 pm
Hello George,
I really enjoyed reading your article and couldn’t help but relate with your experiences with your students. Recently, I was also extremely shocked when to learn that while a lot of my intermediate English students are quite proficient with speaking and listening, that their reading and writing skills are far lower than students that I taught in the start of my career about 20 years ago. In particular, just as you had noticed, their ability to spell words properly is atrocious! Upon taking a closer look at how they were engaging with the learning materials and homework on their digital devices in class, I noticed that their learning habits were quite foreign to what I was accustomed to. For one, they overly depend on spell-check and grammar check ICALL (intelligent computer assisted language learning) functions and in most of the cases they just click “correct all” instead of going through each word manually. When I was young, I recall having my misspellings marked in red and being forced to rewrite the words until I could spell them correctly. These days, unless I specifically ask my students to do that as a class assignment they could care less about how some words are spelt.
I also feel that the low attention span of a lot of the young learners these days is creating new norms surrounding the production and consumption of text in general. From students “texting” in small short blurbs to researching stuff online not being able to go for 20 seconds without clicking on another link to who-knows-where, it’s as if text has become a by-product of life rather than an instrumental focus.
Nicholas Carr from Wired wrote about how the internet is more of a “system of interruptions” than anything else, and how it is resulting in overwhelming cognitive loading (2010). This cognitive loading and subsequent “switching costs” (the detrimental result of our loss of focus each time we click a link) is proving to have quite a negative effect on both our long-term and short-term memory. Rubinstein, Meyer, and Evans (2001) show that in many of these situations where we switch back and forth between a familiar → unfamiliar task that overall comprehension, cognition and memorisation decline.
Should we be worrying about how this can affect our language students? It would seem that this might even be negative for all students in general. But even if we are worried, what can we even do? This is the information economy and thus far not much has stopped it from taking control of our entire education system. This is definitely a great topic to ponder on, thank you George!
References:
Carr, N. (2018, March 07). Author Nicholas Carr: The Web Shatters Focus, Rewires Brains. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2010/05/ff-nicholas-carr/
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive Control of Cognitive Processes in Task Switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763-797.
Words (495)