The Changing Landscape of Learning
The video and accompanying article entitled A Vision of Students Today reminded me of my own undergraduate experience. In the case of many lectures, despite the professors’ best efforts to keep us engaged with amplified voices and accompanying lecture slides projected at the front of the room, we found ourselves sidetracked by our numerous devices and their endless affordances of communication and entertainment. Of course this didn’t apply to every student, but this seemed to be a general trend as multitasking became a requirement to succeed. A great point is raised by Wesch (2007), that distractions to learning have always existed, even before the introduction of highly mobile technologies. Perhaps student preoccupation with these devices suggests a need for change within the classroom landscape. Instead of fighting with Facebook and the far reaching capabilities of the internet for the attention of students, why not create an environment for discussion and engagement, perhaps even making use of smartphones, tablets, and laptops? As we have discussed in past modules, no longer are professors the sole bearers of knowledge, as the internet provides students with increased access and a platform for sharing that knowledge beyond the classroom walls.
My most memorable classes were my upper year seminars, where the instructor facilitated and oversaw collaborative assignments, group debates, reflection sessions, and casual discussion about course materials. I walked into those seminars each week ready to immerse myself in a learning experience, and walked out with deepened insights and a sense of fulfillment. Of course, such a format isn’t always feasible in larger courses, particularly general first-year courses. However, technology has the potential to provide virtual platforms for this type of engagement, while eliminating any barriers related to physical space and time. Learners today like to be a part of the conversation as active participants in their education, rather than passive recipients of information. As Cope & Kalanztis (2009) point out, the distribution of authority and agency is undergoing change, as we are expected to take on a number of roles as learners, creators, and users of various media. This new dynamic environment not only supports multiliteracy as it relates to cultural language and technology use, but also demands the retirement of traditional approaches to teaching and literacy for the sake of promoting individual and collective success in all facets society today.
As discussed by Dobson & Willinsky (2008), the Digital Divide refers to inequalities related to access to technology, within the context of geographical location, gender, socioeconomic status, and overall participation in day-to-day usage. There seems to be a generational divide as well. As technology becomes deeply entwined in how we learn, communicate, and ultimately live our lives, there exists some degree of resistance, more so among older generations. Once again, this is not to say that disparity exists between all post-secondary faculty and their students, with regards to technology use. However, in the cases where it does, all parties are at a disadvantage, and engagement will inevitably take a hit. Of course, learners need to take responsibility for their education. If they aren’t motivated to participate in their classes and prioritize their studies, they will always find ways to distract themselves. However, I think the sentiment, “If you can’t beat them, join them”, is highly relevant in the creation of more participatory post secondary classrooms, that take advantage of modern technologies.
References
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New Literacies, New Learning, Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4:3, 164-195, DOI: 10.1080/15544800903076044
Dobson, T. & Willinsky, J. (2009). Digital literacy. In D. Olson and N. Torrance (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook on Literacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://pkp.sfu.ca/files/Digital%20Literacy_0.pdf
Wesch, M. (2007), A Vision of Students Today (Video). Retrieved from http://blogs.britannica.com/2008/10/a-vision-of-students-today-what-teachers-must-do
Hi Natalie,
Thanks for your post. I think you make some great points for the need of pedagogical shifts within college and university settings. Utilizing multiliteracies to focus on student creation over pure content consumption may also provide opportunities for deeper critical thought of subject matter as well as application of modern digital skills. Moreover, the inclusion of social spaces may further engage and motivate learners within the subject. Alexander (2008) posits that students “find themselves catapulted beyond the physical boundaries of the classroom… writing for a global audience is a powerful stimulus for questioning personal identity, representing oneself through writing, and understanding an audience.”
Dobson & Willinsky (2009) also discuss how early applications of word processing in the classroom setting “proved itself more conducive to collaborative work” (p.2) and the “ability of students to readily see and comment on each others’ work led to improvements in the quality of writing” (Bruce, Michaels, and Watson-Gegeo, 1985 from Dobson & Willinsky, 2009, p.2). As you suggest, engaging students within their own learning processes is of utmost importance. These pedagogies, when paired with the affordances of Web 2.0 remixing and publishing, may further motivate students to provide thoughtful additions to academic discourse, and engage them through content creation rather than being the passive recipients of lecture and testable materials, always vying for some external purpose.
I would argue that the required support for pedagogical growth within this domain is not granted by the institution itself, but is an expectation of the professor to take on in their own time. Much like teachers in K-12, professors are preoccupied with their own busy schedules and side duties, which often include personal research, which is their primary purpose for being at the institution in the first place. I believe the leadership of institutions need to be the ones to lead the charge with defining the importance and inclusion of these pedagogical methods, and to provide effective professional development time to take the digital plunge at the higher ed level.
References
Alexander, B. (2008) “Web 2.0 and Emergent Multiliteracies.” Theory into practice. 47(2), 150-60. Retrieved Nov 17 2015 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405840801992371
Dobson & Willinsky. (2009). Digital Literacy. In Olson, D. R., & Torrance, N. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Literacy (pp.1-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thank you for your thoughtful, and very important post.
Several points stand out to me as equally critical to quality education, and difficult to materialize within the current (K-12) educational landscape.
I completely agree, that the landscape of learning is changing, but the landscape of teaching is not keeping up. While the world of the learner has evolved significantly in regards to engagement with and ability to utilize technology in daily problem solving, pedagogical practices practices lag behind.
The internet, which is alive and well in the hands and pockets of most students I work with, is enabling both the asking and answering of seemingly limitless questions – without the need for a teacher! Where teachers have been purveyors of fine information for many generations, that information is now free and available. Our role has changed.
Wesch (2007) refers to the “walls” of academia – both the literal walls of our institutions, and the metaphorical walls built around our “subjects,” “disciplines,” and “courses.” These walls delineate the “real world” and the world of formalized education. These walls need to come down and we need to build bridges between “the technologies that we have at our disposal and the ambitions we have to transform education… this can be achieved by a reconsideration of the pedagogical practices that underpin education.”
Beetham and Sharpe (2013) explain that, “It is true that none of [this technology] has changed human beings’ fundamental capacities to learn, if learning is understood in purely cognitivist terms. But [it has] profoundly changed how ideas and practices are communicated, and what it means to be a knowledgeable or capable person.”
So our pedagogical practices must reflect this new meaning of knowledge and capability. Consider this graphic by George Couros (2015), http://georgecouros.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Screen-Shot-2015-01-18-at-4.39.24-PM.png. Teaching is no longer about being the expert. We are no longer the keepers of education. Rather, we must work to provide the opportunities for choice, innovation,and connection.
References:
Beetham, H. & Sharp, R. (2013) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age. New York, NY:
Routledge
Couros, G. (2015, January 9) 8 Things to Look for in Today’s Classroom [Web Log Message] Retrieved from http://georgecouros.ca/blog/archives/5027
Wesch, M. (2007), A Vision of Students Today (Video). Retrieved from
http://blogs.britannica.com/2008/10/a-vision-of-students-today-what-teachers-must-do
Thanks for the great post! I completely agree with your closing sentiment “if you can’t beat them, join them.” Joining them is a great idea! Asking students to put away all devices and social media in a classroom environment is not at all natural to them, and more importantly, it is not reflective of the working world or social world outside of school. Joining them, will also help to prepare students for the “real” world. The reality is in our world today you need to be able to self-regulate. You will have all kinds of temptations like devices and social media around all the time. In fact, you will likely need to use these tools at work, as some official part of your job. If you are unable to use these tools, or are too distracted by these tools to be a productive member of society, you will not have a lot of success. You will also need these tools in your social life, but will still need to put them down at dinner time or on a date. Self-regulation in regards to digital technologies is an important life skill that students need to be allowed to practice at school. They will sometimes fail, and as a result will suffer natural consequences (not getting their homework done, or doing poorly on a test.) These small consequences from time to time will pale in compression to the major life consequences that students will suffer if they do not develop this skill of self-regulation.
Yes, that is so true! There is a great divide, a gap that I thought I could leap over, but it is too wide, and I know I have to join in as I cannot, nor do I want to fight against the devices in the classroom or the world. Had I not gone to university to do a Bachelor’s of Education for a year at Queen’s recently, I would not understand the use of technology in higher education. It has been very useful for me in relating to my own students now who are only 10 to 13 years old, but who are digital natives like the young students at Queens. It is hard for me to admit that I am not as adept at using technology as I would like to think I am!!!!!! I am used to being very clever, and now I am not so clever! It is a tough reality for me.
The shift that is taking place, and has been taking place for some time now is monumental. I wonder if it is resulting in all kinds of skewed learning as there are so many different teaching styles based on use or no use of digital technology in the classroom from Kindergarten all the way up to post graduate work. Thank you for your postings.
Hi Natalie,
You make great points on the problems of engaging college and university students. The idea that there have always been distractions “available” to students is very valid – I can attest that during the late ‘80s and early ‘90s I was very easily distracted during class, and there certainly were no “highly mobile technologies.” That said, I agree that they are a game-changer. I think the “if you can’t beat them, join them” idea is highly relevant in higher education today.
Kress’s analysis, I suggest, will help to better align curriculum and instruction in the university or college classroom. His thoughts on web-pages seem to me equally valid to the instructional experience. When he observes that people viewing web-pages are “no longer just readers, but visitors (2004,p.9), he might easily be saying that those in the classroom are no longer passive listeners, but active voyagers in the educational process.
Kress suggests the organizing principle behind the new web-page at his institution is the “(assumed) shape of the life-worlds of potential visitors and the interests that arise out of their life-worlds” (2004, p.9). He explains that what visitors come to find is “not knowledge but information; in this new semiotic world, it is the readers who fashion their own knowledge, from information supplied by the makers of the site. That corresponds to a profound change in the situation of authors, readers and knowledge.” I would argue that one can make the same statement for students – they are not seeking knowledge from professors, but rather the information from which they can synthesize their own knowledge. And I think we have to be prepared to do this in very different ways.
Students (at least our young, middle-class, North American student) are increasingly used to the format of the online world. To stay with Kress’s website, authorship (as compared to an earlier, linear 1990s version) is “open.” Kress write that the order of “this page and of the whole site is open—I won’t even say relatively open, because even though the site and its potentials are constructed and structured and the designers of the site imagine the possibilities of reading, they are not enforced and the possibilities are large” (2004, p.10). In other words, the information is no longer designed for consumption in a specific sequence. Visitors can pick and choose the information in order to acquire the knowledge they wish to attain.
In a typical classroom, content is delivered in a structured, linear order. The instructor (author) determines that order. “Hearers (and readers to a somewhat lesser extent) depend on the “unfolding”, the revealing of elements one after the other to be able to make sense of the whole. This gives authors a specific power: readers are dependent—at least in their initial hearing and reading—on sequence and on sequential uncovering” (Kress, 2004, p.13). That “sequential uncovering” might not be engaging for a “digital native.” Accustomed to following trains of thought and using hypertext links between associated ideas, the student may resent the role of “listener” and long for the role of “voyager,” Allowing students to develop and take advantage of various multiliteracies to become a voyager will not only better involve them in materials, but also help prepare them for their roles in the evolving workplace.
There would certainly be difficulties in designing a curriculum that allowed student voyagers to chose their own learning path entirely. However, with careful design and clear course objectives and goals, it could be done successfully. Within those goals, students could be free to use the learning tools of their choice, and in doing so achieve better results than when confined to the typical pedagogical path.
Reference
Kress, G, (2004) Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition 22 (2005) 5–22, Available at http://ac.els-cdn.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/S8755461504000660/1-s2.0-S8755461504000660-main.pdf?_tid=5e865822-9a0b-11e5-a6dc-00000aacb35f&acdnat=1449181112_e36dfbc306016081b5423ef2281acba0
I enjoyed reading your post! I agree with you when you say mention how devices and their endless affordances of communication and entertainment can cause students to become sidetracked. Perhaps one of the reasons students can become so distracted is because pedagogy has taken a backseat to technological advances.
In an article by Graham & Richardson (as cited in Shields, Telfter, & Luc Bernard, 2012, p. 7), they note that “with the current public education schooling experience, there would still appear to be a distinct emphasis on putting technology well before pedagogy”. Technological innovations has driven and enabled many changes in education. They are powerful tools and using them effectively requires that teacher learn to teach differently. Technology at its best should enhance student engagement rather than impede it.
Today’s learners are engaged when they see their learning as relevant. They require a learning environment that is flexible, and fosters learning independently and collaboratively. To facilitate learning teachers must find ways to facilitate and support the learning process. Technology holds an important role in enabling students to learn effectively. Teachers need to learn to leverage the opportunities that technology offers to constructively engage student learning.
According to Sheninger (2014), using technology and being connected has become an obligation and standard to which teachers must adhere to. Teachers need to become life long learners in order to maintain and support student interest. Teachers need to engage with other teachers and exchange information and ideas that will help them to manage technology and put it to use in ways that keep students engaged and motivated.
References
Shields, C., Telfer, S., & Luc Bernard, J. (2012). A Shifting Landscape : Pedagogy.Ontario Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/Shifting_LandscapeE.pdf
Sheninger, E. (2014). The New Standard. Principal Leadership. Retrieved from https://www.nassp.org/Content/158/pl_mar14_sheninger.pdf
A great, thought provoking post.
Universities need more accountability. Particularly in practicing what they preach. Lecture halls just sustain an archaic didactic model of pedagogy. These courses would allow for better discourse online.
Living in an era of the BYOD movement, utilize these devices for social collaboration instead of distraction.