I recently sat down with an former elementary school teacher of mine to talk about my alma matter's transition to a one-to-one program. Her school, like many others today, is jumping on the technology integration bandwagon, with smart boards in classrooms and personal laptops and iPads for students and teachers. And she, like many other teachers today, wonders whether she and her staff are successfully integrating new technology in meaningful ways.
This is, of course, a difficult and complex issue. But I believe it ultimately comes down to questions of epistemology: what is knowledge? how is it acquired? what is possible to know? And questions like this are often directly related to the nature of communication technology at any given moment.
Scholars who trace the history of communication throughout civilization note that every time a new medium is introduced, society changes. Some of these changes have been small, while others indicate major shifts in how people understand and navigate the world.
For example, Marshall McLuhan writes a brief, but compelling history of the mechanical clock and how the process of fixing time into measurable units altered the structure of society. Once the clock allowed for time to be organized into uniform chunks, basic elements of life (eating, sleeping, working) became structured according to time rather than organic needs. Consider the 9-5 workday, for example. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that humans do not all have similar times of high productivity. Some people work better at night and some very early in the morning. However, partly enabled by the invention of the clock, all work is expected to take place in a set amount of time during a specific (somewhat arbitrary) part of the day.
Harold Innis explores larger examples of the ways in which technology organized space and governance in ancient civilizations. He examines the difference between cultures that used stone as a primary communication medium as opposed to cultures using papyrus. Because stone is heavy, not portable and permanent, civilizations using stone as their primary communication medium covered smaller territory and favored centralized absolute governments. Papyrus-based civilizations, thanks in part to the lightness and portability of the medium, were able to spread out across more territory and therefore favored smaller, more local leadership.
Walter Ong analyzes the substantial transition from orality to literacy and its effects on society. This transition was slow and complex and it involved, among other things, the creation of the alphabet and a substantial loss of collective memory. It is hard to imagine what life was like before words were printed on pages and mass distributed, but it is safe to say that society has never been the same since. Many scholars believe that the proliferation of social media technology signals a major transition in society, on a scale similar to the transition from orality to literacy. The new reality of our digital world has profound effects on knowledge and education.
So, what are some of the characteristics of media and communication in the digital communication age?
First, information and communication are public and available for mass consumption. Before the internet, people only knew your opinions and ideas about the world if you told them in person or were a published author. Now, if I post my opinions and ideas on Facebook or on a blog, hundreds (thousands... millions...) of people have access to them at any time. Because of this, information is more communal and readily available; it is easier to learn about the world and the happenings in it, large or small.
Second, media is social. During the literate age, we saw a huge push for individualized communication. People had the newfound freedom to consume information in private rather than together in a large group. Now, things are transitioning again. Information is rarely consumed in solitary/individual settings any more. People work collaboratively rather than in isolation. And receiving affirmation (and criticism) from other people has become a critical componant of sharing information with the world.
Third, media and communication are democratic. Another word I like to use for this is participatory. The best example of this is, of course, Wikipedia. There are hundreds of digital artifacts like this that change daily as they are being defined and shaped by the people using them. People now have the opportunity to affect public information in an unprecedented way.
Finally, information and communication are creative. The internet has made it possible for all kinds of people to share their talents with the world. Not only that, but due to its participatory nature, the very act of publishing or contributing to information on the internet is often inherently creative. When I edit a Wiki, I am creating something new that wasn't there before. One my my favorite examples of this is the internet meme. Information such as a picture or piece of music, can be created and then altered by people all over the world.
This is the culture in which our young people are growing up. When you look at those four chief characteristics and compare them to the culture of an average school, is it any wonder why young people seem disengaged? Young people are spending the majority of their time in a culture that validates their ideas and opinions, allows them infinite access to the world around them, updates them on new information and entertainment constantly, and facilitates their creativity. Do schools do that? Are teachers encouraging student voice and providing diverse and relevant information and activities? Is curriculum creative and flexible enough to adapt and grow based on student interests and abilities? In my experience, the answer is unfortunately, no. Instead, rather than adapt to the demands and opportunities the digital world presents, teachers and parents blame social media for creating shorter attention spans and infinite distractions while clinging to outdated and/or traditional schooling methods.
In the end, the answer to my former teacher's concerns has less to do with how well they are integrating physical pieces of technology, like laptops and iPads, into the existing curriculum, but rather how they are changing the existing curriculum (and culture of school) to better reflect the wider social media culture. In fact, while I believe it is important that all school children have access to state of the art technology, I believe teaching with a social media epistemology can be done without even opening a computer. Imagine what it would look like to create classrooms in which information and communication were public and communal rather than private and individual. Imagine a classroom where students worked together to solve complex problems. Imagine a classroom in which all students had a voice in creating and shaping the curriculum. Imagine a classroom in which creativity flourished and non-conformity was encouraged rather than stifled. This is the social media classroom. And it doesn't require a smart board.
References
Crowley, D., & Heyer, P. (2007). Communication in history: Technology, culture, society (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Innis, H.A. (1972). Empire and communications. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man (Critical ed.). Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press.
Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and literacy. New York City: Routledge
No comments:
Post a Comment