Even though I support the use of certain social media and blogging websites, I still have trouble accepting such "ease" in terms of understanding and highlighting the important parts of the given text. The whole process just makes you dependent on "the easy way out" which can be dangerous with time in terms of not being able to do much on your own.
What would your response be to a teacher who argues that students rely too much on the spellchecker, and as a result have become lazy and can't spell when they write on paper?
ReplyDeleteI was raised in Russia and while teaching us a foreign language, even though spellchecker was out there, all of our assignments were on paper, no computer based assignments were given to us. Also in all of our exams, quizzes even oral examinations a point would be taken out with every single spoken, grammatical or spelling error. It is up to everyone to do their research and learn how words are spelled weather it is a dictionary or the spellchecker. But at the end, you are left alone with a blank sheet of paper and trust me, you hardly ever thank Bill Gates at those moments :) So it is possible, and I think this is a more effective way of learning/teaching a language. Because at the end of the day, when there is a midterm, if I have 8 spelling errors, the person who is used to spellchecker will have 20-40 :)
DeleteHere on a University level, people get AA's with all sorts of grammatical, spelling, spoken errors or somehow are considered to be successful, which I find very surprising. So to answer the question above, as long as Native Language Teachers will do "othering" towards the foreign language learners (in other words having "they are foreigners no one expects them to speak that properly in the targeted language, I shouldn't be that hard on them" mentality ), spellchecker will always be OK to use, in fact supported by the teachers. So to connect this to technology, of course technology saves a lot of hassle and is very time consuming, but if you don't spend the needed attention and effort on something that you have an issue with, somewhere it will crack. So is it important to learn or get something done in 5 minutes rather than 10? People should be able to know how to do things on their own at first, and then if needed, use technology. Because otherwise they will be just dependent on technology (and the "higher" minds that create it), and be nothing without it.
We shouldn't forget that human mind creates technology, so we should control it and not let it to control us :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou raise a couple of good points. I hadn't heard of the term 'othering' before, but it is an issue that is worth more discussion. Generally, I find that my non-native English speaking colleagues are much more pedantic about students' writing than me. I'm not sure if it is a cultural difference, or a difference of style of teaching. However, there is an issue of 'quality of language' that is more related to institutional standards. This is, however, a different kettle of fish we should discuss elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the spellchecker...I can certainly see your point about the value of learning the basics without any aid of technology. I am quite proud about being a '10 finger' typist--a skill I learned in high school (on a manual typewriter, not a computer). However, in a few years we will be able to speak to the computer and not use a keyboard...so would it make any sense to insist on students learning how to type? See my blog post about the history of technology in education to see how educators have reacted to changing technologies over time at http://sfltdu.blogspot.com/2011/09/history-of-blending-technology-and.html
There are those that argue that the all pervasiveness of technology means that we don't need to make generations of today do what their parents or grandparents did. For example, I grew up on a farm (my father, by the way, was born in Russia and emigrated to Canada) and when we were children we didn't have an indoor toilet. It certainly makes me appreciate the wonders of indoor plumbing now, but I wouldn't expect this current generation to suffer outdoor toilets to get the same appreciation. :) Likewise, I used to walk 3 miles to school (when I was in grades 1 and 2), but nowadays children are driven door to door. I would argue that we have to find ways to make sure children get exercise and don't become obese, but this may take the form of different types of extra-curricular activities, etc.
I also find that when I write on paper (which is very seldom, as it seems the only time people write on paper is in exams) I tend to use simpler language and vocabulary. Without the aid of any technology (e.g., a dictionary or a computer), I don't feel so confident in using my full repertoire of language. If the only time that I ever write on paper is when I'm taking an exam, I would start to question the validity of exams that don't allow me to use a computer. If in normal life we always use a computer to communicate or exchange ideas, then it would seem logical that exams that test our ability to communicate should use the same tools. If you agree with that, then it would also be perfectly logical that the same would apply to spellcheckers, grammar checkers, etc. Remember, 'paper and pencil' is also technology, and I wholeheartedly support your point that we should 'control it [technology] and not let it control us'. In a way, you are arguing that we should let the 'old paper-based technology' control us by making us memorize weird English spellings. If I have a choice to be controlled by technology, which I agree is a valid concern, then I would rather be controlled by a technology that makes my life easier and gives me more time to think and create than one that means I have to spend my time memorizing and remembering rules.