I recently posted about my involvement in a diversity week webinar lecture at West Virginia University. Since then, I had been involved in another distance-learning program related to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision that took place via videoconference; this project took a great deal of my time. (Jena Amerson blogged about the event--and its unfortunate mishap that took place--here.) Now that I have time to write after these events, I want to reflect on these two very different experiences in two separate blog posts. Today, I will reflect on the use of the distance learning technology for the diversity webinar. I will discuss the Citizens United videoconference in a later post.
First, the webinar was a great honor since it provided an open opportunity to discuss diversity in a university-wide lecture. Anyone with a suitable computer could “tune in” to the talk. A small group of university students, faculty, and staff did engage in the webinar—somewhere around 20 participants joined in the live broadcast. However, since the broadcast is saved at the WVU Extended Learning archive, it remains to be seen how many people will look at it.
Second, I want to reflect on the experience itself. One of the wonders of using the webinar technology was its ability to allow the webinar leader and the participants to conduct the seminar from virtually anywhere. All one has to possess is a laptop or computer with a camera and microphone installed—virtually any computer made in the last five years would qualify. What this meant for me was that I presented the webinar in the quiet of my office.
The challenge in this apparent convenience was that no one who participated in the webinar was present with me. The only interaction I received was from text-message like questions posed to me after I finished my discussion. This was a bit disconcerting: I sat, talking to just my computer and my camera and didn’t have any direct visual or aural replies. I felt that this required a significant adjustment to my approach to lecturing—indeed, I felt like I was literally performing for a camera and having to imagine from just the text on the screen whether my points were being received. Think of being by one’s self (no production staff, no audience, no director to cue you in) in a TV studio doing a live broadcast—an isolating experience.
This made me realize how much I depend on the in-person interactive quality of teaching in a “real life” classroom. The technology, though it allowed for anyone in cyberspace to follow my lecture, took this interactive layer away. I had to adjust on the fly to make it work (and my colleagues were helpful to me on this issue by mooting my talk for me the day before).
I think this issue of “adjusting to the technology” is one that anyone currently teaching and trying to make use of technology is going to encounter. I think the same thing I could say about using a virtual classroom can be said by anyone not used to things like PowerPoint, web sites, Wiki programs, etc. My only other observation is that devising such strategies as to particular technology and as to the process of technological change is going to matter more and more as technology in the classroom continues to evolve. It is a challenge we as teachers will continually face as our students—and the technology they bring with them—continue to evolve.
No comments:
Post a Comment