Why should I care about culture when teaching with technology?

This question has loomed in the back of my head after reading Angela Haas’ piece and Martin Lucas’ piece regarding technology and culture. As the teacher, from what cultural framework am I working with technology? Doing so, what assumptions am I making about technology and culture and my students? How does this affect the projects that I assign? How does that influence the values I try to demonstrate through learning goals? And even the larger, looming question: how is culture related to technology?

The wampum: is this technology?

Haas’ “Wampum as Hypertext: An American Indian Intellectual Tradition of Multimedia Theory and Practice” and Lucas’ “The Virtual Cutting Room” both led to the questions that I pose above and while they do not necessarily answer all of the questions directly they provide critical insight to help guide and better inform my questions. Specifically, Haas’ piece focuses on the cultural impact American Indians had on technology as multimedia workers and intellectuals. For her, American Indians use of the wampum “has the potential to re-vision the intellectual history of technology, hypertext, and multimedia studies” (p. 78). Yet, what does the claim that American Indians were multimedia workers and the claim that the wampum, which are basically shell beads, is a technology have to do with teaching with technology? Well, nothing directly but it does begin to raise questions that relate to how teachers value certain technologies, how society at large labels what is and what is not considered ‘technology’, and the impact those choices have when teaching with technology to our students. Thinking about this Haas’ piece I was immediately drawn to an assignment typical to a FYW course. The remix assignment asks students to take an essay that they previously created and to “remix” it in a different form for a different purpose. The task of remixing is rhetorical in nature and thus applies tremendously well to a freshman writing and rhetoric class. However, without fail this assignment tends to freak students out who do not consider themselves “technology savvy”. These students tend to assume that they need to have the best software, a Mac computer, excellent editing skills, and (of course) think they need to make a movie. And while many teachers attempt to combat these assumptions and encourage students to really stretch their understanding of what a remix is and it’s “dependency” on technology, most students still struggle with that need for impressing with fancy graphics, transitions, and over-the-top production. It is the Haas piece that I think really hits at these underlying assumptions – what technology is and what makes technology great is determined by cultures. Students at Big Ten institutions then connect this idea of technology to that of Western, Elite Cultures. The connection is clear. Yet, what as teachers can we do to begin to shift this perspective?

Well, the piece by Lucas in Learning Through Digital Media attempts to provide activities to answer this question. Here, Lucas breaks down the power structure of technology. Cultures have power. Here in the U.S. we are one of the largest, if not the most, dominant and controlling cultures. Western values today can be found everywhere and resistance to these Western values in non-Western countries are clear as well (especially with revolts occurring during the Arab Spring). And Lucas attempts to unpeel this link between power and culture writing, “one cannot help but feel that the fact that most media productive tools come from a handful of very larger corporations” (p. 205). Understanding this, Lucas uses videos from the Educational Video Center (EVC) as tools to begin to unpack those power relations and invite students to question the link between culture, power, and technology. In his courses Lucas asks students to “contemplate the history of technology as a set of complex social interactions that are historically determined” and to do so, these students watch videos produced by EVC that challenge power and technology structures. Doing so invites critical perspectives on technology and begins to “pull the rug” under students and their understanding of technology.

While I am still mulling over and developing answers to some of those questions that I posed at the beginning of this post, I really appreciate the tools offers by Lucas and plan to incorporate a video or two into my class before introducing the remix assignment. I hope this will help to resituate student’s understanding of what technology is and help generate discussion around what makes a good remix. For me, a great remix is not using great technology but using great rhetorical skills to shift and repurpose a previous essay.  Drawing on the work of Haas and Lucas, I am hopeful that I will be better positioned to challenge my own and my students work with technology. (Now to only incorporate all of these ideas into a syllabus/project description….)

Film Review of PBS Frontline Documentary, Digital Nation

The PBS documentary series, Frontline, recently re-aired a 2010 documentary Digital Nation which examined the wired world that we are living in. Producer and director, Rachel Dretzin and correspondent Douglas Rushkoff narrate and guide this documentary as they explore both the affordances and disaffordances of living in a digital nation. The filmmakers examine virtual gaming worlds, students in South Korea becoming digital addicts eventually enrolling in rehab in order to “un-plug”, debate the topic of multitasking, and examine new trends and critics of teaching with technology. As such, this documentary covers a wide range of issues related to technology and concludes on a note that suggests that technology is not going away, in fact it is rapidly changing, as such the future of the digital nation is unknown and unpredictable. (No kidding, right?) Yet, what I found specifically interesting was the documentary’s discussion of multitasking in relation to education and teaching with technology.

Here are some highlights of the documentary as they relate to AL881:

Multitasking

Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology at MIT, Dr. Sherry Turkle began the piece that introduced the contested issue of multitasking by taking the stance that while it is commonly assumed that multitasking will serve students well, in actuality multitasking does more harm than good. She makes the strong claim that the point of education is to have the opportunity to sit and actually think about something, ponder it if you will, not instantly respond to an email or write a paper as you are simultaneously creating a presentation for another class. Here, the filmmakers met with students at MIT and talked with them about their multiple uses of technology. When the filmmakers interviewed students at MIT, they responded to Dr. Turkle’s argument claiming that professors need to begin accepting the fact that students are actually capable of multitasking and that it is a skill that is necessary to learn in their generation. Yet, the filmmakers note that there is actually no data to prove these stances on multitasking.

Therefore, to try to answer such a claim, researchers at Stanford are attempting to study what is really going on in the brain when people, especially students, multitask. Their research looked at extreme multitask students (those who constantly multitask with 6 or more items), and from this research it was suggested that you are actually slower when you multitask. In fact, those who claim to be excellent multitaskers are actually quiet poor at multitasking.  Another research study looked at the number of hours kids spend with digital media. This study found that kids spend more than 50 hours a week with digital media which has an impact on their brain development because the brain has not yet been fully developed. And in fact, the impact that technology has upon children’s development is hard to really measure or explore because technology changes too fast. One researcher explained that the process to discover something to study, receive funding, obtain participants, gather data, and analyze results simply takes so long that by the time the results are compiled the technology has changed so much that the research is no longer applicable.

Yet some teachers disagree with Dr. Turkle’s stance on multitasking. Instead, a teacher at a NYC school that carefully incorporates technology into their curriculum argues that the world has speed up in many ways due to technology yet education has not. Therefore, educators have a responsibility to begin speeding up with the times and better prepare our children to enter the world with the skills that they need. One of these skills is the ability to effectively multitask.

The Dumbest Generation?

The film fails to conclude with a distinct assessment of multitasking as a skill for students and moves instead into the suggested idea that because of the multititude of distractions students are becoming less and less academically capable. In fact, Emory English Professor Mark Bauerlein, suggests that students of today’s generation are actually the “dumbest generation”. Bauerlein argues that students of this generate is less academically capable than previous generations because of digital distractions. He cites NEA studies that suggest as kids get older reading skills get worst. Further, he cites a study from The Chronicle of Higher Education, which surveyed college professors and reported that only 6% of college students enter college adequately prepared to write. For Bauerlein the digital nation is actually injuring our student’s intellectual capacities rather than fostering their growth.

While the statistics Bauerlein presents are compelling, I am left to wonder what was type of writing was considered a value to know before entering the college classroom. Additionally, I am skeptical to jump on his wagon because I question if it is the digital nation that is contributing to student inadequacies or larger more fundamental issues such as lack of resources and support at lower educational levels to help foster student writing. What type of writing was the studying valuing? Most likely, traditional essay formatted writing. Yet, what about students who do not come from this tradition? Those are issues beyond the digital. Further, if it is an issue of engagement, the film presents a take on how incorporating the virtual world in the classroom actually assists with engagement and supports learning evaluations.

Technology Changes Student’s Writing Process

After listening to the Bauerlein piece on The Dumbest Generation, I was left a little heart broken with the films take on technology. Yes, I understand they must present both the supposed affordances and disaffordances of technology on students. But Bauerlein seemed as if he just wanted to be provocative. For me, the title of his book The Dumbest Generation was the only punch of interest and attention that grabbed me. Thankfully, the filmmakers selected not to close on such a pessimistic note but continue the conversation on multitasking and it’s influence on the composing process. In fact, research has found that because of the multitude of distractions, research has examined how student’s writing processes have changed. No longer do students sit down for hours at a time and prepare an essay. Instead, students are now beginning to compose in paragraphs. They create one paragraph, then take a break and go on Facebook. Then one other paragraph and check their email. Doing so, teachers have noted how these paragraphs fail to connect together and compose one solid thought. Students are no longer looking at the big picture and only focusing on the small, more 'multitaskable' picture.

Understanding how students composing process is changing offered a much needed balance to Bauerlein’s dumbest generation comments. It makes sense that student’s composing would change because the world in which they compose has changed compared to previous generations. No longer are students only composing in their classrooms or in their private diaries but the audience, mode, purpose all have changed. It’s rhetoric baby, and our digital world is influencing how students (and really everyone) compose in ways that suit our rhetorical situation.

Should We Use Technology in the Classroom?

Finally, after offering the counterbalance to Bauerlein, the filmmakers move into the meat of the documentary that couples the critical perspectives of education that we briefly read about in AL881. Now, most of the teachers the filmmakers interviewed were proponents of incorporating technology into the classroom. In fact some are even beginning to use virtual games to teach novels and history. One site that a grade school English teacher in NYC uses is called Ning. It is a social networking site that allows students to write discussion questions, upload on each others walls, and most importantly the teacher reports that the students are able to get into the novel and engage in it. These teachers argue that educators need to begin meeting students in the worlds that they live in and this includes the virtual world. However, critics like Todd Oppenheimer say that by incorporating technological distractions into curriculum actually does a disservice to students. Instead of teaching students how to do many things at once, we need to teach students how to focus and concentrate on doing one thing really well (a clear nod to Dr. Turkle at MIT).

Yet, Oppenheimer and Turkle (even Bauerlein) cannot argue with the results innovative schools that incorporate technology receive. The filmmaker’s revealed that failing schools in NYC and New Jersey that were on the brink of shutting down began to see dramatic increase in their school retention rate as well as significant improvement on standardized testing. Clearly, something began to click and turn on once teachers began to meet students in the digital worlds that they live in. And while teaching with technology may be distracting, it engages students and invites individual learning – a goal that I would hope any educator hopes to achieve.

My Reflection on this Film

Reflecting on the documentary at large, I must admit that there were many moments where my stomach turned. Some of the comments and positions made, especially by Todd Oppenheimer seemed dated and simply impractical to implement in today’s classroom. Critics such as Oppenheimer, Turkle, and Bauerlein clearly fear the digital age and are attempting to hold on to any sort of traditional classroom pedagogy that they can cling to when the reality of a digital nation is continuing to slap them in the face. Clearly this movie was screened in 2010 and most likely filmed a year or two earlier. Thus, while positions towards technology and the tools used in the classroom may have changed radically, issues such as multitasking and engaging with students continue to exist and be present in pedagogical discussions at all grade levels.

The film attempts to uncover a wide array of technology use. Thus, at points while the film presents good counterarguments to stances, only surface level issues are explored. Therefore, I would be curious to see what topics and how they would present a documentary focusing solely on technology in the classroom especially in today’s online educational market where schools are actually profiting from online courses. Perhaps one is in the works, until then, we in AL881 are left to ponder at the arguments taken in this film and the readings in general to evaluate and make our own decision on how to teach with technology.