This presentation deals with the effects of grammar technology on both
the writing that we see as ESL/EFL teachers, and the learning of those
who crunch their ideas and words through it. The best way to approach
this topic is to recognize first the most significant effects that
result from it and to monitor closely the consequences of different ways
of responding to it. One obvious approach is to outlaw technology
altogether in all writing exercises, but this fails to deal with the
fact that technological forces are a major part of virtually every
writing experience our students will ever have. With this approach,
however, it is least possible to learn more about what our students
actually know and can produce without technology.
The following are rules, or rather arguments; I think many are debatable,
but I consider them important propositions and would like to hear your
opinion, if you feel they are misguided or inappropriate. One thing is
certain: Grammar technology is here to stay, and the sooner we adjust to
it, the better off our students will be.
Grammar technology is ubiquitous. Grammar-check is installed as default on word
programs, and since most people use default settings most of the time,
almost everyone has not only encountered it, but has also lived with it
for quite some time. The first generation that grew up on it is now in our
classrooms: is their grammar better or worse? You decide.
There are different kinds of grammar technology. Three major kinds are
grammar-check, which provides a green line on your faulty grammar as you
write (unless you disable it), and which provides an ongoing
conversation about grammar, if you wish, in the same way spell-check
provides a continual list of alternative spellings, to anyone who wishes
to pursue the red lines. Second are the copy-paste checkers (such as
ESL Assistant and Spellcheckplus), in which you put your sentences when you're ready; they
"correct" them (alter them) in such a way that supposedly your grammar
is improved; and finally, there are translators (such as Babelfish)
which simply take chunks of other languages and turn them into
translated versions of English.
Active use of concordance technology has brought a new generation of
grammar-checkers. But this is not always good.
Each piece of writing is a product of human creation and technological
alteration, except in the rare case where the teacher outlaws
technology, the student doesn't know the meaning of the green line, or the
environment prohibits it (i.e. taking messages, writing e-mails). It can
be argued that people need grammar for those other situations, but most
people's serious writing will be done in environments where it's available.
Each student has been influenced not only by what he/she has read, and
who he/she has been taught by, but also what the technology has
responded to what he/she has written. Students are unquestionably
influenced by what the green line says about what they write. Fluent
English speakers like the green line because it's rare and offers useful
tips; grammar-check is designed for native speakers. But it doesn't
distinguish bad grammar from bad style, so, for example, it implies to
students that passive tense is wrong (when in fact it's often just poor
style). Students who have extensive contact with Babelfish and the
copy-paste checkers have similar misguided impressions of how their
writing compares to what it should look like. The point is that we have
to recognize technology as an influence in their learning as well as an
influence in their writing.
When a student is told one thing by a teacher, and another by a
grammar-checker, the end result is usually paralysis (this is natural,
if you think about it). Students are slower to
learn passive tense; grammar-check is ironing it out every time they
try. They are slower to try new forms; any learning that must be
incremental or have experimental forms is immediately ironed out. For
example, if they try present perfect (I have eaten) and misspell eaten
or use the wrong form, they will ultimately be returned to simple
present tense, and we will see a lot of simple present tense, until the
day they finally master the entire form and are able to get it entirely
right every time. Thus their learning of complex forms is delayed or
denied altogether. This is probably the most significant effect on their
learning.
As with Spell-check, we see more correct forms, but they are often
inappropriately used. For example, we see more simple present tense, and
it all has subject-verb agreement, but it covers up the fact that
present perfect would have been more appropriate under the
circumstances, and it is more difficult for us to discern that. It's
harder to know their true meaning, since we don't have clues about what
they tried to create and were unable to create. Like spell-check,
grammar-check has taken every form and made sure it has a correct
appearance; it cannot, however, ensure that each construction says what
the student meant.
As with Spell-check, it is often harder to discern the student's true meaning. This is
because constructions have been altered, but not always altered in the right
direction.
Grammar-check is gradually eliminating subject-verb errors. Those and article errors
are the easiest for machines to catch; others are much harder. Technology can
make a lot of
routine editing corrections that save a lot of people a lot of trouble.
Totally misspelled words are also entirely gone. A/an problems are almost gone.
Grammar-check technology may give people the impression that it's fixed their
errors. In fact it misses many and makes incorrect or misleading statements about
others.
Technology gives people the impression that they don't have to bother
learning something anymore. This used to be called the "calculator
effect" but in fact has been applied to everything from Google to the
abacus, and even the printing press. In fact people do learn less when
things are done for them, but the need for them to know it hasn't
entirely gone away. It is still necessary for students to know how to
manage and master the product of their creation plus technology.
As with Spell-check, it's easier to find clues that they're not using
it than clues that they are. But, in a world where everyone has it, everyone
is expected to use it; we eventually become surprised at those who DON'T.
Each of three teacher strategies to deal with it is flawed. First: Outlawing grammar
technology in tests and papers. Second: Teaching the student to manage the technology. Third:
Ignoring it altogether.
We can change all its parameters, and teach students to
do the same; we could theoretically make it so it would benefit esl/efl learners.
We could also use it to test behaviorist vs. universalist principles: for example,
whether or to what degree repeated actions, or stimulus-response experiences of any kind, influence our
behavior or learning.
Pretending that we are just teaching 'writing' in these circumstances
is like driving in a demolition derby and pretending we're just 'driving.'
