In his seminal work, Brave New Digital Classroom: Technology and Foreign Language Learning, Blake (2008), suggests that the existence of four dominant myths disrupts the adoption of technology in the language learning classroom. These myths claim that Technology…

– is Monolithic

– Constitutes a Methodology

– Is All We Need to Know

–  Will Replace Teachers

My Reflections

I interpret Blake’s words in Chapter 1 of his book, as a ‘call to arms’ for language teachers to jump aboard the technology ‘train’. Words of encouragement pepper the text, “All language professionals need to become acquainted with the potential advantages of using technology in their programs” (Blake 2008: 4) and he frequently challenges our desire to buy our technology ‘train tickets’, “Will language professionals be ready to meet the challenge of teaching with technology? “Yes, but only if teachers start experimenting now with ways to enhance SLA through technology” (Blake 2008: 6). But, many teachers, such as myself, have the interest, and the desire, but just don’t know where to start with said experimentation.

Despite growing up “with” the internet, I feel that what I learnt about “coding with 1’s and 0’s” in Computing class back in 1990, was all the official training I had in terms of readying me for the oncoming technological age. After that, it was a sink or swim attitude that kept me afloat until today. However, over time, and through trial and error, my experience has proved certain technology as quite intuitive. Now I am aware of the potential of technology to supplement and improve my teaching, I don’t see technology as monolithic. And yet the vast array of tools, and also the constant change, make some sort of formal training imperative to harnessing that potential.

However, due to a lack of training, the use of technology in my classroom has been minimal. I try to avoid using new tools for the sake of it, and always endeavour to base the use of anything new on sound pedagogy. As such I agree with Blake’s assertion that, “…any activity, without adequate pedagogical planning – technologically enhanced or not – will produce unsatisfactory results with students, even if it’s a attractive from a multimedia point of view…”. (Blake 2008: 11). In this way, I think technology does not constitute a methodology in itself, but can be employed to further methodological aims. Teaching methodology should be underpinned with learning theory, “In an ideal world, then, a methodology should be informed by what is known about the nature of the SLA process” (Blake 2008: 11). “The technology is theoretically and methodologically neutral. But how technology is used – its particular culture of practice – is not neutral; it responds to what the practioners understand or believe to be true about SLA”.

One must adopt a critical approach when selecting new technologies, not just to save time, but also to ensure that only those that align with our pedagogical goals are employed. “While FL teachers and students alike need to acquire a basic degree of functional computer literacy, they must also learn to exercise a critical literacy as consumers of technology, and, eventually, a rhetorical literacy as future producers of technology” (Blake 2008: 22). And again, the ability to be critical, and refine what we need to know, derives from continuous (and not one-off) training – something which I have sought through taking online courses and attending live webinars.

I do not have the sense that teachers will be replaced by technology any time soon. There were no demands for such experience when I was hired at my school, 4 years ago, although it’s true that I am unsure of the criteria today. Nevertheless, in any context, I think that those with extra, relevant skills are more beneficial in the workplace than those without. So I agree with Blake when he asserts, “…teachers who use technology will probably replace teachers who do not” (Clifford 1987, 13). But apart from the intrinsic desire of a teacher to better themselves, they also need support from their managers, “To cope with the field’s intrinsic flux, language programs need long-term institutional support…” (p13).

Conclusions

My suspicions are that, “…many people have less than a clear notion of what technology means for L2 learning” (Blake, 2008). Indeed, I place myself in this very group. Prior to this course I have had some experience in online learning, and can see the potential. But how to convert potential to success? What stood out in Blake’s text is the necessity of a theoretical base in order to uphold the practical aspects of language learning and teaching, “The language profession needs to capitalise on its advantages and strengths by using the best teaching practices, which in turn, should be informed by SLA theory wherever possible” (Blake 2008: 14).

Recommendations

Deepening my understanding of current SLA theory is imperative to my success in applying digital technologies to my language teaching. In every lesson, I must consider:

– providing ‘comprehended’, not just comprehensive ‘input’

– providing an ‘inviting’ atmosphere

– stimulating ‘apperception’, by being aware of student’s ‘affective filter’

– the importance of miscommunications/negotiation of meaning (Gass 1997, 87)