A week prior to the submission of the online resource (for the course of study in Cyberlearning) I was involved in a Technology Twilight Professional Development [PD] Session at my school where I was to conduct two 45 minute sessions on how to use interactive whiteboards. As a member of my school’s ICT committee, and one of the keynote presenters on this evening I was often queried during the PD as to why teachers should engage in the use of digital technology in class – particularly when for most it seems extremely laborious. My standard answer here would have been along the lines of that when riding a bike it takes a while to get the hang of it but once you’ve got it, it is just so much more efficient. However, on this occasion I had to pause for thought – was the IWB so much more efficient than the whiteboard? What about all the Web 2.0 ‘solutions’ I had been providing my History department? Were they efficient? What about this online resource for CLN601? Was I ultimately doing the same thing as I had already been doing but in a digital format? If so what is the point of making the transition to a digital presence? Didn’t using these tools imply that I was offering the students a learning experience that was much more enriching that what I had been providing before? Or, was all this simply as Lankshear and Knobel posited, “old wine in a new bottle” (in Davies & Merchant, 2009, p. 2)?
This direction in thinking was new for me. I did not consider myself ignorant, but to be a realist in that technology in the classrooms will never be a substitute for a quality teacher. “Bad” teaching and teachers will not instantly become revolutionary educational practitioners and the question posed by Ian Gilbert (2010) – “Why do I need a teacher when I’ve got Google?” is not the rhetorical question I personally take it to mean for some. Yet, until this course of study (that being this CLN601 unit) I had not called into question my association of progressive teaching pedagogy with advancement in technology in just such a way. I had so long been espousing as the great advantages that technology affords the learner and teacher in terms of efficiency and productivity that I hadn’t considered all the facets of the issue. For me, technology as an integral part of pedagogy was a fait d’acompli.
Upon reflection, and through additional reading on the theme of this critical incident I am working towards the conclusion that it is possibly not efficiency and productivity that are the selling points of the integration of technology and the classroom. Is there really any difference in being able to create a KWL worksheet on a piece of paper versus creating that same worksheet through the use of a Web 2.0 app? In terms of efficiency and productivity – no there isn’t. In fact, it could easily be argued that the time required for the creation of certain online resources far outstrips the convention tools for accomplishing the same physical task. For example, the time it took me to create my own VoiceThread for the online learning activity for this course took me considerable longer than creating a paper based worksheet of questions based on those almost identical resources gathered on my behalf by the school’s teacher librarian.
As I had never really taken the time to articulate what it was that made teaching with Web 2.0 a truly worthwhile experience for both teachers and learners, I grasped at what I though would be the easiest outcome to sell. Thus, improved productivity and efficiency became my standard answer as to why we should be moving in the direction of technology rich classrooms. What is clear from this reflection is that I had been trying to convince others of the ease of transitioning to a digital presence while trying to convince myself that the effort would be worth it in the end. I instinctively knew that technology offers the possibility for deeper learning but was consciously or subconsciously trying to avoid mention of the work that might be involved in getting to that point. Also, I was cognisant of the feeling that “the use of technologies that displace, interrupt, or minimize that relationship [the interpersonal relationship between the student and the teacher] is viewed in a negative light” (Cuban in Sturm, Kennell, McBride, & Kelly, 2009, p. 368). That is to say, it is my perception that technology, more specifically the time it take to successfully employ it in the classroom, is felt by most teachers to be time that is taken away from teaching of the content and interactions that stem from that.
So, if it’s not efficiency and productivity that are the ultimate payoffs what is? In a moment of clarity and in reflection, based on a number of pertinent readings, what became clear to me is that what makes Web 2.0 more than a digital representation of the traditional paper and pen approach to learning is that of communication as well as collaboration. Davies and Merchant (2009) point to the findings of a number of research papers that identify three important points that more than justify the role of Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom:
- A significant amount of learning takes place in out-of-school contexts…
- Informal learning is both important and worthwhile for children and young people.
- …peer interaction can play a very important part in learning
(Davies & Merchant, 2009, p. 2)
On that night when of my critical incident occurred, when those numerous questions were working their way in and out of my conscious thought processes, I could not answer in the manner I had previously. My course of study and my experiences in my involvement in the creation of the online digital resource for this course had caused me a moment of self-doubt in the message I was trying to sell. What this reflection on that critical incident has provided me with is the space to logically think about and articulate why what I am trying to do with Web 2.0 technologies is more than “old wine in a new bottle”.
My new approach to the question that caused my initial moment of doubt has now evolved (and I would expect it would not cease to evolve) into the following three-pronged approach:
- The movement from pen and paper to a digital presence is not easy
- It involves research
- It involves trial and error
- Above all it requires time, patience and the will to succeed.
- The movement from pen and paper to a digital presence is not a one stop fix
- It won’t solve all the problems in the class such as behaviour
- It won’t make what is an intrinsically bad lesson good.
- The movement from pen and paper to a digital presence, however is worth it because:
- Students are afforded more opportunity for instant feedback
- Students are afforded more opportunity to collaborate outside of the traditional boundaries of school.
- Students are afforded more opportunities to experience information in wider range of forms and they in turn can respond to that information in a wider range of ways.
While moving to a digital presence that makes full use of technology and Web 2.0 opportunities is not easy nor is it a one stop fix, it is worthwhile for the experiences students will be able to have greater opportunity to interact with each other, us the teachers, and the content.