Assumptions behind new teaching (or was that learning?) technologies
The example of interactive whiteboards is a caution against being influenced by the 'Wow' factor when selecting educational technologies. Whether they're used in a didactic way to 'deliver' information, or in a more lively, interactive way depends on the assumptions of technology designers, educational managers and teachers about how their students learn.
Unknown
One
of the more painful aspects of educational conference-going is having to
sit through long, monotonous PowerPoint presentations. Slide after slide
showing words, words, words, all assembled into lists which start with a
'dot'.
The problem here is not the PowerPoint application itself. Indeed, the combination of clever, powerful software and associated hardware like data-projectors has enormous potential. Used well, PowerPoint can add liveliness and clarity to any presentation. But too often, overhead slide presentations are used more like a sledge-hammer, hitting audience-members over the head as the presenter shows and reads, dot-point after dot-point, slide after slide.
In the worst cases, the presenter seems to view themselves and us (the audience) very differently, like this:
Presenter's self-image |
Presenter's view of audience |
active enlightening full of knowledge/wisdom in control literate |
passive needing enlightenment lacking knowledge/wisdom controlled illiterate: needing to be read to |
In contrast with all of this, at some conferences I've seen PowerPoint used extremely well. Presentations have a sequence that makes sense; there are meaningful graphics (not just pasted in clip-art as a kind of decoration); the one-way presentation of material is interspersed with periods which rely on dialogue and spontaneity; and the slides are used as what Australian workplace change expert Bill Ford refers to as 'visual tools'—that is, tools for unlocking knowledge, for working with, for using to leverage insight.
The basic point about all of this is: a software / hardware combination may be both powerful and clever, but it really only offers 'potential' power and cleverness. What play a large part in determining whether the potential is realised is the assumptions about learning made by those who design, market, choose and use the new software/hardware.
I think this statement applies to any sophisticated new software / hardware combination that comes onto the market. Consider the displays at the ICVET Learning Powerhouse in September. The most heavily promoted new technology was interactive whiteboards. These represent a powerful leap forward from just projecting overhead slides or using an 'old-fashioned' whiteboard.
Interactive whiteboards give teachers a lot of control and flexibility when they're standing out in front of a class. In fact, you can do lots of things you'd do with a mouse at your own computer. You can refer to web-sites and e-learning materials, create and show documents and images using any software application installed on your PC, conduct a video conference, and even record what's shown on the board for later playback!
When they're used well, interactive whiteboards can function as a shared
space where teachers and learners can all see problems being worked through
and text or images manipulated by class-members. There is potential for high
level involvement all round, and it's no wonder that in some countries, interactive
whiteboards have had a big impact, particularly in schools. For example,
in the UK, it's been reported that more than 80% of classrooms are already
using this relatively new technology.
What was particularly clever about the systems on display at the Learning Powerhouse is that teachers don't have to fiddle behind their computers to make things happen. Just touching icons on the whiteboard has the same impact as using the mouse to click on an icon on one's computer screen.
I'll use the example of interactive whiteboards to illustrate the significance of assumptions made by those who design, market, chose and use learning technologies. According to one of the sales reps I spoke with at the Learning Powerhouse, the American-designed whiteboard system they were promoting assumed that the teacher would stand out the front of the class in the controlling position. You could see this kind of thinking in much of the sales literature that was on offer the Learning Powerhouse—confident, happy teachers are shown dispensing knowledge as they stand out the front of the classroom beside the whiteboard.
Students are included in some of the brochures as well, looking eager to soak up knowledge or interact via data pads or tablets, those small electronic boards on which you can write or draw. If one were to believe the sales literature, the teacher stands out the front 'teaching', and students sit with their data tablets, listening, participating and enthusiastically learning.
But, in bringing this technology to Australia, some vendors have found
that design assumptions made in the country of origin may not be as applicable
here. Many Australian teachers prefer to be fairly mobile, and not so much
in the position of 'the authority' out the front of the class monopolising
the whiteboard.
As a result, whiteboard marketing in Australia has had to take a different approach. Instead of promoting the data tablets for use by students alone, there's more emphasis in Australia on the value of teachers using tablets. It's a more democratic scenario: teachers and students, all armed with data tablets, all mobile and engaged in collaborative learning. The whiteboard is still there as a resource, but more for pulling information together rather than top-down delivery.
It's an interesting example of how assumptions about teaching and learning can be embedded in the design of a technology, and about how these assumptions don't always transfer easily from one country (in this case, North America) to another (Australia).
The example of interactive whiteboards (and, for that matter, PowerPoint) are also cautions against being influenced by the 'Wow' factor when selecting educational technologies. Technologies like these are not ends in themselves. Whether they're used in a didactic way to 'deliver' information, or in a more lively, interactive way (a choice that SMART Technologies President Nancy Knowlton refers to as 'sage-on-the-stage' vs 'guide-on-the-side') depends on the assumptions of technology designers, educational managers and teachers about how their students learn.
It's worth thinking about this before you commit to get involved in any new learning technology in TAFE. What assumptions have the designers made about how people learn, and do those assumptions limit VET applications? What about the assumptions of vendors and TAFE managers—are they based on a realistic picture of VET learning? Finally, what are your assumptions about how to create a lively learning environment? And will the new technology, whether it's well established like PowerPoint, or emerging like interactive whiteboards, help or hinder?
