Engagement vs. Rigor
While reading about web 2.0 as a concept and its possible pedagogical benefits and costs, I kept thinking about the idea of engagement. Several of the readings in this course and in other courses I have taken point to the popularity of digital technology amongst the student population. (Alexander, 2008; Friesen & Lowe, 2012; Boyd, 2009) The popularity and engagement that websites like Facebook, twitter and Flickr garner often stands in contrast to the perceived lack of engagement found within the modern day classrooms. Additionally the educational platforms currently produced seem to be falling short of providing the same level of popularity and freedom found in the more popular websites (Alexander, 2008). Lowe and Friesen (2012) point to how the more popular websites are driven by commercial interests. The commercial nature of these sites guide the designers in creating experiences that the user will find enjoyable and rewarding while avoiding situations of discomfort or negativity (Lowe & Friesen, 2012). The question that arose in my head was, if we are to engage our student using the same practices used by these websites; what costs would be incurred to our current curriculum and pedagogy?
The benefits of using digital technology to connect students to one another are well documented (Lowe & Friesen, 2012). The use of digital technology to provide asynchronous instruction to a variety of students in a variety of locations is a powerful tool, one we are personally experiencing in this MET program. That being said I personally do not think it is necessary that we redesign our classes to achieve the popularity occurring on sites like Facebook and twitter. These sites avoid discomfort and negativity which is an important part of the learning process (Lowe & Friesen, 2012). I am not stating that student engagement is not an pivotal part of the learning equation. However, without a course’s ability to have students encounter situations of discomfort it would be difficult for deep learning to occur. An example that illustrates this idea would be within mathematics. I often hear students’ state that they are not a “math person” therefore are doomed to fail. I disagree with this statement and feel that every student is capable of learning and succeeding in high school mathematics. To be successful however the student will need to spend some time trying and failing. This will likely not be an enjoyable experience and will take time. If the student were able to select which course to engage in based upon preference, or which class was deemed the most enjoyable, the student would likely avoid situations where they perceive a risk of failure. This would mean rather than being challenged to overturn the popular notion of there being “math people” and “non-math people” students would take courses they enjoy and already have an affinity towards. To me this is not what education is about.
The openness and freedom found on the internet has transformed how students engage with information outside of the classroom (NLG, 1996; Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). As educators it is important that we explore the possibilities provided by the new medium and do our best to embrace it. I would propose however that we do not need to compete for popularity. Education requires rigor and therefore discomfort. I am not saying we will never find a way to create online educational platforms that are popular and allow for more student freedom. I am just cautioning that we need to move slowly and not get swept away.
Works referenced
Alexander, B. (2008), Web 2.0 and Emergent Multiliteracies
Boyd, d. (2009), “Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life”
Bill Cope & Mary Kalantzis (2009) “Multiliteracies”: New Literacies, New Learning, Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4:3, 164-195, DOI: 10.1080/15544800903076044
Friesen, N. & Lowe, S. (2012). The questionable promise of social media for education: connective learning and the commercial imperative.
The New London Group. (1996) “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies:Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review 66(1), 60-93
I concur with your sentiments. I think social media sites tend to be superficial and focus on the ‘feel good’ aspect to encourage continued use. I was actually quite shocked to discover that social media’s goal is to bring users’ eyes to advertisers. And here I thought it was to reconnect with people I barely knew in high school. The fact that the ‘unlike’ or ‘dislike’ feature will never be added to those sites speaks to the fact that advertisers are in control and the aim is to make money.
Furthermore, I think learning can be fun and engaging and lead to deep learning. A case can be made for using gaming in education. Developing educational materials that include elements of successful games (epic goals, rewards, challenging but not impossible, social) can engage students in rich rewarding learning environments/experiences.
I think we are at a point in time where the goals and methods for delivering education need to be re-examined. Is it just the three Rs and regurgitation of facts we are after or is it a broader literacy that is in-step with the digital revolution we are experiencing?
Social connections may counter-act fear of failure in a rigourous learning environment
Although I do agree that rigour is, indeed, a crucial component of an effective learning environment, I take a slightly different tact regarding the need for reaching students to generate higher degrees of engagement with the learning and how we can harness social media to meet that goal.
Your point of not needing to compete with social media platforms in the classroom that are simply “fun” activities is well taken, however, the positive aspects of integrating various forms of social media in learning, I believe are too great to be shunned aside as simply frivolous enhancements.
Students who build strong networks through social media platforms, I would argue are better prepared to try and fail and feel that sense of discomfort as they aspire to learn more difficult concepts. The absence of strong networks can contribute to a student’s sense of isolation and panic in not being able to learn academic concepts. When I was a high school student trying to conquer higher-level math, I only wish I could have tapped into an online network to get additional help. My isolation from other learners during that time, resulted in huge fear of failure and a desire to drop the tough courses rather than persevere. My family was not able to help me, and so, I floundered.
Another area where social media can benefit students is when students are able to reflect upon their learning by sharing out concepts that they have learned. An increased and real-world audience can be tapped into with social media usage. In a recent study from Mount Royal University in Alberta (Vaughn, 2014) moderate to strong correlations are noted between “digital technology use and engagement-related parameters including active/collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, level of academic challenge, and engagement in effective educational practices.” (p. 260-261) The value of learning in collaborative social communities, both offline and online, is a benefit worthy of pursuing.
Thanks for your thoughtful post! I really enjoyed reading and reflecting upon your writing.
~Sandra
References:
Vaughan, N. (2014). Student Engagement and Blended Learning: Making the Assessment Connection. Education Sciences, 4(4), 247-264.
I agree that we need to maintain rigor. I would suggest that social media is a tool for teachers, and like all tools, you need to learn how to use it for your purpose if you want to use it effectively. Often teachers do not have a clear sense of how to use social media for their goal, but believe the students are experts with social media. (Horn & Staker, 2015) However, student’s abilities are not focused on educational goals and, like Sandra wrote, its frivolous. This mostly because these tools are tools are used by students to help create and demonstrate identity in social interactions. (Boyd, 2007. Bolter, 2001) They are built for short communication and marketing, not collaboration. (Twitter being the worst of them.)
However, we might want to consider how diverse students use social media to learn. I want to propose that there is two kinds of thinking that are in some ways analogous to oral and written cultural forms of thought. These are external thinking and internal thinking. Students who have a preference for external thinking tend to focus on developing ideas in groups or with partners. They bounce ideas off each other and come up with their best ideas in conversation. You’ve probably seen this happen in your classes. Groups can often generate fascinating ideas that surprise you that no individual could have come up by themselves. Students who are external thinkers, really need to express an idea to think it, then can internalize that thought and use it.
Internal thinkers are different. They wait until an idea is fully formed and then express it. They mull the idea over in their mind before posting it or presenting it. They might even be skilled as perspective taking, so as to question their own thoughts from the viewpoints of their peers. Ultimately, after quiet contemplative time, the person expresses a fully formed and complete idea. Their thinking process is a completely internal thing that is actually harmed through interaction.
Social media as thinking space for some students might be really helpful. Externally thinking studens have an opportunity to express and get feedback on an idea as they formulate it. So, that might be the best way to help some students learn and complete assignments according to more rigorous standards. By providing and directing like-minded students into these spaces, we may be giving them the opportunity to improve. However, when we make it necessary in a lesson or course, we might be doing harm to other students who do think the same way. Differentiated learning should be something we focus on when we think of the media we use when teaching.
Bolter, J. (2001). Writing Space. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Boyd, d. (2009). “Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life”
Horn, M. H, Staker. (2015). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
While students are undoubtedly immersed and at times consumed with social media, I have yet to experience students approach using web 2.0 applications with such fervour. In my past experience with using social media platforms such as twitter in my classroom, students are at first engaged because the concept was novel, but once the novelty wore off, so too did engagement – at least initially. I think with all tools in education, the danger with technology is making it appear novel, and not focusing on the effectiveness and sheer power that incorporating technology can have in the classroom. I believe this is what you mean by as teachers we should not be overly concerned with competing over popularity – novelty, without depth, can be a dangerous prospect for any teacher.
One of the concepts I’m still trying to wrap my head around is the argument that N-Gen students process information differently (Hartman, Dzubian, & Brophy-Ellison, 2007), and therefore as instructors it’s imperative that we adopt the modes of representation and communication that they are accustomed to. Perhaps this is an oversimplification of the argument put forth by Marito and Medly (2008), and I can see the merit in the argument, but I am still having a difficult time with envisioning how I could realistically achieve this goal, given the resources that my school has.
Regarding your second point on how discomfort leads to deeper learning, I whole heartedly agree. When students are pushed out of their comfort zone and given opportunities to encounter perspectives and opinions that they do not necessarily agree with, that’s when dialogue and learning best occur. I will however ask if you could clarify what you meant by “these sites [facebook and twitter] avoid discomfort and negativity”. In my experience, particularly on social media sites such as twitter, there exists a whole host of people expressing themselves in negative ways, and these sentiments which are accessible to everyone, can open up dialogue both online, and in your classroom.
References:
Hartman, J.L., Dziuban, C., & J. Brophy-Ellison. 2007. Faculty 2.0. Educase Review 42 (5).
Mabrito, M., & R. Medley. 2008. Why Professor Johnny can’t read: Understanding the Net Generation’s texts. Innovate 4 (6).