This week as we reflect about language and identity, the readings provide food for thought as to how technology as the medium can provide the opportunity for students to reflect their identities and shape different types of conversations that lead to building and sharing understanding.
Students take on many identities on any given day; child, sibling, student, athlete, etc. In all of these situations, a student may transition from their "core identity" to various marginal "identities". In a traditional classroom, however, there are scheduled instances where students are able to express only some of these identities, be it in Gym class, or during a special language arts projects or in the computer classroom. The language use in each situation shapes how identities are expressed. The reciprocal relationship between language and context dictates how identities will be presented and at the same time will define the context. For example, the discourse of the classroom used to be one in which the teacher held a very authoritative role; standing at the front of the room lecturing students and engaging them in "skill and drill" style lesson plans. Students would stifle spontaneity by raising their hand and speaking only when called on. As curriculum changes and new methods and teaching and learning approaches emerge, this dynamic is slowly shifting. With the integration of instructional technologies, students are able to merge social networking forums in an instructional setting, integrating informal and more comfortable spaces of self expression into the formal venues of learning, lessening the threatening atmosphere that may stifle their true self expression.
For instructors, the use of disruptive technologies in the classroom maybe innovative yet uncomfortable, especially if they themselves were exposed to traditional methods of learning. But in the process, instructors become learners. As they discover and familiarize themselves with the language that students use in these cyber arenas of social networking they are exposed to their students various identity facets. Another thing to keep in mind with "language" and "identity" are the disparities that occur among differing cultures. Verbal and non-verbal cues can have drastically different meanings from one culture to the next. The internet has the power to eliminate or serve as a buffer for all those non verbal cues that may lead the conversation elsewhere. However, this filter may also hinder the clarity of identity as the audience may miss inflection and body language that can dictate meaning. This leads to the seven building tasks discussed by Gee. We continually and actively build and rebuild our worlds not just through language but through language used in tandem with actions, interactions, non-linguistic symbol systems, objects, tools, technologies and distinctive ways of thinking, feeling and believing. Connecting to the discussion on Discourse versus discourse, Discourse here includes socially situated identity (whos) and activities (whats). From Gee (p. 27) " If you put language, action, interaction, values, beliefs, symbols, objects, tools and places together in such a way that others recognize you as a particular type of who (identity) engaged in a particular type of what (activity), here-and-now, then you have pulled off a Discourse."
In the past, traditional teacher's identity is as a giver, knowledge-producer, lecturer; student's, of course, is as receiver, knowledge-consumer, and listener. Nowadays, with disruptive technology applied in class with sociocultural environment, teacher needs to have awareness that their identity has to shift to a facilitator, collaborator, or even a learner. For example, when teacher decides to give a lecture with Internet, s/he needs to know s/he is not a central-controller anymore, the learning environment will be flexible and coordinated. Students will have their own "private space", from which they could get information via different mediums, such as Wiki, Google, Twitter, etc. The more understanding of the change of the learning process, value, beliefs, tools, etc., the more clear identity a teacher/student would have. Given this situation, both teacher and students know who they are engaged in what activity. It will facilitate effective and efficient learning.
We also find interesting the notion of how identities do not exist frozen in
time, but that they require the context of the activity and other peoples'
interpretations before they are truly defined. With this new context of formal
merged with informal, the development of disruptive technology leads us to
return to an older concept of identity: that of actions and relationships. It
may be a new context and a new set of actions, but as both instructors and
students adapt to these environments and interactions, our identities are
expressed through both language and action.
The McLuhan and Fiore reading, published in 1967, predicted much of our current realities dealing with technology, the media and instruction. They illustrate their message of accessibility of information to the masses in the way they present their book. It has a collages, visuals, art and text displayed in so many different ways as to reach diverse audiences. It is translating language into forms that can be understood by many...challenging the rational linear models of language. Even referring to education then, it reflects the sad reality of today's educational system: "today's television child....is bewildered when he enters the nineteenth century environment that still characterizes the educational establishment where information is scarce but ordered and structured by fragmented, classified patterns, subjects and schedules. It is naturally and environment much like any factory set up with its inventories and assembly lines." Sound familiar? NCLB?
As McLuhan and Fiore explain the medium is the message and how media touches every part of our existence and "leaves no part of us unaffected, unaltered" we need to look at our cultural and social evolution as informed by the media. And of course what is media but the translation and diffusion of language, information. Their book intends to challenge the status quo of westernized linear and perscriptivist manner of defining what is rational and logic by challenging the ongoing principle that logic and rationality depend on sequential flow of connected concepts (as presented through conventional forms of language expression such as writing and speaking). Yet the media brings forth a new form of language expression through multi-sensory devices that expand our perception of the world.
Technology today is taking this to the next level it allows accessibility to the masses to use multi-sensory platforms of self expression. Language is translated into sound, text, art, clothing, food and it becomes a fast paced sometimes illogical "flow of concepts". This colorful diffusion of the many messages allows our multiple identities to come through in various realms. A new world order of shared information, opinions and art is today's legacy. It is getting increasingly difficult to ignore, and as such our individual identities are now much more intertwined.
I enjoyed reading this post and was struck by a few of the points your team attached themselves to ... particularly,
That piece out of context doesn't stand up to it within the flow of the post, but it does strike me as part of an important discussion/question set we should further discuss in class.
So what is it about these (potentially) negotiated tendencies to not integrate more open dialogue and to not engage in behaviors that would appear to "let go of the reigns" of control by so many teachers? Do we believe that people in general are reluctant to allow their identities (in both formal and informal situations) to be overtly elastic or does it have more to do with the context of the education that they themselves matured through? Do we really fear change so much that we can't recognize that it is OK that our identities are constantly changing -- and that they are being changed dramatically via the context in which we place ourselves?
I, too, was struck by your statement about teachers becoming learners. I agree that disruptive technologies can help make this happen (and even necessitate that it happens), but I also think that teachers should always be learners, whether they are using disruptive technologies or not. If we as teachers are not constantly learning, growing and changing, then we do our students, and ourselves, a severe disservice. Yes, it is hard to "let go of the reigns", but it is a necessary step in allowing our students to think critically and develop their own learning and life skills. The traditional context of education and, indeed, our own teacher training would tell us that we must keep control at all times, but who really benefits from an environment in which there is no flexibility or openness to new ideas? Certainly not our students!
I think that this reluctance to allow elasticity or transparency to a flow of ideas and dialogue in a classroom (letting go of the reigns, as Cole said) comes from the dualism/ struggle between a teacher's role/identity as the authority figure and their teaching philosophy or belief. Which should win over the other? It's hard for teachers, especially young/new teachers to establish themselves as a figure of authority and respect and at the same time allow that flexibility that may seem as a "weak leader" in the minds of many who still consider the power structures of traditional education.
As instructors, which hat should we we wear in a classroom? Is there a shift of "power" if we let our students take over the flow of conversations and information created in the classroom? Are we as teachers conforming to pop culture's influence of the overuse of technology? Is this weakening the quality of formal education? What does this really mean for the educational hierarchies of power when students' voices and actions are dictating the curriculum?
These are all struggles I believe teachers go through when considering anything that disrupts the established practice of teaching. The conflict between the authoritative roles/identities and their own beliefs and inclinations towards change.
I agree too that teachers should and are always learning from the moment they step foot into their first classroom until the minute they retire and pass out their last final exam. If teachers are not learning in the classroom then how are they keeping up with trends in which students learn and how does that affect how students will learn in their classroom? I my opinion I believe that is a recipe for disaster.
When I first started teaching as a teaching assistant for Penn State, I was accustomed to teaching my students with an overhead projector and hand-writen notes on the blackboard. About halfway through my first semester I was approached by another TA and he mentioned that he was instructing his students via a method that allowed students to pull up current weather maps that displayed the topic that was being discussed in class that day and ask questions about the map once he brought the same map up on the classroom computer. At first I was hesitant to use his method for my students since I was afraid my students would look at something on their computer that wasn't class related instead of looking up weather maps to ask questions about. However, in the back of my mind I knew that using the computer in the classroom was today's current trend in learning in the classrooms so in the end I decided to use my fellow TA's method of teaching and it proved to be a success in my classroom. I was afraid to use what I considered to be a "disruptive technology" but by actually using the technology over and over again my fears of it being disruptive slowly vanished.
Stephanie, your points about hierarchies of power and the role of authority figures in our educational system form a very interesting background for the question of why change isn't more forthcoming, and why disruptive technologies aren't more readily integrated into the classroom. "Disruptive technology" is more an idea than any particular solution; what we're talking about is why it's so hard to discard old ideas of teaching that are clearly not working and consider new approaches, especially those that integrate technology, that may displace the authority of the teacher. It's easy to understand, though, when you consider that our entire educational system is based on hierarchies and the role of authority. At some point, state or national standards are going to trickle down to effect the day-to-day teaching practices of any K-12 teacher. Presumably these standards themselves are based the idea of developing a hierarchy of knowledge and skills that will eventually make our students productive members of society. In that context it's understandable that many teachers feel they don't have much flexibility in their role as an authority figure running a classroom that is "ordered and structured by fragmented, classified patterns, subjects and schedules", and consequently that students feel they are passive receivers of that authority.
I think one of our challenges is to demonstrate how we can use disruptive technologies to allow students to shift students' identity from passive to active and social participants in the classroom and still meet or exceed those state and national standards (flawed as they may be). I look forward to seeing more examples of K-12 teachers using gaming and social media in their teaching whose students regularly perform better than other students in their districts. Once we can do that we can challenge the standards themselves.
I enjoyed the NCLB reference in your response. The McLuhan and Fiore quote also prompted me to think of the advent of standardized testing and the effects it has had on our education system, particularly this portion: "the educational establishment where information is scarce but ordered and structured by fragmented, classified patterns, subjects and schedules. It is naturally and environment much like any factory set up with its inventories and assembly lines." With all the talk about national standards and race to the top, a time when disruptive technologies are fully embraced and when student identities can regularly take up that of an expert seems far removed from the national push. Yet, states have continued to incorporate technological aspects into their standards and programs like Classrooms for the Future continue to be implemented. There seems to be a disconnect.
Looking at educational history enables one to see that our (America's) philosophies and approaches to education have gone through quite a few stages - a hopeful nod toward "it wasn't always like this" or "we might just snap out of this". I am currently involved in a research project that is cataloging the major movements in the teaching of writing in the 20th century. It is fascinating to read professional journal articles from different decades and get an idea of what the educational philosophy of the time was. For example, the arts and drama were especially valued in the 20's. I am also watching out for references to new technologies being incorporated into curricula. There is one article (from the 40's) in which typewriters were being introduced as an essential tool in the English classroom - the professor author set out to research how using a typewriter might be beneficial. Hopeful, no?
I can't help but wonder if some of the hesitance toward "letting go of the reigns" has to do with the multiple roles that teachers are asked to play in the context of their jobs. I don't know whether they actually assume different identities, but certainly are asked to be in the role of instructor, facilitator, disciplinarian, etc. Teachers have to maintain some sort of "order" in their classrooms, and have to educate students not only on curricular knowledge, but also in appropriate behavior, interpersonal interactions, and multitude of other things, along with dealing with students that have a variety of factors affecting their classroom behavior (home life, background, disabilities, etc). It seems to me that teachers may feel a need to maintain their authority in some areas, but yet embrace the changes in perception of expertise and authority that come with a more collaborative, knowledge-generating philosophy. Finding a balance between those roles could be a challenge. Perhaps we need to consider that leadership looks different, but still has an element of authority and respect... we're not saying that teachers are students' peers, just that their interaction looks different with the advent of new philosophies and tools.
Nicole, you wrote "... student identities can regularly take up that of an expert..."
This is something I have been wondering about. Does the collective experience of the students in the classroom at times outweigh the experience of the instructor? As the saying goes, everyone is smarter than anyone. In an environment where students can question and discuss, how much should they be allowed to shape where the subject matter of the class focuses on? Teachers need to keep learning not only to stay current with new ways of communication and their impact on society, but perhaps also in order to keep up with the lines of questioning discussion that the students shape. In other words, the car is no longer on the road the teacher built, it is an off-road vehicle. Just by being exposed to student's knowledge and diverse experience, as well as being exposed to student's questioning, it becomes a learning process for the instructor. A learning process that presumably is less common in the traditional classroom model.
No doubt this applies more to higher ed, where there is more freedom from standardized tests and students are better equipped to be able to engage in this manner.
I agree with what Tracy wrote.
The issue of authority in a classroom continuously instigates arguments between teacher-centered and student-centered instruction.Teachers are fearing that changing their role in a classroom will result the loss of authority.
However, I don't think their core identity as a teacher would be changed even if the way of teaching has changed. No matter what teachers teach, it still would be a teacher's role to guide students and organize a class. If students organize and choose what they will do and learn from a class, it would be hard for them to control the whole class and they might be worried about if they're going on the right track.
This does not mean that I'm against the idea that teachers sometimes need to be a learner. With the use of disruptive technologies in a classroom, teachers should know and feel comfortable with the use.
It really would be a challenge both for teachers and students
to get used to this new kind of teaching/learning method and not to mix up their core identity.
I really enjoyed reading this post and this statement reminds me why I started to be interested in using technology in classroom.
For instructors, the use of disruptive technologies in the classroom maybe innovative yet uncomfortable, especially if they themselves were exposed to traditional methods of learning.
The atmosphere of the classroom in Korea is quite static in terms of interaction. Most teachers are reluctant to change their traditional way of teaching and hate things that will cause the loss of their autority. They want to keep their space as a controller and an authorative knowldege giver in the classroom. I realized that the lack of interaction is one big problem in education of Korea. I thought that the key to this problem might be using technology as a medium.I am sure that technology facilitates various ways of interactions and leads to efficient and effective learning. As your post mentions, teachers should be aware that "their identity has to shift to a facilitator, collaborator, or even a learner". It is necessary that teachers should not confine themselves to one identity or role and should accept the changes so as to make improvement in the quality of education. Teachers' identity play an important role whether technology will have an effect.
One thing that I would have been interested in hearing more about in this posting is the concept of students and teachers interacting online. I think its true that instructors who choose to implement technology in their classes do become learners. I think it is interesting that through the online interaction the teachers actually choose to reshape their own identities, by breaking past the four walls of the traditional classroom. I think this is wonderful because it does remove the image of the teacher as the authority figure at the front of the room dictating what students should be learning. In addition, I think this could have a significant impact on the issue of increased class size, and students getting lost among such a large number of their peers. If students and teachers are able to interact online it provides the students with a new opportunity to let their identity show through and to make the student feel like a unique and important individual when their instructor invests the time to leave comments on their facebook page. It has the ability to prevent students from becoming a a face in a crown of other students and allows their digital identity to be available to their instructors at all times.
The idea of multiple identities is a very interesting one to me. I supposed the question should not be about identity formation only but perhaps also about the quantity of identities.
When it comes to communication, we all have different ways we communicate and such communications differ based on context, and audience. The way I speak to my mother is not the same way I speak to my best friend, which is different from the way I communicate in class as a student which is different from the way I communicate in a classroom as a teacher. Does that mean I am a different person in each of those situations (i.e. different identities), or can I maintain the same identity and still communicate differently in different contexts?
The discussion of multiple identities is really interesting to me. I think Team Two and everyone above have provided very insightful opinions. The concern about de-authority of teachers brought by using technology really drew my attention. Firstly, incorporating more voices to one idea should be one of the educational goals. Reducing the authority might look less empowering teachers but would still become a way to succeed the goal of expanding knowledge.
(Sorry, I accidentally press submit)
Secondly, I agree with Michelle's opinion that teachers should always be learners, no matter with technology "disruption" or not.
As Gee's article points out, identity and context reciprocally define and shape each other. When thinking about the problem of de-authority of teachers, we may think about the idea Gee points. If the context changes, it is inevitable that our identity changes. Maybe it kind of de-authorize teachers with technology integration in the classroom, on the contrast, the teachers still have the opportunity to shape the classroom, the context, by his/her language and behaviors to shape the context.