way that we do things. He argues (as does Woolgar) that social and cultural factors influence, even determine, the process of normalization. However, this is not a one-way process: technology also influences socio-cultural change, albeit incrementally rather than with the transformational leaps that pundits tend to predict. We believe, following the work of theorists such as Cole and Engeström (1993) and Nardi (1996), that technology needs to be seen within the context of the activity system that it mediates. Activity is carried out by people (subjects) working towards ends (objects) and mediated by tools within the context of culture, social rules, and of sharing of workload. None of these elements exist in isolation and a change in any one element will have an impact on the others. Thus, the introduction of new tools may affect, for example, the way that work is shared amongst the participants in the activity system. On the other hand, a change in participants may require a new kind of mediational tool. We consider these matters in later chapters; for example, in Chapter 2, we look at new cultural practices that stem from the introduction of new communications tools and in Chapter 7, we consider the impact of new types of students on academic practices.
Tutor, tutee, tool …?
An old but still useful model of the roles that technology can play in learning was offered by Taylor in 1980: he argued that the computer could play one of three principal roles in learning – tutor, tutee, or tool. In the ‘tutor’ role, the computer teaches the learner; typical examples are adaptive tutoring systems (discussed in Chapter 9) or drill-and-practice applications. The principle is that the knowledge resides in the machine, from where it is delivered to the learner in small chunks with frequent reinforcement. The underlying learning theory is the behaviourist paradigm which originates in the work of psychologists such as Skinner (see Skinner 1974 and Child 2004).
Although we now understand that there is more to learning a language than simply knowing vocabulary and the rules of grammar, drill-and-practice programs still have a place; for example, learners can use drill-and-practice programs for independent revision and learners often feel secure and reassured by drill-and-practice activities. When these types of software are available for mobile use (for example as smartphone apps), learners can use them independently in short blocks of time, for example when waiting for a bus. As we will explain in later chapters, there are several authoring programs which teachers (and learners) can use to create interactive exercises of various kinds, including multiple-choice, short answer questions, gap-filling, and so on. Authoring software allows teachers to create a bank of activities which learners can access either from home or in study centres. The activities are reusable and do not need to be stored or reproduced in physical form. Some can provide rapid formative feedback to the tutor. In some cases, a tutoring system can be designed so that it enables personalized differentiation between learners thereby allowing each learner to follow an individualized learning pathway. In addition, some authoring tools are suitable for students to use to create activities and this, whilst providing resources for later ‘computer as tutor’ tasks, starts to move the technology into the role of ‘tutee’.
In the ‘tutee’ role, the learner teaches the computer. The principle is that the learner constructs knowledge, often through trial and error, by teaching the computer. This is based on the constructivist paradigm which stems from the work of Piaget, who argued that learners have to construct knowledge themselves through experience and through a process of accommodation and assimilation. Papert (1993) developed this theory, arguing that the learning experience is strongest when learners are involved in making. Papert’s view is that knowledge is constructed more effectively when learners are forced to articulate their knowledge. This might be achieved by creating a product or it might come about through learners being asked to teach or explain to others.
This paradigm of learning fits in well with theories of language learning through interaction. Indeed, when Papert proposed using a programming language called ‘Logo’ to help children learn geometry, he did so by comparing the learning of maths to learning language. He argued that if children were, in effect, placed in a world called ‘Mathland’ in which the only way to talk to the local inhabitant (a physical device called a ‘turtle’ or an onscreen character representing the turtle) was through its own language (Logo), they would be forced to learn the language through the communication. When programming turtles with Logo, children have to use the language to teach the turtle to draw shapes and this forces them to think about, build, and articulate their knowledge of geometry.
Although Papert argued for children learning to program computers, this is not the only way in which technology can provide opportunities for learners to make, build, and articulate. Authoring software of the type described above need not be used only by teachers; it can be far more powerful when used by learners to create activities for each other. Furthermore, learners can make videos or audio material and can publish their work through the internet, where they can reach a wider audience than their own classrooms, as we show in Chapter 6. Similarly, learners can use other web-based media, such as blogs, to articulate and publish their work. Presentations, animations, and slideshows made by learners can also be published online. This is perhaps one of the strongest arguments for using technology; it makes it easy for learners to make, build, and articulate – developing their knowledge in the process.
Taylor’s third role is computer as ‘tool’. This is a broad role that applies to any context in which technology is the means by which a task is achieved. There is no assumption either that the computer will teach or that the computer needs to be taught. Examples of technology used in the role of ‘tool’ include using a word-processing program to write an essay or editing-software to create a video. It is the act of writing or editing that facilitates the learning rather than the use of technology. However, since Taylor developed his theory of roles, the internet and smartphones have arrived and the role of tool has been extended into one that mediates communication and interactions between people. This leads on to ‘social-constructivism’, a theory of learning that has obvious parallels with and benefits for language teaching. This comes primarily from the work of Vygotsky (1978) who argued that learning is constructed first through social interaction and then on the individual plane. Vygotsky further argued that learning takes place within the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD), i.e. the gap between what a learner already knows or can do and what the learner can achieve when working in collaboration with someone who is a little more capable (more able peer). Vygotsky reasoned that collaboration that allows learning to take place within the ZPD provides a structure that supports the learner whilst the knowledge is being built. Wood et al. (1976) coined the useful term ‘scaffolding’ to describe this process. Papert argued, by the way, that the Logo turtle is, in effect, a form of scaffolding through collaboration with the turtle. In this case, the child who is programming is the ‘more able peer’. This demonstrates that collaboration benefits both partners: the more able peer gains through externalizing and articulating knowledge, whilst the other party gains from the support that the more able peer provides.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно
