Facebook is Weird

I.

A month or so ago, I presented a session at the annual Day of Encouragement held here on our campus. The session was entitled "Ministering to 'Digital Natives'" and I was pleased that quite a few people showed up. As folks were coming in the room, I was surprised and amazed how many of them I knew: one of my best friends in the world, a couple of colleagues from here at the college, several of my former students (both from my days teaching middle school, and my current prof life), a young woman who used to babysit our kids when they were little, church friends, and even my former youth pastor from my high school days in southern California. It was a weird mash-up of different parts of my life, all in the same room. I joked that this was a little bit like Facebook.

Image by Jo Alcock [CC BY-SA-NC 2.0]

Hacking the LMS: Breaking Out of the Defaults

I tend to take a very broad view of "technology." So often when we hear that word, we immediately go digital: computers, tablets, the Internet, 3D printers, wearables, etc. are "technology," right? But could a hammer also be considered “technology?”

What if we instead define "technology" as any tools designed to solve a particular problem? In his prescient (1992) book Technopoloy: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Neil Postman describes technology as “largely invented to do two things: solve specific and urgent problems of physical life…[and]…serve the symbolic world of art, politics, myth, ritual, and religion…” (p. 23). When viewed this way, hammers, stethoscopes, plungers, and the Internet can all be considered technologies, though probably all in the former category rather than the latter.

Frankly, in the realm of educational technology, we are quick to think of computers first, aren’t we? But I have argued before that even a pencil is an educational technology: a tool designed—or appropriated—to solve a specific problem for education (borrowing from Postman’s language.)

Telling Tales in a Technopoly: Getting Started with Digital Storytelling

I believe that storytelling is central to our humanity. We tell stories all the time, from personal histories, to imaginative bedtime stories, to morality tales, to socio-political narratives...the way we use "story" is a central part of our lives. Even the main way God has revealed Himself--the Bible--is largely comprised of stories, that combine to tell The Big Story of scripture: the Creation, the Fall, the Redemption, and the Consummation. And honestly, I think that part of how we reflect God's image is through our creativity (i.e., He is the Creator, which means we have the capability of being creative as well.)

Stories have a unique pull and an emotional element that "just the facts" cannot provide. Kieran Egan, in his lovely little book Teaching as Storytelling, says, "A good story-teller plays our emotions, as a good violinist plays a violin" (1986, p. 29). And I believe that it is this aspect that makes storytelling an essential teaching methodology, even in our high-tech world; perhaps it is even more important in our high tech world! In his book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Neil Postman writes that one of the essential features of a Technopoly (a culture in which technology not only plays a central role, but actually is the dominant worldview-shaper) is "the elevation of information to a metaphysical status: information as both the means and end of human creativity" (1992, p. 61) This rings true for me: we've often heard the old saying "knowledge is power," right? But is "knowing" the information enough? Information in what context? And for what purpose?

What's In Your Desk Drawer? Day 10

Have you ever seen one of these?

Do you know what this is? If you are under the age of 30, you might not. (Ugh...I'm aging myself here, aren't I?) Until I came into possession of this one, I hadn't seen one of these since I was in elementary school.

Visualizing the Internet in Real-Time

The internet has changed almost everything about almost everything.

A bold claim? Perhaps. But think about the mission statements of some of the best-known entities on the web today:

• Wikipedia, a massive (free!) online encyclopedia "dedicated to expanding access to the sum of human knowledge."
• Amazon, the digital shopping mecca, exists "to build a place where people can come to find and discover anything they might want to buy online."
• Facebook, that social media behemoth, has ambitions "to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected." 
• Google, the king of search (in the Western world, at least) intends "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." 

And, (with the exception of Wikipedia), these are companies, looking to make a profit on the information--or access to information--that they provide, channel, control, and shape.

On the internet, facts are (generally) free. Information flows--channeled, perhaps--but flows in an unrelenting stream.

When I start to really reflect on this, I start to wonder. I wonder how much information travels the internet each day? And what kind of information?

Is Technology Really Making us Antisocial?

I saw this tweet from History In Pictures yesterday, and it made me laugh:

"All this technology is making us antisocial." pic.twitter.com/b2u9xhVmDA
— History In Pictures (@HistoryInPics) October 27, 2014

What do you think? Is it really all that different than this one?

Image by Susan Sermoneta [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0]

I'm not saying there isn't a time to put the devices away...that would be like saying there was never a time to put the newspapers down, which is obviously ridiculous.

But I think we are quick to demonize the influence of digital technologies, and somehow think more idyllic thoughts of yesteryear without them.

Yes, we (I) need to be mindful of being "present" and putting the phone down. But is technology really making us antisocial? Or is it just more socially-acceptable to be "antisocial" today because we carry phones (which are really pocket-sized computers!) everywhere we go?

Switching Off and Slowing Down

A couple weeks ago my wife--whom I love deeply, and so often understands me better than I understand myself--caught me checking my email on my phone at 11:30 at night. I tried to defend myself--lamely--by pointing out the little red icon next to the mail app indicating all the new messages I had waiting for me. Her lovingly-stated solution was elegant and simple:

"Why don't you turn off the notifications?"

Yep. That's right. I can turn them off.

(Thank you, dear.)

---

Interesting to find myself a slave to the device. I like to think of myself as a thoughtful user of technology...and in general, I'd say I am...even though I'm an admitted technophile.

This is the Future, and it is Now

My mom recently shared this article on Facebook. Here's a picture that was used to illustrate:

Image came from here, credited to Fisher-Price

So now we expect babies to use iPads? I mean, seriously people...

It reminded me of this clip from the Pixar film Wall-E (which I find a slightly-disturbing, all-too-accurate commentary on our cultural trajectory, cloaked as a kids' movie...)

This is the future, and it is now.

What does this mean for schools? I think we need to take a long, sober look at the way we are using technology. Don't hear me wrong--I'm no luddite and I'm not technophobic. But I think we need to be very, very thoughtful about how we use technology, and why we use technology.

A Technology Sabbath

I.

I was camping with my family this weekend. Actually, with quite a few of my wife's relatives. Which is great, really. (My in-laws are pretty fantastic.)

By design, I left my iPad and laptop at home.

This was, I confess, a challenge for me.

Resistance is Futile

The forward march of technology is relentless. When I think of educational technology, it sort of reminds me of the Borg from Star Trek: "Resistance is futile...you will be assimilated..."

Image from Wikipedia

The Struggling Technologist

I'm teaching an EdTech course for our graduate program this summer. I've taught versions of this course before, and I thoroughly enjoy it! I've again assigned the class to read Technopoly by Neil Postman.

I love this book.

I hate this book.

This book is such a great help for me in

critiquing our culture and thinking about 

how we use technology in schools.

This book makes me feel rotten about 

where our culture currently stands

 in regard to technology;  how 

technology has seeped into every 

corner of our lives, including schools.

This book gives me hope that 

hands-on, face-to-face learning 

is still important and valuable.

This book reminds me that I'm teaching 

an online course to teachers--some of

whom I've never met face-to-face--and 

we're all somehow okay with this...

Technopoly reminds me that there is still

a huge need for good pedagogy, and that

technology should not--and truly cannot--

replace a heart-driven teacher.

Technopoly makes me wonder about the

future of our culture (most broadly) and

school culture specifically. Where are we 

headed anyway?

Teaching Through Technology

I spent the day today at the Iowa 1:1 Conference. Interesting to meet up with several hundred (maybe a thousand?) educators thinking about teaching through technology. I have a lot of thoughts rolling around in my head right now...especially about how a 1:1 program would work in Higher Ed.

One of my biggest questions is about how to teach the teachers for the realities of teaching through technology.

There's a great model for talking about teaching through technology--it gets at how teachers can and should think about this. It's abbreviated TPACK--which stands for Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge. As a teacher educator, I've been thinking a lot about the intersection of pedagogy (how to teach) and content knowledge (what to teach). And as a technophile and former Technology Coordinator, I've also thought a lot about technology in education. But this model looks at the coordination of all three of these. I'm thinking about this because I'm going to be teaching a masters-level course in Teaching and Learning with Technology this summer, and I'd like to use the TPACK model as a part of the class.

Technological Realities in School

By FASTILY (CC-BY-SA-3.0)
via Wikimedia Commons

I saw this lexicon of Educational Technology terminology online last week--it's a really good summary of 20 key terms that educators should know related to the EdTech realm.

It got me thinking (again) about the technological realities currently present in schools.

I'm busy supervising many student teachers this semester, which I love. It's great to observe their growth and development as faithful, dedicated professionals. For the most part they are doing really, really good work.

What I find interesting is that several of them are teaching in 1:1 schools. (Check the lexicon above...) This has some pretty profound influence on the way they are teaching--and none of them are graduates of 1:1 programs themselves, which makes it all the more interesting for me to observe how the available technology affect their teaching. They are struggling with managing the realities of how all that technology in the classroom really does impact what is learned, and also how it is learned.

How Has the Internet Changed Education?

Just came across this infographic via Twitter...thanks to @K12Learn for the tip.

Pretty interesting to note the statistics they include. The one that really stood out to me is that "90% of faculty are using social media in courses they are teaching." Frankly, that number seems a little high to me. Of course, I suppose it depends on what you call "social media." My mind immediately jumped to Facebook, Twitter, and the like. But blogging is social by nature, as are wikis and moodles...and I've used all of these in my teaching. So I guess I'm in their 90%.

And I definitely agree with the basic principle exhibited in this infographic: I know that my own teaching practice has evolved over the 15 years I've been in the profession as internet access has grown more dependable and online tools become more flexible and varied.

Slow to Speak

I've had it three times in the past few days...I was quickly dashing off an email and inadvertently either confused someone or insulted someone. Totally unintentional, you know? But I wasn't being careful enough with my words. Contributing factor: I'm the sort who starts to feel tense when I get more than 20 or so items in my inbox. So I try to deal with things as they come in, lest they pile up. In my haste to get these things off my agenda, I was not careful enough with my words. As a result, I had some cleaning up to do, either in taking a longer time to explain myself, or in admitting that I was unthinking and shot from the hip...and accidentally hit a target I wasn't even aiming for.

Then...last night, I was listening to my daughter review her Bible memory work for this week. Of course it was James 1:19-20:

My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.

Okay, so it was email, and not speaking, exactly, and I wasn't speaking (emailing) in anger either--just trying to get a few items off my to-do list. But I think the same sentiment applies. I need to slow down and be more intentional about what I have to say.

In our blab-it-on-Facebook, shout-it-on-Twitter culture, people often seem quick to speak and slow to listen. The tech tools we use seem to make this this sort of speaking ever easier...which means it's more of a problem.

Challenge of the week: slow down and think before putting a message out there, whether spoken, written, or in pixels.

The Loving Resistance Fighter

I want an iPhone.

I really want an iPhone.

But I don't need an iPhone. Oh, sure, they have their uses, and I'm sure it would be a lot handier to have my calendar, camera, iPod, and phone all in one device, not to mention all the useful apps I could have on it to make my life easier or more enjoyable.

But...
Basically, it would be another toy, another gadget that I'd fiddle with in my downtime.

Here is my current phone...

It is a TracFone I bought for 10 bucks at WalMart, and I pay for my minutes upfront on an as-needed basis.

You can probably imagine that laughs I get from this phone. Especially when people make the connection that I'm the Technology Coordinator at school. "You don't have a smartphone? And you're the tech guy?"

Nope.

I do not have a smartphone. I have a dumbphone.

But here's the thing...this is *really* all the phone I need. Sure, it's inconvenient to text on this rotten thing. (T9Word is akin to the 3rd circle of Hades.) But it does it's job--it allows me to communicate with my wife and few other family and friends with whom I share my number.

The old TracFone is getting pretty weather-beaten. My daughter accidentally closed it in my recliner a couple years ago, leaving deep gouges in the face of it. The screen is getting hard to read from getting scraped and scuffed for several years now. The back cover plate is loose and sometimes falls off, though I have yet to lose the battery when this happens, thankfully.

I'm going to need a new phone sometime. Probably in the next year or so even.

Will I get the iPhone? Much as I'd love to have it...I probably won't. I don't really need it. It's just one more thing that will get in the way of my face-to-face, meaningful communication with others. I'm not going to let Technopoly win. I'm a loving resistance fighter!

Plus...I already have an iPad. Do I really need an iPhone? :-)

From Chalkboard to SMARTBoard

Chapter 7 of Technopoly might be the most challenging chapter for me in the whole book. By this point, I'm starting to feel like Postman is not only a critic of society (which he surely is, in the finest sense of the term--he critiques the culture in a reasoned way), but also a bit of a whiner. But maybe that's just the Technophile in me rising to the surface.

In Chapter 7, Postman sets his sights on computer technology, and releases a diatribe against the way computers have taken over culture--leading to Technopoly. Again, I was amazed as I read this--he wrote the book back in the early 1990's, as desktop computers were really just taking off and becoming typical fixtures in schools and homes. And now, I sit at my desk banging out a (somewhat disgruntled) response (20 years later) on my computer. And I can scarcely conceive of my teaching practice without it.

As I'm reflecting on this, I'm feeling a little incredulous. When I started teaching in the fall of 1998, I did not have a computer in my classroom. I taught junior high math for two years--with no classroom technology other than a chalkboard (a chalkboard! A green one, with yellow chalk!) and an overhead projector (the kind with transparencies and wet-erase markers that stained the heel of my hand blue.) What a difference it made my third year of teaching, when I was given a cast off laptop that had been donated to the school by a local business that was updating their whole fleet. That brick of a laptop (must have weighed about 10 pounds) wasn't exactly an instructional tool, but it simplified my planning, and my grading.

When I moved on to another school and became a junior high science teacher, I was amazed by the tech tools I had in my classroom: an iMac and a video projector. PowerPoint and streaming video ruled my classroom presentations for the next couple of years!

Throughout this time as a science teacher, I kept a balance however, between hands-on science activities and technology enhanced presentations of content. Looking back, I know when this began to shift a bit. It happened in 2004, when we got a mobile computer lab: 25 laptops on a cart that could come to my classroom. Suddenly, how could I not use computers to teach my science classes?  We still did the hands-on activities, to be sure, but a shift happened nonetheless. Instead of me presenting so much material via PowerPoint, I got the kids busy using the tech tools themselves. My students were suddenly word processing all their papers, they were creating PowerPoint presentations, we began experimenting with iMovie and GarageBand to create multimedia projects...the kids were as infatuated with the tools as I was!

In 2009, I became Technology Coordinator. Suddenly, it was my job--spelled out in my job description--to set the vision for how our school would incorporate technology into classrooms. What an awesome responsibility! Under my tenure, we started plans to put a SMARTBoard in every classroom, and we got rid of our last computer lab of desktop computers, replacing them with a cart of iPads. My whole approach was to get the tech tools into the classroom as much as possible, where they would--in theory--be integrated as closely as possible into regular classroom practice, allowing my colleagues to enhance their teaching with tech tools easily at their disposal. I even blogged about this change in our tech vision. You can read about it here and here.

As I think about this progression--from chalkboard and overhead projector to SMARTBoard and iPads--I'm amazed. This all happened in a short 14-year span.

Crazy.

Could I still teach junior high math, without all the tech tools and bells and whistles? I think I could teach it...but cynically, I wonder if students would be as engaged by my weird story-telling approach to teaching math, without a touch-enabled iDevice in sight. I love tech tools (and toys.) I have a definite preference for teaching with technology.

But...

Is teaching with technology always the best way to teach? I would say--along with Postman, I'm sure--not. I am recognizing that the tech tools I had available to me shaped my teaching practice. Postman reminds me: "It is important to remember what can be done without computers, and it is also important to remind ourselves of what may be lost when we do use them." (p. 120) So, what I'm wondering about now--painfully--is what did I give up by embracing technology in my classroom in this way?

So here's my burning question of the day: What have we given up by embracing computer technology in our classrooms?

The Problem with "Googling"...

Postman starts off chapter 5 of Technopoly with a great bit that I think sums up much of his view of the "problems" of infatuation with technology:

"Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology. This requires the development of a new kind of social order, and of necessity leads to the rapid dissolution that is associated with traditional beliefs. Those who feel most comfortable in Technopoly are those who are convinced that technical progress is humanity's supreme achievement...they also believe that information is an unmixed blessing....Technopoly flourishes when the defenses against information break down." (p.71)

I find that passage really interesting, because I find myself very comfortable with technology (not necessarily with the idea of Technopoly), and it makes me wonder if I'm a Technopolist in the making. Or maybe already made...and I'm just not fully aware of it.

In this chapter of the book he builds the case that there truly is such a thing as too much information, and that our culture actually celebrates having free and ready access to an incomprehensible amount of information. He talks about several institutions that once provided some "information control," but no longer do so--at least not in the same way that they once did--including the court of law, the family, and the school.

As a teacher, I find that last idea the most challenging. Don't we want our students to have more access to information? Don't we want them to interact with ideas outside of their own, and their classmates', and their teachers'? I suppose books have always provided new ideas to wrestle with, but how about the wild and wooly world of the Internet?

Yet, when I'm reflective about how my students think and act...I think Postman is basically right. My students gravitate toward the technological solution to their problems. When confronted with a topic they know little about, of course they google it. Google has made things so "easy" for conducting research (more on that in a moment), of course they'll just type in a question and go with what ever the first link is that pops up. If they have to write a research paper, they tend to first head to Wikipedia. And why not? Who wouldn't use a free online encyclopedia to find out more about a topic they know little about?

The thing is--and again, I think Postman would agree--these technologies are changing the meaning of words. Are students really doing "research" when they google a question? (And since when is "google" a verb?) If they just blithely accept whatever the top hit is on Google as the Truth, are they really researching? I've had students--okay, remember that they are middle schoolers--say things like, "But I found it online...it must be true, right?"

Yikes.

And this doesn't even begin to touch on plagiarism and how easy it is to pluck not just words and phrases but complete ideas from a website.

Free and easy access to all the world's information at the click of a mouse or swipe of a finger...it's overwhelming. I think Postman might be right about this: without some filters or baffles to control the flow of information, we're destined for Technopoly.

So what do we do about this? Shall we turn students loose on the World Wide Web for "research?" And if so, under what circumstances? And further, at what age is this appropriate? Elementary school? Middle school? High school? College? Graduate school?

The High Priest at the Altar of Technopoly

In chapters 3 and 4 of Technopoly, Postman explains the shift that he observed moving American culture from Tool-using (technology has value, but tools have limited value to specific situations) to Technocracy (technology plays a central role in culture, and tools vie to take over culture) to Technopoly (technology is culture, all other cultural aspects are subservient to the tools, the tools use us.) Postman mentions that at the time of his writing--1992--the United States was the only Technopoly in the world. (I might argue that most western nations are now Technopolies of one sort or another, and many East Asian nations as well.)

I first found this idea of our whole culture being somehow subservient to technology a little ridiculous, but the more I've reflected on it, the more true it seems to me. For example...

• I expect my doctor to show me evidence of some medical test to back up his claims. Not that I know any better...but somehow it "feels" better to know that there is a test to confirm his diagnosis.
• I have no idea what is wrong with my car, and perhaps neither does the mechanic until he plugs it in to his computer to see which widget needs to be replaced. 
• How much of my free time do I spend in front of some sort of a screen? 
• How much of my working time do I spend in front of a screen? 
• Do I really care what my high school classmates are broadcasting on Facebook? But how often have I thought--while doing an activity that is actually meaningful and enjoyable and non-technological--"I can't wait to post about this online!"

Crazy.

But true? I do think Postman might be on to something here. In our culture, it seems that the prevailing thinking goes: Technology is omnipresent. Technology can make our lives better. Technology can save us.

Then let's think about school. Have we bought this idea at school: "Technology will make our students learn better. Technology will make us teach better. Technology can save us." Ouch. I'm thinking now that my most recent job in an elementary school was Technology Coordinator speaks to Technopoly. We need to have a full-time person in a school of ~420 students and 30+ staff members to coordinate how we use technology, to teach students how to use technology, to coach teachers in how to effectively allow technology to enhance their teaching practice, and to fix all those lovely technological toys when they misbehave.

And even that--I describe the tools/toys as though they are alive themselves...as if they might really choose to behave badly!

Crazy.

And yet...teaching in the 21st Century in North America...could we not teach with technology? I mean, if push comes to shove, I'd rather my own children have roll-up-your-sleeves-and-get-your-hands-dirty kinds of learning experiences to virtual ones that happen via website or iPad app. At the same time, I think we, as distinctively Christian teachers, need to speak prophetically to our culture, and that means a level of understanding of our culture as well, right?

So I'm torn. I'm advocating for teaching kids the technological literacy skills they need to be successful as 21st Century citizens, but that the same time I'm advocating for being very aware of the hidden messages embedded by adopting any technology.

Perhaps Technopoly is idolatry, fundamentally. That's a scary thought for the Tech Coordinator! Suddenly I have a crazy mental image of a pagan high priest in garish costume, ascending to the altar of the gods of Technopoly, and all the people gathered around, prepared to solicit his blessing, his access to the gods. (Okay, that's a little overly dramatic perhaps...but you get my point?) That's a horrible image, isn't it? Yikes!

And yet, I cater to it, to some degree at least. I quickly fix people's problems without taking the time to explain what I did to them, shrouding my work in mystery. Sometimes I even wave my hand at the machine while I'm working on it. (This reminds me of the story of Naaman the Leper in 2 Kings 5--upset with Elisha for not "waving his hand over the spot" to heal his leprosy. Check out the story here.) Scary stuff--having a higher caste of the technological elite.

Which leads me to my question for you all:
Do you have a designated person on your staff who has the responsibility to coordinate how technology is used at your school? And if so, how much do you rely on that person to be your resident high priest on the altar of Technopoly? Or if you don't have such a designated person, can you speak to why not? Is it a conscious choice made by the school? Or perhaps a matter of pragmatism?

Does Technology Change School Culture?

In Chapter 1 of Technopoly, Postman lays out an argument that new technologies always influence the culture around them. He defines technology quite broadly, including not just what often pops to mind when we here the word “technology”--computers and TV and the like--but also other tools, such as windmills and plows, and even more conceptual tools such as writing and geometry. In the book he argues that technology--every technology--has an affect on the surrounding culture, actually changing the way people think.

I’m inclined to agree with him; I think technology in school does affect school culture.  I’ll use the Internet as an obvious example.  My students, when presented with a situation requiring them to research a topic they know very little about, almost automatically gravitate towards an online option.  Good grief, I say that my students do so as if I don’t myself!  The quick and ready access to (not to mention the overwhelming volume of) information available online makes it seem almost foolish to use a print encyclopedia or to head to a library full of books (gasp!) to look something up.  (Side note: I find it interesting that Postman published the book way back in 1992...before the Internet really exploded and PC's--not to mention eReaders, smartphones, iPads, and the like--became fixtures in the normal American experience.)  So, the easy access of information online really has changed the way I think about finding information.  Technology affects culture.

This does make me wonder what my students (and I) might be losing out on in the process.  I do find my students don’t really know how to conduct research…they just type their question into Google, click the first link they find, and copy and paste the information without really thinking it through.  It seems like they might be winning, by finding the information faster…but perhaps they might be losing by not understanding the information they are accessing, and not synthesizing it into meaningful learning.  Maybe Google really is making us stupid.

Postman, too, uses the idea of “winning” and “losing” when it comes to technology changing culture.  On page 9, 1^st paragraph, Postman states: “There are, as it were, winners and losers.  It is both puzzling and poignant that on many occasions, the losers, out of ignorance, have actually cheered the winners and some still do.”  Can you think of any example in your school that would be a case in point for what Postman is describing?