TASK ONE
Readings: Franklin, Teresa, Mesut Duran, and Mumbi Kariuki. “Mentoring Overcomes Barriers to Technology Integration.” Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 18.1 (2001): 26-31. Print.
Lee, Kuang-wu. ‘English Teachers’ Barriers to the Use of Computer-assisted Language Learning’ . The Internet TESL Journal VI.12 (December 2000). http://iteslj.org/
Both of these articles list and discuss barriers that language teachers face in the use of technology in their classrooms. These barriers in turn negatively influence language teacher attitudes towards technology. Look at the lists of barriers from the two articles. Which barriers are the same and which are different? Do you agree with the barriers listed in the articles? Why or why not? Use 200 words in your response. Use specific examples where possible.
Lee (2000) addresses some challenges of language teaching and learning when the use of technology is expected to be part of language education. He considers financial and technical barriers inhibiting the use of Computer-assisted Language Learning (CALL), such as the cost of hardware, software, maintenance, and staff development for institutions; limited amount of equipment available to students; short offer of high quality software (designed by educators), and incompatibility between hardware and software.
On the educational side, Lee finds that there is little understanding about the kind of learning or knowledge produced by the use of new technologies in education, and suggests that their improper use may affect negatively both teachers and learners. He also mentions that many instructors do not know how to include new technologies in their teaching practice, or are reluctant to embrace them as they see them as time consuming.
In contrast with the wide scope of Lee’s article, Franklin et al. (2001) show the difficulties a group of elementary teachers (not only language teachers) experienced and overcame in integrating technology into their lesson plans. In a sense, the report shows how most of the financial, technical and practical barriers listed by Lee can exist simultaneously at one institution; but the point is to show how empowering teachers as technology users may reduce the obstacles derived from budgetary constraints, and allow the continuous use of technology in the classroom. The article is centered in the teachers’ experiences and needs (use of equipment, lesson planning and time management); therefore the question about the quality or compatibility of software is excluded.
These articles show barriers from the end of the 20th century that are not a big problem anymore. The use of technology in the classroom is a must almost everywhere and most institutions have policies and budgets to deal with it, this includes equipment and software upgrading, staff training, and the design of web sites and services offered online. New communication and information technologies are more accessible and affordable, so students can acquire their own equipment. Also nowadays the compatibility of software with multiple operative systems is a priority for software developers.
However, what is implied in both articles is the lack of ‘Computer-assisted learning’ training as part of the curriculum in teaching programs, and I suspect this is still the case in many Education Departments. Higher Education Institutions may promote the use of new information and communication technologies by offering workshops on how to operate them, but they do not necessarily offer the training on how to make them part of a curriculum or a lesson plan. Keyboarding does not make a writer, and knowing how to create something with a computer program does not make a class more meaningful. If academic institutions expect their teachers to be knowledgeable in the use of teaching technology as part of a curriculum, and the education programs don’t offer this component as part of the teacher training, we are facing a gap that needs to be addressed.
