Learning Together with Students Can Boost Instructor Technology Knowhow

In this technology-driven society where we are constantly bombarded with new communication devices, software, and applications, increasing use and complexity of technology in education is inevitable. It is undisputed that technology has a vital role to play in education with most scholars on the subject pointing to the fact that it promotes deeper learning and retention in a classroom. The apparent problem is that very few educators in higher education are conversant, and can really keep up, with technological advances suitable to impart learning. On the other hand this generation of students is very well versed with technological tools since they are the true digital natives and in a typical undergraduate classroom, one is bound to find scores of combined communication technology know how. Unfortunately in most cases, the instructor’s knowledge is bound to be among the bottom ranking in the class and that is understandable considering the generational gap and lack of time, let alone interest, to explore these technologies, given his or her professional and personal responsibilities. Lack of knowledge as to the extent a given technology can be used to enhance learning and/or make the instructor’s tasks easier can also affect the level of enthusiasm to learn it. Emerging technologies are a matter of not only of qualitative challenge but also of sheer quantitative overload (Alexander, 2009).
Most institutions, in the effort to boost technology in classrooms, provide resources such as workshops and online tutorials for faculty this is a positive direction except that the ability to learn an emerging technology in a couple of workshops is not uniform in all instructors. Additionally, not every tool learned is of interest and applicable to all instructors in their respective disciplines. Some may in fact see it as a waste of time to spend a faculty development session on something they consider useless and in the end, it is an institutional wasted effort.
When required to infuse technology in a classroom to improve learning outcomes, the less savvy instructors will stay within their comfort zone of PowerPoint presentations and not all of them actually do a good job of that either. In most cases the presentation is an outline version of the lecture and sometimes, as DeWinstanley and Bjork (2002) advise, modern teaching tools, such as PowerPoint and other computer-aided presentations, seem to make instructors susceptible, not less, to creating divided attention conditions for students.
In this technological age, there has never been a better opportunity for professors to make class time more interesting, than mere lectures, by providing a learning environment that spurs deeper learning and creative thinking not just for the students but also for the instructor. We, instructors, do not seem to grasp the extent of technological know how our students have that we could utilize to boost critical thinking through interpreting and elaborating information in different contexts and formats other than lectures and textbooks. Take two different history class environments, for example, covering the topic on the events that lead to the Second World War. One class covers the topic in two lecture sitting plus a reading assignment outside class time. Typical fifty-minute lectures—to say nothing of seventy-five minute or two-hour lectures—can surpass students’ ability to sustain focused attention DeWinstanley and Bjork (2002).
The other class uses the same time to work in groups to create visual presentations of the events in chronological order and in the world regions in which they happened. An instructor who is oblivious of today’s student familiarity with digital, video, and audio software would be surprised at the results produced in such a short time. More importantly, he or she would be able to learn what different tools are capable of producing. The mnemonic devices injected in the delivery of content would facilitate the embedment of information into long-term memory. More importantly, the activity would foster intrinsic motivation because students then feel that they took ownership of content and interpreted it to their understanding using the tools that they are interested in and familiar with. In such environment, students feel they have been entrusted with, and have control over their outcomes. Do not just tell students they have control, give them control over their studying, the course material, and the way it is taught (Forsyth and McMillan, 1994).
As an instructor in a technology-based discipline, I know that I am not conversant with all the tools out there and I am pleasantly surprised, on a constant basis, by the knowledge my students bring to the classroom. My job as an instructor is to guide them on how to effectively use it to convey the desired graphic message. In many cases I learn from them as much as they learn from me. I actually think this collaborative atmosphere where everyone is a learner can work in almost all disciplines. It just requires some good planning on the part of the instructor to make sure all major points in the lesson or topic are covered in the technology-based activity. It is a beneficial teaching method to both students and instructor and overall, it makes the class more enjoyable to both.

References
Alexander, B. (May/June 2009). Apprehending the future: Learning technologies from science fiction to campus reality. EDUCAUSE Review, Vo. 44, No. 3, 12-29.

DeWinstanley, P. A., & Bjork, R. A. (2002, Spring). Successful lecturing: Presenting
information in ways that engage effective processing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 89, 19-31. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Forsyth, D. R., & McMillan, J. H. (1991, Spring). Practical proposals for motivating
students. In Menges, R. J., & Svinicki, M. D. College teaching: From theory to practice. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, No. 45. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.