|
A more elaborate example is the authors' discussion of technology and writing. In this, "traditional" pedagogy is set against "multimedia authoring and publishing," but mostly as a strawman. The authors' boosterism of technology (with unsupported claims that "mastery of the Internet increases the personal power of teachers and students" (p. 7)) forces it into the following characterizations of each traditional and multimedia writing:
|
Products of traditional classroom writing are...
|
Products of multimedia authoring and publishing ...
|
|
Are written texts
|
May incorporate written text, graphics, images, sounds, and video
|
|
Are organized in a linear fashion
|
May be organized in a nonlinear fashion with content broken up into layered pages that are connected by links
|
|
Are self-contained
|
Can include links to external multimedia material
|
|
Are usually written for the teacher
|
Are written for a public audience on the World Wide Web
|
|
Are usually created individually
|
Are often created collaboratively
|
|
Once completed and turned in, are out of the student's hands and unchangeable
|
Once published, are accessible to the student for further changes and updating
|
(Table 1, p. 67)
Unfortunately, in its rather uncritical championing of technology in English teaching, it fails to observe a third column, as well as a fuller recognition of "traditional writing." A revised table may look like (my comments in italics):
|
Products of traditional classroom writing are...
|
Products of multimedia authoring and publishing ...
|
But...
|
|
but need not be, depending on the goals of the instructor, students, or institution; e.g., they can be performances, taped readings, illustrations, models, etc.
|
- May incorporate written text, graphics, images, sounds, and video
|
Require additional technological resources in addition to a fuller understanding and instructional goals for the teaching of visual literacy
|
- Are organized in a linear fashion
though this doesn't mean they're written in a linear fashion. Writers often work in a 'hypertextual' manner by crafting different sections of their work in different orders.
|
- May be organized in a nonlinear fashion with content broken up into layered pages that are connected by links
|
Require an understanding of the rather complex syntax of linking and navigational design
|
|
Are self-contained
physically, but through footnotes, references to outside sources, literary allusion, etc., also refer to external "multimedia" material
|
- Can include links to external multimedia material
|
Need monitoring for both quality and consistent location of links
|
|
Are usually written for the teacher
but need not be. For example, many class papers eventually go to student journals, letters to the editor, student newspapers, etc.
|
- Are written for a public audience on the World Wide Web
|
This audience is unknown, and therefore the writer must, as in traditional academic writing, invent the audience for her/his purposes before writing
|
|
Are usually created individually
but need not be. Collaborative writing projects are currently popular, whether or not they use the Internet as a medium of publication.
|
- Are often created collaboratively
|
With all the attendant complications that go with group projects (see Leki, 2001)
|
|
Once completed and turned in, are out of the student's hands and unchangeable
unless the student wishes to further develop his/her ideas, build on previous research, revise, create a larger project at a later date, etc.
|
- Once published, are accessible to the student for further changes and updating
|
Require that the student have direct access to the server on which the site is located (often not granted by institutions), otherwise the instructor is still responsible for future updates.
|
These elaborations are not meant as a criticism of technology and the Internet as a way of encouraging English language learning. They are meant to point out the problem with categorical thinking that pits "traditional" education against "new technology." Neither category is simply characterized; they are part of a larger educational spectrum, all of which deserves critical attention. Although some instructors may still need to be convinced to use technology in their classes, presenting the case simplistically will not do the trick. For many of the unconvinced, it is not fear of technology that prevents them from jumping into the pool, it is fear and suspicion of the hyperbole that often accompanies discussion of educational Internet use.
The back cover of this book claims:
"This book is for you if
- you have been using the Internet in your teaching for years and want to read about the latest developments in research, theory, and curriculum development
- you have recently begun using the Internet in teaching and want to expand your repertoire of ideas, projects, and activities
- you have not used the Internet yet for teaching but are interested in an introduction to this field"
In sum, the last two of these claims is credible; the first is not. This is a very good book for instructors who are just starting out with the Internet and need a "handbook" to guide them through the basic vocabulary and technologies of the Internet, and to give them ideas as to how to put it to use. Those who have been using the Internet in instruction will find it merely repeats information they already know (although they may find addresses of resources they weren't aware of previously). Internet for English Teaching goes some distance in providing the how of using computer technology, but it does not help us understand why to use it in any depth.
Reference
Leki, I. (2001). "A Narrow Thinking System": Nonnative-English-Speaking Students in Group Projects Across the Curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Spring 2001)
|
|
|