Notes from Henry Clay: Determining Technology's Place in the Classroom

Some crazy stuff's coming out of MIT.

In addition to standard scientific frontier-expanding inventions, such as that of an algorithm enabling robots to scan the hulls of ships for mines (also, apparently glasses-free 3-D TV  is pretty imminent), this past spring the university offered a 150,000 student class on "Circuits and Electronics" which was profiled today in an article in The New York Times.

This class is part of a larger free online education initiative by Harvard-MIT called edX.  Although free lectures from major colleges and universities have been available since the launch of iTunes U in 2007, the Harvard-MIT initiative is remarkable for one reason:  it proposes to offer actual interactive and collaborative classes.  While online classes have been available since 1989 (way back in the day, as far as the internet's concerned), they have typically been the purview of for-profit institutions.  EdX proposes to offer a free and coherent education, complete with instructor, TAs, required texts, and peer interaction (albeit through forums).  In so doing, it also proposes to make an Ivy League education more completely a function of merit rather than lottery or connection. 


Of course, there are disadvantages to this type of program.  It's reasonable to guess that any applicant offered a physical seat at either MIT or Harvard with the means to afford it will take it, online option or no.  Most students still prefer traditional education, primarily for the enhanced academic experience but also, perhaps, to avoid the social stigma associated with online education, which for years has been associated with practicality at the collegiate level (think working single mom or dad seeking new career) and introversion or behavioral disorders at the secondary level.  Additionally, the 7,157 students who actually passed "Circuits and Electronics" will not receive any sort of certificate of completion.  Though the president of edX speculates that a longer and more comprehensive program of study could eventually result in the awarding of an honorary certificate by the university, which may be an acceptable form of accreditation for some employers, I imagine few would want to invest their time and energy into Ivy League-level work for a sustained period without anything to show for it.

Certificates aside, however, what edX proposes to do is ultimately a very good thing.  As this article from The Atlantic points out, physical constraints related to available classroom seats (and not a dearth of qualified applicants) are typically what limit class sizes at Harvard to 1000.  "Our goal is to change the world through education," Professor Anant Agarwal says.  EdX's utilization of the web to reach students in Brazil, China, and Mongolia as well as those stateside in lower-income communities and various stages of life means that the platform is a tool of democratization for education at its finest.  The withholding of a degree in the potential advent of a full degree program is potentially problematic:  since so much of the cultural capital of any Ivy resides in its selectivity, MIT and its peers may idealistically "support" free education without being willing to cede a degree rightfully earned.  However, the creation of edX may be an important step in affirming that the acquisition of knowledge, if sought, is a human right.  This may be a compromise worth making.

Just as online education technology has its advantages and disadvantages, so too do the new technologies used within the physical classroom.  Often new technologies allow us compromised access to things that we would otherwise have no access to.  In some cases, this compromised access is to education; in others, it's to experts and Discourse communities.  I was impressed with some aspects of the video conferencing technology we used in class discussion on Wednesday:  we were able to gain access to professionals in the field of technology and English education who would have otherwise remained inaccessible.  The chat discussion allowed everyone to participate, and often the responses to students' questions came as much from us as they did from Teresa and Gary.  Other aspects made me reluctant to rely too exclusively on such technology:  on the affective level, I was too self-conscious on camera (before we turned our cameras off due to bandwidth issues) to fully absorb what Teresa and Gary were saying.  I also regretted that we didn't get to address some points as fully in the chat as they probably would have been addressed in discussion (i.e. my example in class regarding the links posted in chat without further comment, though I understand now that there's a convention - a Discourse-specific knowledge! - that I lacked knowledge of).  The constant attention I had to pay to the chat stream and to the video discussion was exhausting after a while, especially when the discussion centered around one topic and the chat around another.  


I think my choices regarding the use of new technology versus old technology in the classroom will often rely on a consideration of the pros and cons of each.  Despite my discomfort with some aspects of video conferencing, and despite how much more preferable it is to have a discussion with someone in person, I would ultimately rule in favor of utilizing video conferencing in my classroom if it permitted my students to access authors and critics that they would otherwise never get to meet. I appreciate the collaborative nature of blogging and the interpersonal connections students can discover when they're sharing their writing with each other and reading their peers' thoughts in the comfort of their home environments rather than in the data-driven, outcome-focused atmosphere of school. 


However, I also think that advocates of new technologies should compromise with advocates of the old:  though technology may permit us to do things more quickly, more cleanly, and with greater precision, it doesn't always mean we should.  There is a certain joie de vivre in using a real paintbrush on a real canvas to create a picture that can hang on the wall beside your bed.  Likewise, there is an aesthetic beauty and personal character to handwriting that cannot be replicated in any font.  I love the instantaneous nature of emailing, and I don't know how I would maintain all of my close friendships as well without texting and Skype and Facebook, but I still don't know if there's anything better than opening an old shoebox and finding a pile of old letters from friends inside.  


In sum, I think it's dangerous to base any pedagogy completely on computer screen or print text.  Students should learn the nonlinear thinking required of them on the web by participating in fast-moving chats and moving from article to article by clinking on link after link.  However, they should also learn to immerse themselves in a good book for an hour, two hours, even five or six.  They should learn to listen to a multitude of others' voices, then sit quietly and listen to themselves.