"Teachers Should Become Designers"

As if teachers don't have enough to do already, Jozef Colpaert suggests that teachers should take a more active roll in the design of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) software. But Colpaert's article makes a good case for (1.) putting pedagogy ahead of technology and (2.) teaching teachers to be designers.

Here are the main ideas I took away from his article...

Pedogogy-Driven Instructional Design

Colpaert begins his argument by asserting that technology has not really created any unique opportunities for learning, rather it has made existing opportunities faster and easier to access. For example, authentic images, audio, and video are more readily available as the result of available technologies.

Therefore, he suggests that pedagogy, as determined by instructors, should be the primary thrust of instructional design. Technology should be chosen and evaluated based on its ability to fulfill the requirements of the pedagogical approach.

Teachers Should Become Designers

Teachers are best positioned to determine the learning situation, the learner profile, and the appropriate pedagogy. When teachers become designers they don't necessarily author new software, instead they become skilled at specifying precisely what is needed in such a way that it can be designed and authored by someone else. Thus teacher/designers help bridge the gap between pedagogy and technology.

My Thoughts

1. Can teachers conceptualize technological functionality beyond their own experience?

If the first steps in a pedagogy-driven design model are to determine the pedagogy and then define the needed functionality, I wonder if most teachers are up to the task. That is to say, can teachers imagine, conceptualize, and articulate needed functionality if their own experience with technology is limited? Can they conceptualize that which they have never seen? Or is there imagination necessarily limited by what they know to be possible? What training would teachers need to be effective designers?

2. Is dedicated CALL software realistic and who is really driving its creation?

Part of Colpaert's message advocates dedicated CALL software designed specifically for the needs of language learning. I wonder, however, if this approach to software design is realistic or even desirable. For one thing, CALL software design, in my experience, has been drivin primarily by commercial software developers, not educators. Dedicated software design is an expensive process and rarely seems to stem from instructional problems posed by educators.

Furthermore, while dedicated software does allow for greater control over the content and pedagogy, it seems to me that it does not embrace the authenticity that can be gained by using existing technologies to support language learning. For example, the learner who uses Skype for language tutoring or correspondence with a native speaker not only has a chance to improve their language skills, they also practice communication in an authentic environment, they learn how to use an online service that may help them keep in touch with family in other countries, and they develop an awareness of Internet navigation and the most up-to-date technology for voice communication.

3. To what extent can the use of technologies not designed for CALL truly be pedagogy- driven?

The flip side of authenticity seems to be the potential for alignment with learning goals and pedagogy. Anyone who has ever searched for the perfect online tool for accomplishing a well-defined learning goal knows that there is always compromise involved. Rarely, if ever, are you able to find an existing tool that meets all of your specified functionality requirements precisely. So you end up designing to some extent around a technology that seems to do most of what you had hoped for. In this case, is the learning experience you've designed still "pedagogy-driven?" And how do you determine whether what you have sacrificed in the way of pedagogy is too great?