I was always an early and avid adopter. What kills learning in the classroom is boredom. Lectures are boring. High student participation with open debate based on pre-reading and especially well-chosen open-ended case studies heightens energy and learning in the classroom.
Technology is a part of a multi-channel approach to facilitating learning. Chalkboards, overhead projectors, document cameras, wifi internet connections (fraught with challenges), simulations, video clips, lighting management, audio clips, flip charts (3M Post-It versions that can easily hang on the walls likety split), microphones, Adelphi voting stations, Excel mirroring from student computers, distance learning cameras, and more CAN BE excellent accelerators of learning facilitation. The key is to be so practiced that the transitions from one channel/mode to another are seamless and without stumbling. If the video won’t play, if the audio doesn’t work, if the cable isn’t connected properly, etc., the disruption destroys the “magic bubble” that I tried to create in every class—a situation in which everyone was enthralled with what was happening the room and paying attention 100%. Seamlessly moving from one mode to another provides variety, energy, and poignancy.
AND technology may not be the right answer for any given element. I have taught worldwide the second chapter of Shaara’s book Killer Angels about the dilemma Joshua Chamberlain faced (https://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj/General/PUBLIC/Chamberlain.pdf ) for 40 years. I told the story and recited Chamberlain’s speech to the deserters live (using some drama techniques). It was always, no matter what continent we were on, a very powerful class: Would you, given legal authority, shoot the deserters?
When the film Gettysburg starring Jeff Daniel came out I was excited to load the clip onto my PowerPoint pages with menu of multiple video clips (so you could pick one at a moment’s notice depending on the discussion). I did so, used it 2–3 times and you could feel the energy leaking out of the room. So I went back to doing the episode live and in person—and the energy level went back up. Technology is not always the best channel. Technology is not the goal, it’s one tool for facilitating learning.
I taught some on-line distance classes. Students were spread all over the world. Sometimes the connections weren’t that good, sometimes students were on commuter trains trying to listen, or in coffee shops getting breakfast. I had no way of knowing if they were prepared, had read the assignment, etc. For learning, it was a poor mode/channel.
I taught some classes face-to-face in a Middle Eastern country. Not a classroom, rather a flat room with movable chairs, no desks. At first, there were 10–15 people there. By the first afternoon there were 50 people there. By the next day, 100. The culture was, a few will “check it out” and text whether it was worth while or not. No advance prep, no attendance guidelines—but the technology grew the class hour by hour.
With technology we can listen to people speak worldwide and that's a plus. We can invite speakers to check into our classrooms. Having a meaningful discussion with eye contact over that medium is much more difficult--and ultimately unsatisfying. Can't do role plays. Can't scan and assess room energy and mood. etc.
Technology is a tool not an end goal. If it helps, great. If it gets in the way, lose it. There are things we do in a F2F classroom that we just cannot do over technology linkages.
Technology is a part of a multi-channel approach to facilitating learning. Chalkboards, overhead projectors, document cameras, wifi internet connections (fraught with challenges), simulations, video clips, lighting management, audio clips, flip charts (3M Post-It versions that can easily hang on the walls likety split), microphones, Adelphi voting stations, Excel mirroring from student computers, distance learning cameras, and more CAN BE excellent accelerators of learning facilitation. The key is to be so practiced that the transitions from one channel/mode to another are seamless and without stumbling. If the video won’t play, if the audio doesn’t work, if the cable isn’t connected properly, etc., the disruption destroys the “magic bubble” that I tried to create in every class—a situation in which everyone was enthralled with what was happening the room and paying attention 100%. Seamlessly moving from one mode to another provides variety, energy, and poignancy.
AND technology may not be the right answer for any given element. I have taught worldwide the second chapter of Shaara’s book Killer Angels about the dilemma Joshua Chamberlain faced (https://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj/General/PUBLIC/Chamberlain.pdf ) for 40 years. I told the story and recited Chamberlain’s speech to the deserters live (using some drama techniques). It was always, no matter what continent we were on, a very powerful class: Would you, given legal authority, shoot the deserters?
When the film Gettysburg starring Jeff Daniel came out I was excited to load the clip onto my PowerPoint pages with menu of multiple video clips (so you could pick one at a moment’s notice depending on the discussion). I did so, used it 2–3 times and you could feel the energy leaking out of the room. So I went back to doing the episode live and in person—and the energy level went back up. Technology is not always the best channel. Technology is not the goal, it’s one tool for facilitating learning.
I taught some on-line distance classes. Students were spread all over the world. Sometimes the connections weren’t that good, sometimes students were on commuter trains trying to listen, or in coffee shops getting breakfast. I had no way of knowing if they were prepared, had read the assignment, etc. For learning, it was a poor mode/channel.
I taught some classes face-to-face in a Middle Eastern country. Not a classroom, rather a flat room with movable chairs, no desks. At first, there were 10–15 people there. By the first afternoon there were 50 people there. By the next day, 100. The culture was, a few will “check it out” and text whether it was worth while or not. No advance prep, no attendance guidelines—but the technology grew the class hour by hour.
With technology we can listen to people speak worldwide and that's a plus. We can invite speakers to check into our classrooms. Having a meaningful discussion with eye contact over that medium is much more difficult--and ultimately unsatisfying. Can't do role plays. Can't scan and assess room energy and mood. etc.
Technology is a tool not an end goal. If it helps, great. If it gets in the way, lose it. There are things we do in a F2F classroom that we just cannot do over technology linkages.
No comments:
Post a Comment