Fisching for the Technogogical Answer

I recently attended a pedagogical conference class at M.I.C.D.S. entitled “Technology as the Cornerstone of Curriculum” presented by math teacher-turned-Director of Technology Karl Fisch.  As an educator and technology-oriented professional, I hoped to get a fresh perspective of technology’s influence on education, and ways technology can be implemented in the classroom (which I and some others like to term “technogogy,” a play on “technology” and “pedagogy“).  For better or worse, I did get a perspective other than my own, but it’s one that I’ve heard time and time again at Internet healthcare conferences and forums: there are new technologies out there, many people are using them, so you should, too.

While other things were discussed in the class, I’d like to stay generally focused on a single topic for this post: the use of many different technologies in curricula.  It’s something I don’t particularly support, and I’m in the vast minority as far as technology educators and “facilitators” go.  And while there are many great reasons and ways to introduce technology in the classroom, I don’t believe every new media technology is applicable to the classroom, just as I don’t believe every new media technology is applicable to healthcare.

For example, many of the examples he gave used Ning, which is a Web site at which you can create your own social networking communities.  For example, if I wanted to create a network of fellow synesthetes, I could use Ning to create such a community.  Likewise, teachers have used Ning as a free way to create a Web presence for their classroom.  I have a few problems with Ning:

• It isn’t a course management tool, and therefore doesn’t necessarily offer you a great way to present information to students in the ways you wish.  You could certainly make the same argument for some of the education-focused content management systems such as Blackboard, Saba, Campusuite, or Moodle, but because their focus is on education, the services supplied are generally adequate for education, whereas using Ning may require some work-arounds or unclear directions to get to the information you wish your students to have.  This can create confusion for both students and instructors.
• It creates more work for the teacher.  Granted, while education should be student focused, the ability for the teacher to adequately and clearly provide instruction is key to the students’ success.  If a teacher is using Ning as a conversational tool, he or she might then need to spend more time moderating these conversations in a non-school environment.
• It becomes just another technology on top of three others for which the curricula calls.  For example, imagine being a student, listening to a lecture during the day, and being mandated to use three separate technologies later that night.  And, meanwhile, you may have to do this for three to seven other courses, as well.  It can quickly become confusing for a student to have to use too many varying technologies, just as Mr. Fisch pointed out that he gave up Facebook because it was one too many social networks with which to keep up.  Is it fair to expect our students to manage something even we as instructors cannot?

He likewise is a proponent of using Diigo, which is actually a neat little tool.  It allows the user, once an add-on is downloaded and installed in the browser, to highlight and make notes on documents found all over the Web.  Through this tool users can make personal notes, make thoughts public, and can collaborate amongst each other.  Sounds like something applicable to education, right?  I’m not so certain.  I argue that there are a number of pedagogical drawbacks to using this tool:

• If the instructor first makes his or her comments on the document, it allows students — whether we like it or not — to focus on the instructor’s comments, and therefore may not have the will to read the whole document.
• Reading a document which is already marked up distracts the reader from continuously reading it, and perhaps compels the reader to make comments which, had they read the entire document first, he or she wouldn’t have made.  Granted, you can turn the feature off for the first reading, but how many students will do that?
• I believe this type of tool, on the ground level, reinforces to students that making a whole bodied, well rounded argument isn’t necessary, and only focusing on excerpts or your opinions is necessary for academic work.  This does education and students a disservice.  I believe a whole bodied, argumentative, persuasive work is still a great benefit to students even if they will never again make such a document again in their lives.  Making a well argued point in a whole bodied paper reinforces the concepts of references, citations, reputability, and persuasion, whereas comments are often half-formed opinions.

The question, then, becomes: what technology do I think is useful in the classroom?  Contrary to popular belief, there are several:

• The use of course management systems (CMS) such as the aforementioned Moodle.  A CMS allows students access to a standard-and-yet-encompassing technology where they can find course documents, media (audio/video), discussion boards, and other communication tools.
• Smart boards and other interactive hardware.  These allow students to develop skills for presenting to and interacting with their audience.
• Information processing software such as Microsoft Office Suite.

There’s a reason post-secondary institutions all have a CMS and rarely rely on extraneous services like those offered at Ning: having all of the course information in one spot makes the purpose, objectives, and outcomes of the course clear for the instructor and students, and allows better time management for all.  Simply running to the “next best thing,” whether that’s Ning, YouTube, Facebook, Wikis, or Twitter, and then trying to mold that into an educational resource is risky.

Risk is a funny thing in education: instructors should encourage students to take risks, but instructors should do their due dilligence in making a strong argument for taking a risk before implementing it in the classroom.  If a students take a risk and fails, it was a great effort, they learn from it, and they only suffer momentarily, whether it’s a grade for an assignment or project.  But when an instructor takes a risk and fails, the suffering can last weeks, months, or even years, and on the scale of not just the individual, but the entirety of the class.

As I said to the colleagues sitting at my table, how much damage will you allow your students and faculty members to incur trying to “facilitate” and require them to use complex and often conflicting technologies to accomplish something that they’ve successfully accomplished without the technology for years?  Unless the technology is proven or expected beyond a reasonable doubt to produce an unequivocal benefit greater than the previous pedagogical practices, I think it’s best not to take that risk on something so important: our children and the way they learn.  Their next class, instructor, and/or institution depends on what you taught and encouraged them to learn; to give your students any less than what they need to succeed in the future on the basis of trying — without plan, process, or due dilligence — is a disservice to them and society.  That’s a risk I won’t take, but one I encourage my students to value.