Return-Path: <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j1GLuQC22115; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:56:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:56:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4ACDF1A2F0E48D41A19F9802A58314C61167BD@mailbe-la01.lausd.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Bakin, Barry" <barry.bakin@lausd.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-TECHNOLOGY:3470] Re: Computer Technology Integration - Discussion Question 2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2875 Lines: 57 It seems that I'm hearing two approaches to achieving "learner-appropriateness" - one in which computer skills are embedded in existing learning activities (almost as a secondary focus) - one that is incremental - beginning with the teaching of basic computer skills and software applications. Which approach do you think instructors find more effective? Does the choice of approach depend on the teacher having certain skills? I'd really like to hear everyone's thoughts on this. I would think that the overriding factor of instructor choice of approach is institutional. What has the instructor been hired for? In my case, I'm an ESL instructor hired to teach ESL in accordance with state-mandated ESL course outlines. I teach English and just use computers to do that. Others might have less restrictive environments and can dictate the approach they want to take. When I first started implementing the use of computers in my ESL classes, (not that long ago by-the-way) there was very little institutional support for doing so in the form of inclusion of computer-based methodologies in various official publications like the state-approved course outlines, suggested lesson plans, and other school district publications. As a result of fear and territoriality on the part of one particular computer vocational teacher on my campus who also had the ear of the principal at the time, I was actually specifically instructed NOT to use Microsoft Word as a tool for teaching English and had to agree to use WordPad only. I was also directed NOT to use the Internet because doing so wasn't included in our course outlines at the time. One response of mine at the time was to repeatedly emphasize that I was not teaching Word but I was teaching English using Word as a tool to do so and was only teaching enough about using Word to accomplish the purpose of practicing English. Incidentally, another response was to look for another school site with a more enlightened administration. I'm happy to report that not only did I find such a site, one where the administration hired me especially because I wanted to integrate computers into the ESL curriculum, I also, in my position as a teacher adviser at the division level, have (along with others of course) positively influenced the development of subsequent official course outlines to explicitly include computer-based or computer-assisted instructional methods at every level of instruction. Any teacher who wants to include a computer-assisted methodology can now find explicit official documentation within our course outlines to support doing so when dealing with administrators who do not see the value in such. Clearly then, I choose to embed the computer skills within other activities. Barry Bakin ESL Teacher Adviser, Division of Adult and Career Education, Los Angeles Unified School District
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:50:08 EST