Teacher Values and Orientation to Technology in the English Classroom

in Taiwan, Thailand, and Australia

Carmen Boulter

Chienkuo Technology University

 

Introduction

Educators teaching international students or native English speakers teaching foreign students are challenged to develop curriculum appropriate to a diverse group of learners allowing for culturally preferred ways of learning. Prompted by educational policy over the past decade, the technological infrastructure in universities worldwide has advanced. Meanwhile, online resources for English as a second language (ESL) have increased exponentially becoming more effective and plentiful. Students are progressively more oriented to computers yet it seems teachers are lagging behind and have low motivation to use multimedia in the classroom.

The proposed dissertation will address the following research questions. What is the relationship between culture, values, learning styles and orientation to technology? If Asian culture is highly oriented to technology and students have ready access to computers and the internet, why don’t more teachers use online resources? If the technological infrastructure of academic institutions is improving and teachers are taking computer training, why does that not translate into multimedia curriculum development?

It is hypothesized that if a university has a strong technological infrastructure, if there is modeling of the use of multimedia by colleagues, and if there is sufficient technical support and training, teachers will gradually use more technology in the classroom. Secondly, it is hypothesized that if teacher values are less traditional, less authoritarian, and more global, they will develop learner-centered programs which are facilitated by computer assisted instruction (CAI).

 

 

 

Review of the Literature

            In analyzing the factors that influence whether teachers use multimedia in the classroom, we must examine a number of interacting theoretical issues. The use of multimedia and e-learning in general is a relatively new field admittedly existing outside a cohesive theoretical framework. Research is often conflicting and must be examined in the context of the language classroom without falling prey to misconception and overgeneralization. The issue of collectivist and individualist cultures will be examined as well as theories in second language acquisition and learning modalities. Lastly, the role of consciousness in second language acquisition is reviewed applying research from the well-developed field of psychology.

 

The Case for and Against E-Learning

At colleges, technical institutes, and universities in Taiwan, students are already proficient with computer platforms, operating systems, word processing, Power Point, and even web building, albeit in Chinese. At present, 8 million students in America take classes online. In Taiwan alone, 70 universities and colleges have already set up distance-learning environments using Internet. In 2001, 71% percent of university students in Taiwan reported using internet for homework assignments (Chow and Ge, 2001). These skills are invaluable and are rapidly transferable to English with minimal instruction. If students are already proficient in computers and oriented to technology, offering a key to English resources online opens the door to a wide world of learning potential. Internet is a powerful source of authentic material for students who are studying English. Large class sizes are a challenging reality in Taiwan and CAI offers viable strategies for teachers.

There is a common and unsubstantiated belief that the promotion of computer assisted instruction (CAI), e-learning, and multimedia in the classroom will render the teacher obsolete. Research on the effectiveness of electronic versus live teaching reveal that some favor face-to-face (F2F) teaching, others favor CAI, while a number of studies are reporting a ‘no-significant-difference’ phenomenon. While students may have individual preferences for self-paced learning or F2F instruction, it is hypothesized that interactivity with the instructor, whether online or face-to-face, facilitates learning.

While online learning clearly is not appropriate for all learners, it is carving out a legitimate place in education worldwide. Factors contributing to success or failure in CAI are complex. Studies directly comparing online learning and F2F instruction are admittedly limited.  The field of CAI lacks a comprehensive theoretical base. Research comparing online programs and F2F instruction is limited. Traditionalists favor classroom instruction. Misconceptions color perceptions of e-learning and CAI. Yet, as Flowers et al (2004) assert, “there is insufficient evidence to support the idea that classroom instruction is the optimum delivery method” (Flowers, Jordan, Algozzine, Spooner and Fisher, p. 57).

            While research in the 1980’s and 1990’s was affected by the lack of technological infrastructure in academic institutions, studies that compare online learning and traditional classroom instruction published in 2004 still reveal a wide range of findings (Junaidu and AlGhamdi 2004; Flowers, Jordan, Algozzine, Spooner and Fisher 2004; Dupin-Bryant 2004;  Muirhead 2004). Flowers et al (2004) point out that correspondence education is not new having made its debut in the late 19th century (Flowers et al, 2004, p. 55). Nowadays, computers add a dimension to distance education, doing away with using postal services in favor of electronic communication.

While using computers in instruction necessarily expose a myriad of new factors for consideration in assessing instruction, the fundamental principles of curriculum design lie at the core for student success. What computers do offer is multiple modalities for instruction which provide additional stimulation to students with various learning styles. They also offer the ultimate convenience allowing students to access instructional materials independent of time and place. For students in developing countries, rural communities, or with physical handicaps, online courses may provide the only means of education available.

Junaidu and AlGhamdi (2004) compared F2F teaching and online learning.
While they found that the online students did better, they concluded that student performance was more a function of students’ ability that it was of the course modality (p.37). Traynor (2004) argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the impact of CAI on students with different learning styles. His thesis is that learner control results in a more positive attitude toward instruction and increased motivation. If a learner feels more competent and self-determined, learning generates more meaning and personal interest (p. 35). CAI allows students to access material at their own pace as well as offering auditory, visual, and kinesthetic cues appealing to the broad range of learning styles in any given group of students who cluster in a program.

Dupin-Bryant (2004) argues that well-designed distance education programs can help instructors shift from “teacher-centered” to more “learner-centered” teaching styles. Teacher-centered teaching is defined as formal, controlled, autocratic in which the instructor directs how, what, and when the students learn and is characteristic of traditional classroom settings. Alternatively, learner-centered learning is defined as responsive, collaborative, problem-centered, and democratic in which both the teacher and the student decide how, what, and when learning occurs and is facilitated by CAI and e-learning environments. For Dupin-Bryant (2004), keys to the effectiveness of this style were training in the use and application of technology, training in curriculum development and distance teaching methodology, consulting with technical support staff, and discussion with other distance education instructors (p. 5).

Thurmond and Wambach (2004) argue that interactivity is a key factor in learning. Learner-content, learner-learner, learner-teacher, as well as learner-interface interactions are critical in learning and can effectively be achieved with CAI. Sufficient practice and timely feedback are crucial and they can be successfully achieved in both the classroom and in the context of online learning.

Muirhead (2004) outlined the learning needs of students highlighting the importance of communication and stated that online learning is not for all students. He argued that most students lack the self-monitoring skills required for online learning. Successful online learners exhibit good work ethics, the ability to think reflectively, and the ability to work collaboratively. Idea generation, intellectual convergence, and lateral thinking are skills that contribute to success in online learning. On the other hand, seeking to provide the ‘right’ answer and viewing knowledge as a collection of information was not seen as contributing to the success of online learning (Muirhead, 2004, p. 65). Loosely stated, Western educational models tend to exemplify creative thinking, while Chinese models maintain focus on memorization and examination. This may be the reason why oriental students are initially more reluctant to engage in e-learning and CAI than Western students. Though not insurmountable, culturally established learning styles are worthy of consideration when introducing online activities to students from a variety of ethnic backgrounds.

An advantage of distance education is that students work on their own and in their own time. While it may be true that this is difficult for some students at first, it must be made clear that in a well-executed interactive program, the students are not isolated. The opportunity for teacher feedback is direct and immediate even though it comes to them electronically. This learning context may initially be seen as lacking in essential human contact, but in the Information Age, most of us are becoming digitally oriented and we realize that online communication is, in fact, authentic contact. While traditional classrooms exemplify teacher-centered teaching, e-learning creates opportunities for learner-centered learning (Clark and Hermen 2001, p. 260).

 As Huang (2002) points out, “electronically mediated human communication provides high interactivity and immediate feedback for learners (p. 43).” This transcends time zones and world geography and has vast implications for the future of education. Despite initial resistance, all educators will eventually need to embrace this new instructional paradigm. Perhaps the term e-learning needs to evolve beyond the word “electronic.” “E” may come to stand for “essential.” Roffe (2002) suggests that alternative representations of the “e” in e-learning could well include “engagement, enhancement and execution” (p. 40).

It is clear that e-learning can provide a more flexible learning environment extending the range of influence of education and thus empowering the learner.  E-learning “is not meant to replace the classroom setting, but to enhance it, taking advantage of new content and delivery technologies to enable learning.” (Wild, Griggs, and Downing 2002, p. 374) Traditional classroom settings, particularly test-based educational methodologies, push students to be extrinsically motivated driven by marks. Intrinsic motivation, the pursuit of learning for its own sake, must be developed if life-long learning is to be established in students. As Lumsden declared (1994), educational activities should be engaged in for the enjoyment they provide, for the learning they permits, and for the feeling of accomplishment that they evoke.

Motivating students is the challenge of all educators. Learning theorists have emphasized that students need a reason for learning, a desire to attain the learning goal, a positive attitude toward learning, and perhaps most importantly, effortful behavior (Ngeow, 1998). Generating a positive attitude toward learning and encouraging students to put forth the necessary effort to continually develop their lexical skills is an essential step in long-term language acquisition. Strengthening students’ intrinsic motivation is paramount for successful learning. By receiving feedback that was directly oriented to the individual, students feel visible and this is thought to foster both motivation and learning. As e-learning provides a dominant role in facilitating and enabling knowledge management, continued curriculum development for online courses offered for credit and ongoing research on its effectiveness will be of ultimate benefit to future generations of students.

 

Collectivist vs. Individualist Cultures

Collectivist and individualist frameworks of Chinese and Western cultures percolate into the respective education systems cultivating differences in learner beliefs, motivation, and learning strategies that must be considered in the development of effective online curriculum for English as a second language. We begin our lives by viewing the world through our own cultural filters. If we want to participate in the global community, we must move beyond this relatively narrow perspective and embrace points of view beyond our own cultural borders.

Culture is defined as all learned behavior which is socially acquired. Even when exposed to materials from diverse cultures, most learners maintain as sense of ethnic loyalty holding fast to their L1 ethnic preferences and values (Tong, 1997). Learning styles have a dimension of socialization and are shaped by our native culture molding our behavior. This is a subtle and complex interaction of cognitive, emotional, social and physical factors. Students learning English as a second language online will have different needs, beliefs and learning styles dictated by their home ethnographies.

Confucian philosophy is deeply ingrained in Chinese culture dictating that the needs of the group, particularly of the family, take precedence over the needs of the individual. Meanwhile, the myth of Oedipus illuminates the Western cultural emphasis on personal freedom. When Western educators teach Chinese students English, they often misinterpret learner strategies viewing them with a Western eye missing the underlying cultural imperatives that motivate the Chinese learner. How do learner strategies in collectivist cultures differ from those of individualist cultures? How can we be sensitive to these differences to create online curriculum to best serve a wide range of students?

We have a pedagogical imperative to develop models of effectively teaching online that are culturally inclusive, catering to the diverse needs of students from differing cultural backgrounds. Our collective cultural psyche has powerful implications for basic psychological processes such as cognition, motivation and emotion. Language carries cultural bench marks. When we teach English, we are also, in a subtle way, teaching Western culture. Globalization is not only for learners that go abroad, it is also vital to those who remain in their country of origin and learn a foreign language.

Students must be free to choose “culturally preferred” ways of learning and that cultural background affects strategy choice (McLoughlin, 2002, Oxford, 1996). McLoughlin (2002) suggests that technology is a “cultural amplifier” (p. 7). The Chinese education system is decidedly test-driven. Chinese students see memorization and understanding as separate but “interlocking” processes and that repetition develops understanding through “considerable mental effort” (Watkins, 2000) Chinese students are motivated to learn, but are trained to think there is only one right answer and avoid risk-taking and divergent thinking (p. 164). According to Oxford (1996), “Chinese people dislike learning strategies that involve theoretical models and prefer dealing with strategies that handle practical questions, because the Chinese language lacks implicational statements that allow people to discuss ideas contrary to fact” (p. 48).

In stark contrast, Westerners see understanding as sudden insight. Western education assumes that high level self-confidence and self-responsibility lead to achievement. In the Western education system, intrinsic motivation is thought to lead to academic and professional success. Extrinsic motivation, which is studying for parental approval or to pass exams, is considered questionable. The psychological values of Chinese populations have been shaped by the cultural constructs of collectivism. Cultural concern for “harmony-within-hierarchy” can be used to explain the ideology behind Chinese social behavior (Bond, 1986, p. 214). Pressure to succeed is collectivist, being a complex combination of “personal ambition, family face, peer support, material reward, and interest” (Watkins 2000, p. 168).

This emphasizes the Chinese preoccupation with social order while the oedipal drama highlights the Western preoccupation with individual freedom. Bond (1986) distinguishes between “large power distance” societies who accept hierarchical allocation of roles without justification. In “small power distance” societies, exemplified in Western culture, power equalization is paramount and justification for power inequities is coveted (Bond, p. 228). 

Wenden and Rubin (1987) examined the conscious efforts made by learners when mastering a foreign language. It offers fruitful insight into learner strategies and learner beliefs and addresses the shift from teaching methodologies to learner characteristics. When establishing a self-directed approach, learners set goals, define their program, select techniques to be used and monitor their progress (Wenden and Rubin, 1987, p. 11). “If learners are to be weaned away from their state of dependence to one of independence and learner autonomy they must not only acquire a number of relevant learning techniques but also experience a change of psychological attitude towards what learning is” (Wenden and Rubin, 1987, p.11). As learners become more autonomous, they develop the psychological tools for critical reflection and self-motivated attitudes toward learning.

 

Theories of Language Acquisition

In language learning, our challenge is to integrate and organize vast quantities of auditory and visual data and to decipher meaning from our known world. This happens in a gradual, sequential, and progressive manner. Learners thus construct a context within which to organize the data. The acquisition of language is one of the most miraculous achievements of human development.

Late 19th and 20th century theorists argued that psychology was the study of invisible forces. Behavior, on the other hand, was measurable and could be directly observed. In 1859, Darwin’s Origin of the Species established continuity between lower animals and human beings. By implication, connections were made between the animal mind and the human mind. Experimental psychology measured instinctual responses in animals, and drew conclusions for human behavior. Behaviorists concluded that all learning consisted of some form of conditioning. In other words, that which is rewarded is learned. Language was declared to be a function of associative learning and conditioning. Throughout the 1940’s and 1950’s, and since that time into the new millennium, second languages have been taught through drill and practice. Yet, when it comes to the complex collection of conditioned responses involved in language learning, imitation and reinforcement have been found to have a less significant role than was formerly thought (Brown, 1987).

Exclusive focus on structure and form is not directly correlated to the acquisition and fluency (Krashen, 1982). In 1978, Mc Laughlin pointed out that no real research (emphasis mine) was ever generated by behaviorists to look at child language use, let alone second-language learning. After all, first language acquisition is a natural occurrence in a contextual cultural setting. Parents rarely ever correct their children’s grammatical errors, they respond to the inventive message the child is delivering with focused attention.

The Nativist perspective presupposes that language is species-specific, genetically determined, and governed by biological mechanisms. Humans are innately social beings naturally able to differentiate speech sounds from other sounds. We seem to have a predisposition toward organizing language into a complex system of linguistic constructs. How is it that bilingual children are readily able to distinguish one language from another in terms of classifying vocabulary, grammar, idiomatic expressions, and varied intonations of speech?

In 1957, Chomsky’s introduced the notion of universal grammar theory in his book Syntactic Structures. He noticed that fixed features and syntactic categories like nouns and verbs were universal linguistic constructs worldwide. Despite the complexity of the formal study of linguistic universals, children are naturally able to learn the abstract rules of core grammar. The acquisition of grammar structures proceeds in a predictable order is not dependent on formal learning. This ability is heightened when children hear a language spoken by natives and are exposed to contextual data through culture and society.

An important distinction can be drawn between language acquisition, the subconscious process of integrating language, and language learning, which is knowledge of the formalities of grammar and syntax (Krashen, 1982, 1985).  The first is It is not integrated into the cognitive structure of the learner. The second is rote learning which is can be arbitrary and verbatim. Rote learning is exemplified in learning lists of vocabulary outside of a contextual framework.

Constructivist theory states that learning must be meaningful in order to be effective and permanent. (Brown, 1987) Meaningful learning is relatable to what one already knows thus it can be easily integrated into one’s existing cognitive structure. Modern learning theory stipulates that learners go for meaning first. They look to associate with data from their known world. Language acquisition is enhanced when we are exposed to comprehensible, relevant input which is just beyond our current competence (Krashen, 1985). Communication is successful through extralinguistic clues, that is to say, through body language, facial expression, and context. Fluency occurs when there is sufficient time, but it can not be taught directly.

Psychological factors also play a key role in successful language acquisition. According to Brown (1987), a learner must be motivated, have confidence and self-esteem, and maintain a low level of anxiety. When students are anxious, it sets up a filter limiting their comprehension. Overemphasis on grades has perpetuated this problem and lowered the self-image of all too many pupils learning English in traditional educational paradigm. The leap from teacher-centered teaching to learner-centered learning is a potential antidote to this problem. An optimal language acquisition program must be of adequate duration and strives for relevance. Material must be comprehensible, accessible, of sufficient quantity, and it must be delivered in an atmosphere that fosters encouragement.

While behaviorist theory states that learning results from something imposed from outside the learner, cognitive theory says that learning results from internal mental activity and that anything new that is learned is integrated into this structure. Jean Piaget’s view was that all living creatures are born with an invariant tendency to organize experience. The Interactionist view recognizes the interaction of both internal and external factors. Schmidt (1988) asserted that the learner must give their full attention to content. Through the integrated processes of simplification, generalization, restructuring, and automization new information is synthesized. Existing knowledge is further integrated allowing for more sophisticated language learning. This is particularly relevant in second-language acquisition (SLA) as there is so much reliance on transferable skills.

Though adults can benefit from deductive presentations of grammar, we have come a long way from seeing language learning primarily as a rule-based, mechanistic task. Connectionist models are emerging suggesting that knowledge is in the interaction between and among simple processing units. The strength of connections is determined by the relative frequency of patterns and the affective context of the learning environment.

What, then, disposes an individual to becoming a “good learner?” Attitude, empathy, age, personality, stress level, motivation, and proficiency level, vary dramatically among students. Individuals have unique responses to their physical environment, the time of day, their degree of comfort, the amount of light, and so on. While most teachers agree that individual differences are important factors to consider, they are at a loss to be able to accommodate students one on one, particularly with the realities of large class size in most classroom contexts. Another way learners differ is their social preferences. Some are oriented to learning alone while others are more comfortable in small groups.

SLA [second-language acquisition] researchers may acknowledge the importance of such factors in the eventual attainment of advanced levels of proficiency or in approaches to specific tasks, but research on acquisition orders has tended to ignore individual differences or minimize their importance. The conventional wisdom, it seems, has been that second-language acquisition theories should attempt to explain how “the learner” develops competence, as though learners were a relatively homogeneous lot. This assumption, however, is being challenged as more and more scholars recognize that differences among people might matter a great deal more than we had once thought (Brown, 1987, pp. 63–64).

Teachers need to consider the array of individual differences and use a multi-modality, interactive approach, appealing to all types of learner preferences. Teachers then function as architect and mediator providing structured guidance without imposing too much control. They are preparing not a teaching method but a teaching repertoire. They also help students become aware of their own learning strategies and learning preferences. Learner-friendly environments are fostered when the teacher makes a concerted effort to deliver information that is relevant and meaningful to students and that encourages their creativity and independence. This, in turn, challenges students to take responsibility for their own learning, a skill essential to survival in the real world in the new millennium.

 

Learning Modalities

There are three basic learning modalities: visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. In traditional classrooms, the teacher speaks and the student listens. Students can be dominant in one or more learning modalities, each with differing orientations to learning.

The visual learner benefits from a visually appealing learning environment as well as to color and sophisticated graphics. Most visual learners work best alone. They benefit from being able to scan ahead and review material at their own pace. They love graphically-rich charts, maps, websites, films, videos, posters, flash cards, slide shows. They like to write things down and type things out. Auditory learners like to work in group talking about material, reciting reading passages, and listening to others discuss material. They are content listening to people speaking. Auditory learners tend to be passive, listening for instructions from the teacher. Kinesthetic learners need to move around, touch textures, and fidget. They love dancing, drama, sports, and interactive activities. They need to take frequent breaks and do not work well sitting at desks. They tend to be risk-takers and are perhaps the most compromised by traditional classroom settings.

In addition to the three sensory modalities, there are two further distinctions that can be drawn when examining learning styles. Students can predominantly be analytic thinkers or global thinkers each with specific needs and orientations to learning.

Analytic thinkers are left-brain dominant. They are intellectual, logical, and analytical. They like step-by-step instructions and structured information. They prefer quiet, formal environments and they respond well to words and numbers. They tend to need concrete reinforcement like a handout. They like to do one thing at a time. They hold their bodies still when they speak. They have a strong need to complete a task before beginning another. They are detail-oriented, and tend to see the parts rather than the whole.

Global thinkers are right-brain dominant.  They are emotional, sensitive, have a high need for social interaction. They enjoy doing several things at once. They learn best when information is presented with humor, emotion, or an anecdotal story. They speak with their hands and they respond well to pictures. They think holistically and they are concerned about the big picture.

Research on hemispheric dominance will not resolve our issues with education. The traditional educational paradigm has created generations of analytic thinkers. It is noteworthy that studies seem to suggest that second language learners, particularly adult learners, might benefit from more encouragement of right-brain activity, or global thinking in the classroom context.

Another valuable measure of culturally-specific learning styles is that of field-dependence and field-independence. Collectivist cultures place a high value on the family, have rigid social strata, and tend toward authoritarian child-rearing practices. Children are highly sensitized to social hierarchy, are sensitized to the feelings of others and are more likely to assist others and work collaboratively (Hsiao, 1997). These societies have rigid social structures and place pressure on children to conform. They have a highly developed socio-cultural context which encourages people to become field sensitive. Research shows that when tested, field-dependent people rely on external cues and are more attentive to social cues.  They are oriented to social interaction. They seek externally-defined goals and depend on social reinforcement. They rely on clear structure.

On the other hand, individualist cultures exemplify laissez-faire child-rearing practices, promote individual effort and achievement, and enable individuation. An individual’s status is independent of their background and the group which provides low context situation. Individuals raised in this milieu will become field-independent (Witkin, Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, and Cox, 1977). Field-independent people are more likely to be impersonal and prefer solitary activities (Brenner, 1997, p. 38). They have self-defined goals and intrinsic motivation. They tend to have a greater tolerance for ambiguity and can create organizational structure when it is lacking.

How do cognitive styles influence orientation to e-learning? Wey and Waugh (in Hsiao, 1997) investigated college students taking e-learning courses and found that field-independent students were able to cope with text-only pages, spent more time on lab test sections, and accessed more screens. Meanwhile, field-dependent students benefited more from text-with-graphics formats and answered fewer questions. Overall, it was concluded that field-independent students learned more effectively and more autonomously. Brenner (1997) suspected that field-independent students would be more successful in online learning activities because they typically worked well alone (p. 38). Surprisingly, in a study correlating age, gender, field-dependence and achievement for distance education students, it was found that there was no significant difference in success rate between field-independent and field-independent students Brenner, 1997).

 

The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Acquisition

What is needed is an interdisciplinary science of consciousness that includes physical and biological processes, cognitive and neurological processes, as well as philosophical and metaphysical perception. Because language acquisition is central to human experience and highly complex, it has gone beyond the traditional paradigm by legitimately becoming a multidisciplinary field. It is perhaps in cross-disciplinary analysis that we will finally answer the complex question of how language is acquired.

In his attention hypothesis, Schmidt (1988, 1990, 1993a, 1993b, 1994a, 1994b, 1995, 1999) discusses the role of consciousness in second language acquisition. In 1990, he argues that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that second language acquisition occurs without awareness and without consciousness. In direct contrast to Krashen (1982, 1985) who maintains that language can be acquired unconsciously, Schmidt argued that the role of the unconscious in language learning has been exaggerated. Yet over the years, Schmidt revised his position. The notion of consciousness is notoriously slippery and its very definition has been the subject of debate.

In 1990, Schmidt claimed that without intention, attention or noticing, learning does not occur. He argued that intentional learning is superior to incidental learning. However, in 1993(a) and 1995, he revised his theoretical position and argued that incidental learning seems possible. Though he conceded that unconscious perception happens, he was adamant that it did not lead to learning (Schmidt 1990, 1993a, 1993b). Schmidt (1993b) argued that learners use abstract rules stored in long-term memory defining this phenomena as implicit knowledge, not implicit learning.

Schmidt’s thesis states that input cannot be construed as intake without conscious awareness. For Schmidt, the role of consciousness in language learning requires discerning between 3 issues: the question of learning incidentally, without intention; that of learning subliminally, without attention or noticing; and that of learning implicitly, without awareness at the level of understanding. But this begs a question. How can we determine if information is processed consciously or unconsciously (Van Patten, 1990)?

Though Schmidt expressed difficulty with the words “conscious” and “unconscious” stating that there were multiple meanings for each word, he continued to dig deep to develop his theoretical position. While it is true is that the concepts are frequently conflated and ill-defined in the literature, we must resist the invitation to abandon the words altogether. McLaughlin (1990) argued that the terms were “too laden with surface meaning and too difficult to define empirically to be used theoretically” (p. 627). This is the interface where psychology and language acquisition meet. It may also be the threshold where new theoretical frameworks for educational technology can be established. There is a complex interaction between conscious and unconscious processes when learning a language. Visual, auditory, and kinesthetic cues simultaneously stimulate learners and the brain makes connections and extracts patterns from the cues. Much of what is learned remains in the realm of the unconscious. In other words, learners ‘know’ but they go through stages of not quite able to define what they know.

The nature of consciousness implies subjective experience which defies the laws of empiricism and is impossible to quantitatively measure. Since there is no adequate and defining theory of the mind accepted by science, the notion of consciousness cannot participate in solid theoretical constructs. To further complicate the matter, self-reporting is often relied upon to gather data, another stumbling block for empirical research. This becomes a serious impediment to falsifiability.

Schmidt (1988) did admit that the notion of consciousness is reputable because of an extensive body of research from the field of cognition linking related the ideas of attention, memory, and information processing. The debate rages on and there are theoreticians who are pushing for a larger explanatory role for the unconscious. This debate is not new to psychology. Freud (1915) revolutionized ideas of human behavior introducing the concept of the unconscious a century ago fueling behaviorism for the better part of a century. His student, Carl Jung (1916), defined the notion of the “collective unconscious” stating that not only are we governed by processes we can not directly observe, but that there is an invisible social fabric that tie cultures together.

Meanwhile, behaviorism was gaining momentum refusing to delve into the realm of non-physical occurrences. Lashley (1923) was openly critical of methodological behaviorists that were willing to omit a whole “universe of phenomena” by fundamentally denying the fact of consciousness (p. 32). Though we like to think we have moved beyond behaviorism, functionalist and logical scientific inquiry still has a hold on research methodology.

Strict behaviorism is advanced as a theory, but the insistence upon methodological behaviorism at all costs has prevented the consideration of any supposedly subjective data and has left the theory undeveloped. (Lashley, 1923, p. 33).

            While advances in thinking and technology are leading to an understanding of the function of the human mind, theories of consciousness and introspection have historically had limited credibility. This taboo in the scientific community has restricted viable inquiry into the role of the unconscious in human experience. Held in place by patriarchal ways of being and thinking, sound explanatory theories of consciousness are still in their infancy. Dennett claimed that consciousness was a “cultural construction” (in Block, 1981). While this is a dated article and Block admittedly says this definition is hard to take seriously, it nonetheless joins the parade of confusion about the phenomena. Josephson and Rubik (1992) insist that what is required is expansion of our ways of thinking.

…the nature of reality and its relationship to consciousness, the inadequacy of current scientific approaches to consciousness, the role of intuition and conditioning in scientific work, mind-brain interaction, the nature of human identity, and the possible need for a new scientific paradigm and/or an interdisciplinary science of consciousness (p.1).

            Consciousness is admittedly subtle and it has lived outside the configurations of conventional science. Yet we must not be imprisoned by these constraints tossing out the concept because it resists measurement. A deeper collective intuition persists and it holds the key to the mysteries of language acquisition.

Despite the ongoing deliberation, consciousness research is claiming a tremendous revival in recent years (Antony, 1999, Josephson and Rubik, 1992, Merikle and Reingold, 1992, Aydede and Eldere, 2001). The days of physicalism, insisting that the world consists of physical facts and nothing more, is giving way to metaphysical constructs and non-physical perception. Synesthesia is cross-modal association, a cognitive constellation where certain people experience vivid sensory blending such as hearing colors and seeing music. Cytowic (1995) argues that “synesthesia might tell us about consciousness, the nature of reality, and the relationship between reason and emotion” (p. 2). He describes how “sound symbolism” has a role in language learning as was noticed by Saussure (p. 4).  Genetically transmitted, synesthesia seems to have a direct link to the unconscious. It is emotional, consistent, and it pertains to a deep and fundamental aspect of perception. This disturbs traditionalists. Cytowic’s research is suggesting that “we are all synesthetic and that only a handful of people are consciously aware of the holistic nature of perception” (p. 9). He asserts that even newborns can make cross-modal associations (p. 16).

            What is emerging is the idea that the complex processes of the limbic brain interacting with memory, emotion, and attention can explain why humans can make decisions based on incomplete information. Simply put, we know more than we think we know. Herein lays the interface in the debate on the role of the unconscious in language acquisition. Despite innumerable experimental reports over the past 100 years suggesting that stimuli can be perceived without conscious awareness, considerable controversy persists over the role of unconscious perceptual processes and the interpretation of the data. Merikle and Reingold (1992) make an important point:

Ironically, with the dissociation paradigm, it is necessary to have an adequate measure of conscious perceptual processes before it is possible to demonstrate that a dissociation between two measures of perception implicates unconscious processes. Given that there is no consensus as to what constitutes an adequate measure of conscious perceptual experience, it is perhaps not surprising that there is also no consensus as to the role of unconscious perception in directing human behavior (p. 2).

            Schmidt (1999) defined attention as a fixed capacity for processing information stating that when exceeded, performance deteriorates. Baars (1996) also acknowledges that we have limited capacity for awareness. This follows information-processing theories that describe single-channel processing that runs parallel to Schmidt’s hypothesis. If we are distracted, the lack of focus can interfere with learning. Yet there is ample research to support multi-channel processing and learned automaticity. We are “pattern recognizers” and when it comes to language learning, sometimes the awareness of the patterns are operational but below the level of conscious awareness. The genuine mysteries of human learning such as selective attention, blind sight, and spontaneous thought monitoring are scientifically verifiable (Baars, 1996).

The words “conscious” and “unconscious” exemplify semantic complexity and our challenge is to dig deeper and expand our insight. Our experience contains both the things we focus on and also things that the brain allows to fade into the background. This is one of the reasons why psychologists and neuroscientists have concluded that attention and consciousness are the same thing (Hardcastle, 2003).

This transcendental argument exposes our collective addiction to rational and externally verifiable phenomena. Nevertheless, the resurrection of the observing self is underway and we are discovering points of convergence between brain functioning, behavior and language acquisition. Baars (1996) emphasizes that we need a concept of self to fully understand what consciousness is. This is the humanizing factor that will deliver us beyond perfectionist and mechanistic ways of perceiving human perception. While unconscious and involuntary activities do not mandate such a connection with self, they are a necessary distinction for discriminating perceptual events. This is perhaps what Schmidt meant when he insisted that language learning cannot occur without awareness.

Methodology

Subjects

A random sample of 150 teachers, 30 from each of 5 institutions, will be surveyed for values and orientation to technology. Teachers from the Chien Kuo Institute of Technology (CKIT), Lunghua University (LU), and Tamkang University (TKU) in Taiwan and the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia and Assumption University outside Bangkok, Thailand will participate in the study. The University of Queensland has students from 93 countries while Assumption University has students from 55 countries and faculty from 53 countries. Both institutions are considered international universities.  

 

Materials and Design

Three surveys will be administered, two to each teacher in the study and 1 for each institution in the study. A full survey of the campus technological infrastructure will be made for each of the 5 institutions. The Campus Multimedia Capability Survey (Appendix A) will be conducted with the help of the computer centers of each institution and will establish the number of students, faculty, and the multimedia facilities and equipment available to teachers and students.

Teachers from the 5 universities will be administered the Teacher Technological Orientation Survey (Appendix B). This will assess the teacher’s history with computers, their current capabilities, their perceptions of use of technology on their campus, available training, and available support. The World Values Survey (2001) will be adapted to assess teacher values.

 

            This research is quantitative. Statistical analysis will be calculated between measures to ascertain if there is a significant correlation between variables.

 

Background and Rationale

            This study will be conducted in the context of an International Academic Cooperation Project (IAC) through the Department of Technological and Vocational Education, Ministry of Education (MOE), Taiwan. As Project Leader, the research is my design and is entitled Culturally Inclusive Multimedia Curricula: Teacher Training and Collaborative Research. Travel expenses to the University of Queensland in Australia and to Assumption University in Thailand will be covered by the grant. The ultimate goal of the project is the creation of a teacher training VCD and an interactive website designed to encourage and support teachers to introduce culturally inclusive multimedia curriculum in their university programs. This is the third such project I have been involved in the past three years. The first was an also an IAC conducted in Thailand and was called The Great Impacts and Opportunities of Entering WTO: New Strategies in World Economy and Tourism Education Development. Cultural difference in marketing strategies and the use of technology in education were among the topics addressed in the project. The second project, also supported by the MOE, involved the development of CKIT’s first e-learning program Interactive Online English Writing Program (http://cc.ckit.edu.tw/~writing).

            I have been avidly using computers since 1982 and have been observing how e-learning has been becoming increasingly integrated into university programs. I have been building websites since 1997 and exploring the full range of multimedia capabilities. Being fully supported in using computer technology at CKIT by both the computer center and the administration, I have been interested in why teachers are not more oriented to computers. I have been investigating why teachers hesitate to integrate the full range of available resources into their teaching. It is my conviction that consciousness of computing and technology, sufficient personal support and inspiration, and adequate functional equipment are the necessary foundation for educational technology. This study will hopefully shed light on the factors contributing to and deterring from the valuable use of technology in education.

           

 

Appendix A

Campus Multimedia Capability Survey

 

1.      Name of Institution _________________________________________________

2.      How many students attend this campus? _________________________________

3.      How many full and part time faculty members? ___________________________

4.      How many computers are on campus? __________________________________

5.      How many computers are available to students? __________________________

6.      Of these computers, how many are online? ______________________________

7.      Do teachers have their own computers? _________________________________

8.      Describe your campus’ multimedia teaching facilities:

ü      Language Labs ____ yes; ____no; What functions? ___________________

ü      Writing labs ____ yes; ____no; # _____  Accommodate how many students?

ü      LCD Projectors in classrooms ____ yes; ____no; #  _____ how many?

ü      Digital still cameras  # ______        Digital video cameras # _______

ü      Notebooks available to teachers # ____________   

ü      Portable LCD Projectors available to teachers # _______________

ü      Multimedia Library Resources ___ extensive; __adequate; ___ minimal;

ü      Multimedia Self-study Center for students ____ yes; ____no;

9.      Describe your campus’ multimedia curriculum design facilities:

ü      Recording studio      ____ yes; ____no;

ü      Video editing studio ____ yes; ____no;

ü      Video conferencing center ____ yes; ____no;

10.  Are your computer facilities regularly updated and maintained? ____ yes; ____no; __

Appendix B

Teacher Technological Orientation Survey

 

11.  Name of Institution _________________________________________________

12.  Degree in ___________________ Number of years teaching ________________

13.  Age ________     Nationality ___________  Gender _____male;  _____ female;

14.  Subjects taught ______________________________________________________

15.  Teach 2nd Language ____ yes; ____no; which languages? ___________________

16.  The way I feel about my technological proficiency:

 

ü      ______ I live online and am considered a TechnoGeek. I couldn’t live without computers

ü      ______ I am comfortable with technology, I have taken training and continue to learn

ü      ______ I am barely starting out and feel bad about how little I know

ü      ______ I am timid and anxious around computers

ü      ______ I don’t use computers and don’t feel I need them

17.  I feel pressure from colleagues, superiors, and students to be more proficient with technology and use it in my teaching ____ yes; ____no;

18.  The first time I used a computer was:

ü      ______ over 12 years ago

ü      ______  7 ­– 12 years ago

ü      ______ 3 –­ 7 years ago

ü      ______ 1 –­  3 years ago

ü      ______ don’t use computers

 

19.  I use computers for work or pleasure:

ü      ______ almost every day

ü      ______  2­ – 3 times a week

ü      ______ once or twice a week

ü      ______ less than once a week

ü      ______ less than once a month

 

20.  We are supported to use technology:

ü      ______ computer technicians available

ü      ______ good access to hardware

ü      ______ good access to software

ü      ______ my colleagues share material

ü      ______ regular teacher training

21.  I make multimedia teaching materials:

ü      ______ for almost every class

ü      ______  at least once a week

ü      ______ maybe once a month

ü      ______ maybe once a semester

ü      ______ no, it’s not my teaching style

 

22.  I am competent to use:

ü      ______ Microsoft Word – basic level

ü      ______  Microsoft Word - advanced

ü      ______  PowerPoint - basic

ü      ______  Multimedia PowerPoint

ü      ______  I built a website for teaching

23.  In my program, my students use:

ü      ______  e-mail

ü      ______  message boards

ü      ______ computer assisted instruction

ü      ______ C.A.L.L.

ü      ______ writing labs

24.  In my teaching, I use:

ü      ______ PowerPoint

ü      ______ videos

ü      ______ LCD projected lessons

ü      ______ music or sound recordings

ü      ______ Flash movies

25.  What stops me from using multimedia:

ü      ______ feel equipment is unreliable

ü      ______ colleagues don’t use it either

ü      ______ takes too long to prepare

ü      ______ don’t have a clue how to

ü      ______ afraid students know more than I do

26.  What has inspired me to use technology:

ü      ______ I have a TechnoGuru

ü      ______ My colleagues lead the way

ü      ______ My students encourage me

ü      ______ Students like it

ü      ______ I am not inspired

27.  The problem(s) I have with technology:

ü      ______ No one modeling techno use

ü      ______ No training whatsoever

ü      ______ My training was ineffective

ü      ______ No support

ü      ______ No need

28.  I feel pressure to use computers:

ü      ______ From my department

ü      ______ From my students

ü      ______ From seeing what is on internet

ü      ______ I know I should learn more

ü      ______ no pressure, don’t care

29.  If I knew how, I would like to:

ü      ______ Make a website for teaching

ü      ______ Use more internet resources

ü      ______ Give multimedia lessons

ü      ______ Get students to use technology

ü      ______ Teach distance education

 References

Antony, M. V. (1999). Outline of a general methodology for consciousness research. Anthropology and Philosophy 2, 43–56.

Aydede, M. & Eldere, G. (2001). Consciousness, conceivability arguments, and perspectivalism: The dialectics of the debate. Communication and Cognition 34(1), 99–121.

Baars, B. J. (1996). Understanding subjectivity: Global workspace theory and the resurrection of the observing self. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(3), 211–216.

Block, N. (1981). What is Dennett’s a theory of? Retrieved April 6, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://nyu.edu.gsas/dept/philo/block/papers/HILLBK.html.

Bond, M. H. (Ed.). (1986). The psychology of the Chinese people. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brenner, J. (1997). An analysis of students’ cognitive styles in asynchronous distance education courses. Inquiry, 1(1), 37–44.

Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Regents.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton & Co.

Chow, P., & Ge, V. (2001). Multimedia English classroom, Puli, Taiwan: National Chi Nan University Publications.

Clark, T. & Hermen, A. (2001). Corporate developments and strategic alliances in e-learning. Education and Training, 43(4), 256–267.

Cytowic, R. E. (1995). Synesthesia: Phenomenology and neuropsychology – A review of current knowledge. Psyche: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Consciousness. 2(10), 1–17.

Dupin-Bryant. P. A. (2004). Variables related to interactive television teaching style: In search of learner-centered teaching styles. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 1(4), 3–14.

Flowers, C. Jordan, L. Algozzine, R. Spooner, F., & Fisher, A. (2004). Evaluating distance education: Comparison of student ratings of instruction in distance education and traditional courses. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 1(3), 55­–64.

Freud, S. (1915). ‘The unconscious.’ Standard Edition, 14, 159–216, London: Hogarth Press.

Hardcastle, V. G. (2003). Attention versus consciousness: A distinction with a difference. In Osaka, N. (Ed.) Neural basis of consciousness: Advances in consciousness research (pp. 1–17).

Hsiao, Y. (1997). The effects of cognitive styles and learning strategies in a hypermedia environment: A review of the literature. Retrieved May 5, 2004 from Instructional Technology Specialization Department of Curriculum and Instructions, University of Texas at Austin Web site: http://www.edb.utexas.edu/mmresearch/Students97/Hsiao/index.html.

Huang, H. (2002). Instructional technologies facilitating online courses. Educational Technology, July-August, 41–46.

Josephson, B. & Rubik, B. (1992). The challenge of consciousness research. Athens Symposium on Science and Consciousness, Athens, 1–5.

Junaidu, S., & Al Gamdi, J. (2004). Comparative analysis of face-to-face and online course offerings: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals experience. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 1(4), 29–39.

Jung, C. G. (1916). Psychology of the unconscious: A study of the transformations and symbolisms of the libido. New York: Moffat, Yard And Company.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

Lashley, K. S. (1923). The behaviorist interpretation of consciousness. Psychological Bulletin, 30(1), 237–272.

Lumsden, L. S. (1992). Student motivation to learn. ERIC Digest 92, 1–5.

McLaughlin, B. (1990). “Conscious” versus “unconscious” learning.  TESOL Quarterly.  24(4), 617–34.

McLoughlin, C. (2002). Inclusivity and alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment design for effective cross-cultural online learning [Electronic version]. Distance Education, 22(1), 7–30.

Muirhead, B. (2004). Research insights into interactivity. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 1(3), 65–74.

Ngeow, K. Y. (1998). Motivation and transfer in language learning. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 4273318, 1-5.

Oxford, R. L. (Ed.). (1996). Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Roffe, I. (2002). E-learning: Engagement, enhancement and execution. Quality Assurance in Education 10(1), 40–50.

Schmidt, R. (1988). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Plenary address delivered at the Eighth Second Language Research Forum, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.  Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.

Schmidt, R. (1993a).  Awareness and second language acquisition.  Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.

Schmidt, R. (1993b). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.21–42).  New York: Oxford University Press.

Schmidt, R. (1994a). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. In J. Hulstijn & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Consciousness in second language learning (pp. 11–26). AILA Review, 11.

Thurmond, V. & Wambach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and distance Learning 1(1), 9–25.

Traynor, P. L. (2003). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on different learners. Journal of Instructional Psychology 31, 33–45.

Watkins, D. (2000). Learning and teaching: A cross-cultural perspective [Electronic version]. School Leadership & Management, 20(2), 161–174.

Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (Eds.). (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. New York: Prentice Hall.

Wild, R. H., Griggs, K. A., & Downing, T. (2002). A framework for e-learning as a tool for knowledge management. Industrial Management & Data Systems 102(7), 371–380.

Witkin, H., Moore, C. Goodenough, D. & Cox, P. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1–64.

World Values Survey (2001). Retrieved June 20, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.com/.