|
Article Excerpt
Abstract
Is the electronic spellchecker a bane or a blessing? [1] This article discusses the emerging technology-engendered problem of complacency and its impact on conventional spelling and, by extension, on learning and information provision in libraries. Since this identified phenomenon is largely behavioral, sustained pedagogical remediation efforts are reiterated.
Introduction
The current technological revolution, and concomitant fluency, has produced some delineated socio-pedagogical and, specifically, library and information science (LIS), problems that are generating inevitable public discourse. Observers have been discussing, among other things, the ethical issue of cyber-plagiarism; that is, cribbing without attributing (Royce 2003; Scanlon 2003; Simmonds 2003; Willis 2001), technostress (Brod 1984; Kupersmith 1992; Van Fleet & Wallace 2003; Wallace & Van Fleet 2001) and the psychological impact of information technology as manifested in technophobia (Jensen, Guttschow, & Hill 2002). Another engaging topic society has been grappling with is the well-documented problem, again, traceable to automation--the spellchecker feature of some common electronic software, such as word processors, and the inevitable impact this is having on the presentation of facts and the strict adherence to orthographic conventions and, generally, on the teaching/learning transaction. [2] While various individuals and groups alike, such as schools and libraries, are grappling with this emerged phenomenon of cyber-plagiarism, the highlighted stubborn technology-engendered complacency problem is raging. This is the delineated technocomplacency phenomenon. The following dictionary (Webster's New World College Dictionary 2001) definition of "complacency" sets the framework for this article: "quiet satisfaction; contentment; often, specif., self-satisfaction, or smugness." The operative word "complacency" is deliberately chosen because that highlights, as indicated, the thrust of this cautionary article from the foci of, generally, teaching and learning and, specifically, libraries. As Reinking (1997) reiterated, technological change has, undoubtedly, affected reading and writing. The societal pervasiveness of technocomplacency is evident in such familiar expressions as: "How did we manage without the microwave oven?" "Oh, the TV remote control is such a blessing!" Has technology engendered, albeit inadvertently, complacency?
Flashback context
At this juncture, I would like to traverse that proverbial memory lane by dredging up a significant aspect of my life as an English as a Second Language (ESL) learner in my native country. I vividly remember my younger days in the Presbyterian initial school system and the traumatic sting of spelling bee and "English dictation" sessions. We, the young learners, were always justifiably scared of these almost weekly sessions because of the legendary Presbyterian school punishment of caning, if one made mistakes. Being a confirmed sissy, I always made sure I learned, and duly revised, the assigned words before I went to school to face those distressing sessions. Unsurprisingly, we of that "dictation" era instinctively acquired the habit of manually checking our spelling before handing in written assignments. There was no automated spellchecker to squiggly-underline mistakes. In sum, there simply was no room for smugness and, inescapably, careful manual editing was the inculcated order of the day. That is the ideal behavioral aspect.
On spelling illogicality and simplification moves
Mentioned above were the factors of orthographic compliance and the ideal utmost preparedness of a spelling bee and dictation participant. Concomitantly, the relevant literature, both popular and scholarly, is replete with the problematic nature of English spelling and sustained moves to simplify it. For example, Rondthaler, writing about spelling reform in a popular literature source, highlights the problematic nature of current standardized English spelling as he rails against the prevailing illogicality that, unfortunately, has spawned illiteracy and its inevitable social "disastrous byproducts" such as dropouts, juvenile delinquency, and widespread crime. In advocating remedial phonetic spelling he faults Samuel Johnson, the pioneer lexicographer, for his "clumsy mandate" with regard to orthographic standardization and its attendant irritating compliance. The following quote aptly sums up the writer's stand and also encapsulates the problematic nature of current English orthography:
Nobody cared until teachers in one-room schoolhouses discovered that spelling could be used for memory drill. Drill, drill, drill. Never mind if the letters didn't match the sounds or didn't make sense. Dr. Samuel Johnson's big dictionary spelled it that way, and that was reason enough! We, alas, have accepted Dr. Johnson's clumsy mandate without qualm or question. It's so firmly fixed in our minds that we cannot conceive of changing our spelling to match the sounds of our words .... What's the logic? Where's the sense? ......
|
