Bill Caraher, Assistant Professor, Department of History, University of North Dakota
Cross posted on the Archaeology of the Mediterranean World blog.
Last week Anne Kelsch, the director of our Office of Instructional Development at the University of North Dakota, suggested that we might have a conversation about the relationship between pedagogy and teaching. In her email she reckoned that “people think in terms of technology inherently either enhancing or detracting from student learning and teaching”. And she should know, as she regularly deals with the whole range of issue from the simple implementation of technology to the pedagogical and philosophical underpinnings of various innovations.
I have tried on various ways of understanding how to use technology in the classroom from various perspectives.the biggest issue at stake with technology and pedagogy is that to use technology successfully in the classroom, you have to understand the recent increase in “technology” as a change in the way in which people think about that you seek to use and how the application, device, or i
From my conversations on campus, people tend to see “technology” (broadly construed) in one of three ways:
1. A Tool. My initial effort to engage and use technology was as a tool that could optimize some long standing pedagogical practice. For example, I could use a threaded discussion to take a classroom discussion from the confines of the classroom and expand it throughout the week. Thus, technology could help us do what we have always done — but do it in a more efficient way and extend what we do in the classroom beyond its traditional boundaries.
2. A Medium. After a while of thinking about technology in this way, I gradually came to see it as less a tool and more a medium of communication. Unlike a tool, which (in my simple assessment) allowed me to perform some established task (typically established within the traditional pedagogical discourse) better, a medium functioned according to its unique set of rules, standards, and processes. Over time, the medium effects the message (or as well all know, becomes the message). Thus, it’s even possible to manipulate the medium as an end to itself — the processes becomes the product. An emphasis on technology as a medium for disseminating information and shaping information encouraged me to experiment more with wikis, podcasts, blogs and the like. Each new medium provided new challenges — how do I make a podcast that they will listen to? how do I encourage them to use wikis? how do I write for a blog and how does that effect my writing?
3. A Network. Most recently, however, influenced by the works of B. Latour, I’ve begun to think about technology and pedagogy in terms of networks. Unlike tools which, in my initial assessment had distinct boundaries and functions, or media, which remain in some way subordinate to the messages that they carry, networks link together media, tools, users, producers, expectations and assumptions. In a pedagogical context, the complexity of the networks which impart technology with both meaning and function as a teaching tool, make it important to attempt to consider the implementation, student perceptions, extent of use in the institution, legacy (or history) of the various technological components, and our need and ability to assess the success or failure of the overall pedagogical goals. By attempting to understand technology in the classroom (variously defined) from a network perspective, we approach teaching technologies as social and political phenomena that have social and political goals. Thus, technology becomes something as deeply embedded in all aspects of the educational process including content, teaching methods, pedagogy, and, of course, the politics of curriculum development (and it’s articulation). For example, in this method of reading technology and pedagogy, using a wiki in the webbased component of a classroom-taught class requires us to understand how students view wikis. In my History 101 class (Western Civilization I), it is clear that students see wikis as a source of authority and are therefore very reluctant to contribute to it — even though it is behind a password protected interface. Students likely associate my classroom wiki with Wikipedia which they receive passively as a source of “valid” knowledge. Moreover, the idea of collective intelligence and collaborative learning upon which a wiki depends, runs counter to the individualized grading and evaluation that characterizes most higher education. In the discipline of history, there tends to be an assumption that certain valid facts exist within a fairly rigid narrative. While scholars obviously do not believe this, students tend to see history this way at the introductory level. So a wiki which encourages them to view knowledge in a more fluid way challenges basic assumptions that students tend to hold regarding the discipline. This could be good, but also could challenge their ability to engage the material and technology thoughtfully. There is also the learning curve, even the most basic wysiwyg interface will intimidate an inexperienced user and limit their ability to take full advantage of the medium. At the end, even the most simple technology — a wiki — is not merely a tool that allows students to work together toward a pedagogical goal, but a node in a series of networks that undergird student assumptions regarding the university experience, the discipline, and the function of technology in a wider context. (And, this does not even delve into the assumptions that faculty have about technology and how they attempt to use them in the classroom — whether they are simply replacing an earlier “analog” technology or introducing a “new” learning environment with new goals.).
