Teaching With Technology as a Political Act

            According to Windham (2005), in order for students to learn their subject matter proficiently, their teachers must have a proficient understanding of technology. For this to happen, traditional pedagogy, such as direct instruction, are no longer effective. In the 21^st century, there has been a pedagogical shift in how instructors teach, moving away from didactic and towards constructivist pedagogy. Constructivist pedagogy requires engaging students through active, student-centered learning, with strong, respectful relationships with their students.

            There are several pedagogies of how to teach with technology that have the potential for making teaching with technology a political act. For one, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a practical framework that analyzes the usefulness of technology. The use of technology can transform the way that teachers teach mandated curriculum if it is used in a socially responsible manner. By carefully moderating and evaluating technology, students can effectively question everyday issues, confront and challenge issues of social, political, and racial oppression, while creating alternate spaces for discourse surrounding social justice issues (Nakagawa & Arzubiaga, 2014). Through districts pushing frameworks such as CDA for use in their schools is one way to make teaching with technology a political act.

            Mandating technology-supported pedagogy for use in state curriculum is another way to make teaching with technology a political act. Teaching with technology can fundamentally change the ways that teachers universally across the nation create instruction by using constructivist approaches and concentrated strategies of implementing technology (Glassett & Schrum, 2009). Harris, Mishra, and Koehler (2003) state that the greatest weakness in technology integration in education currently is that they ignore two key domains: content and pedagogy. Harris, Mishra, and Koehler (2009) suggest the framework of TPCK as a way for teachers to incorporate technology into the curriculum they teach. TPCK addresses not only the need for content and pedagogy but also technological knowledge and use for learning to occur in the classroom. TPCK is a framework that integrates technology into education while recognizing the interdependence of technology, pedagogy, content, and context. Using TPCK as an instructional strategy, teachers can use TPCK to choose different learning activity types into the curriculum they teach. These different learning activity types are combinations of segments that instructors use to plan instruction. By focusing on the differences in learning activities rather than the similarities, it is easier for teachers to carefully select activities to specific content-based learning goals and standards that are consistent with discipline-based content that students are learning. Teachers can use TPCK each time they plan a lesson and it allows teachers to be flexible. TPCK accommodates a range of teaching styles and philosophies instead of following a cookie-cutter model of technology integration.

However, before these pedagogies can be implemented and politically mandated in full force, it is necessary to not put the cart in front of the horse. The cart in this case is teaching with technology, the horse is the digital divide. The digital divide is a political act that has prompted action by the U.S. government. The F.C.C. has extended its phone subsidy program, entitled ‘Lifeline’, to include subsidies for internet services for low-income families. This expanded program is called ‘ConnectED,’ This program plans to connect 99% of US students to high-speed internet in their classrooms by 2018. This is one political initiative that will help students do their homework and look for jobs (Council of Economic Advisors, 2015). While this initiative is in progress, there is still a long way to go to bridge the nation’s digital divide in our nation’s poorest and most rural communities.

I can personally relate to the digital divide. During finals week, I found myself visiting family in a rural Missouri farming community where I grew up. As a remote teacher and student,  I had to find a place that had high enough internet speed to allow me to take my final exam by Proctor U, as well as teach my online classes. This proved an excruciating challenge. My parents live outside of the city limits and their wireless connectivity by no means high speed. A fiber optic cable had been laid in town, but only the residents living along the streets of the cable are able to access high-speed internet. Therefore, I needed to find a locale that was near the fiber optic cable to take the final exam by ProctorU. The rest of the town and the outlying rural areas have painfully slow internet connection. My sister’s house is also outside of town, and she has three children attending school in town. These children are bright students but are paddling upstream due to unequal access to broadband internet among the other students. Another thing I’ve noticed about my nieces and nephews’ education in this small town is that it lacks technology integration. I was eating dinner at my sister’s house a couple nights ago and my niece was working on a poster project (on cardboard poster board). I asked her if her teachers ever gave options to do projects using technology. She said no, that she would like to, but her teachers do not use technology in the classroom and never have the students do projects using technology. That is in direct contrast to my children’s school who has 1:1 technology with school provided laptops and all projects and most assignments used technology. It is also in contrast to my nephews’ education in the U.K., where in their private school, technology is also 1:1, and they do innovative projects such as designing Minecraft projects based on the topic they are studying. I told another nephew about his cousin using Minecraft projects in school and he got very excited about the idea and told his mother. However, these kids are homeschooled and technology is not infused into their curriculum. Minecraft is seen as a video game that takes too much time away from other industrious activities. Therefore, for change in education to happen in this country, the following political acts must ensue: the digital divide must be closed, the federal government must mandate 21^st century pedagogy, and attitudes of teachers and parents must be changed to support the transition from 20^th century direct instruction pedagogy to 21^st century constructivist pedagogical approaches.

References

Council of Economic Advisers. (2015, July). Mapping the digital divide (Issue Brief). Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/wh_digital_ divide_issue_brief.pdf

Glassett, K., & Schrum, L. (2009). Teacher beliefs and student achievement in technology-rich classroom environments. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 138-153.

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

Nakagawa, K., and Arzubiaga, A. E. (2014). The use of social media in teaching race. Adult Learning, 25(3), 103-110.

Windham, C. (2005). The student’s perspective. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds), Educating the Next Generation (pp. 5.1-5.16). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.