Musings from a Not-So-Master Teacher

It was a simple concept, really, the notion that how something is done might be as important as what was done.  After all, people knew it intuitvely in everyday speech.  The tone of voice, the body language, the spatial proximity all contributed toward communication.  Yet, for some reason technology was different.  When things became electric, we could digitize them, turning communication into ones and zeroes or measurable frequency.  We could amplify everything in a neutral medium.  Thus, we could criticize the bias of t.v. news while the large glimmering box remained neutral - a sort of Switzerland in a warring world of ideas.

Then Marshall McLuhan coined his term, "the medium is the message" and the intelectual world caught hold of it.  Suddenly, a movie's theme was not as important to society as the act of viewing film.  Television and radio could be analyzed, not just for how they worked, but for what impact that had in changing society.  McLuhan predicted that computers and internet would erase geography, destroy community and forge us into a "global village."  His prophetic voice forged some of the most difficult debates about the role of technology in society. 

Unfortunately, academia claimed him as theirs and McLuhan failed to reach the masses.  Yet, I have found his voice relevant as I attempt to integrate technology into my classroom.  For example, when a student does an interview, we post a podcast with the full interview and we edit the interview as part of the documentary.  One assignment I offer for extra credit is to listen to the interview and watch a segment of the documentary.  Afterward, the student writes a blog which includes these questions: What are the differences?  How does context play an important role in each media?  To what extent do people "put on an act" when they are on camera?  In which media were you more attentive to the actual words being spoken?  In which one did you learn more? 

Often educators are so quick to integrate technology that they fail to ask the harder, philosophical answers.  Working as pragmatists, they would ask, "How much will this cost?"  Yet, they fail to assess the social cost of a medium.  Yet, it's always a trade.  Technology is less of a tool and more of a double-edged sword.  As much as we try to use it according to our desires, the relationship is always reciprocal. 

So, I sit in a classroom and kids are tapping away at the keyboards.  I'm smiling as I see nice, clean paragraphs, rigourous student engagement and a strong sense of motivation.  Students use the spell-check to get instant feedback. Editing has become a breeze.  In most respects, it is a success.  Yet, there is something I lost.  There is something in the nuances of the handwriting that reveal personality.  There is something about seeing a mistake that allows me to know how to reteach a grammar concept.  Don't get me wrong.  I love the trade of handwriting for typing.  Yet, I realize that it's never neutral.