Technocomplacency: the spellchecker and learning.

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