The Trouble with Technology: Common Complaints 1 of 2

After reading about technology in the classroom for a couple semesters, witnessing it over the course of my education, and talking about it with other instructors, I’ve decided there seems to be really only a handful of complaints that most teachers share and am listing them here to analyze. I divided the complaints into two categories, myths and facts. The second, facts, will come in the next blog post. The first, myths, consists of troubles teachers foresee or encounter that shouldn’t occur:

1) Accessibility – teachers seem to believe that if students have access to the entire web for class (whether in a computer lab, or they use a laptop in class, etc.) they will spend the period perusing inappropriate material (be it porn or social networking sites). If computers are required technology for a course—or section of a course—then the instructor needs to take appropriate measures to ensure students stay on task; this does not mean blocking every site that doesn’t end in .edu or .gov or .org; it does mean circulating, with panoptic surveillance or physical presence, to silently remind the students to stay focused. If, however, the course doesn’t require technology, and the student only uses a laptop in class, then there is little recourse but hoping they are on task and including a note in the syllabus about that.

2) Authority – teachers often fear the “Ferris Bueller” archetype: that student who is tech savvy and anti-authoritarian, the one who can change his grades in the school computer database, twist technology to trick teachers, etc. I don’t feel this is a realistic fear. Are there going to be students who know more than a teacher about technology used in class? Yes. Is that a bad thing? No. Employing technologies in the classroom cannot require the teacher to be an expert – if that were the case, no technologies would ever get used; but instructors need to remember that students can teach the teacher as well as the reverse. Good teachers utilizing technology cannot be afraid to learn from their students – it won’t damage credibility or authority to show ignorance, rather, showing a willingness and humility to learn from a student should only garner respect.

3) Anonymity – this topic seems to be a hybrid of the former two and rises when pedagogues explore social interactivity via technology for class purposes. Whether asynchronous posts on a blog/forum/board/etc. or synchronous MOO/chat space, teachers often fear student anonymity because they equate it with a lack of control. The myth can be understood by the simple erroneous equation (borrowed, in effect, from John Gabriel): students+anonymity+classroom=internet trolldom. And like the accessibility issue, many instructors overcompensate for their fear. They employ the utmost restrictions, tech panoptic surveillance, and lock down options with an iron fist. This countermines some of the greatest benefits of technology (and indeed anonymity) in the classroom. Rather than declare martial law in cyberspace, instructors should make an effort to learn the basic, non-intrusive commands/protocols/etc. to keep order in case anonymity is abused, not in preparation.