I. Introduction
Unfortunately the growing presence of digital technologies in education has resulted in the increased polarization of opponents and proponents of new media. This became obvious, for example, in a “‘virtual roundtable’” that was hosted in 2001 by Gary Kornblith and Carol Lasser, contributing editors of The Journal of American History. The “virtual roundtable” employed electronic lists and e-mail to discuss the American history survey. 1Gary Kornblith and Carol Lasser, “Teaching the American History Survey at the Opening of the Twenty-first Century,” The Journal of American History 87 (2001). Viewed online November 6, 2002. Much of the discussion by the eleven participating historians focused on traditional matters such as readings, assignments, and organizing themes and interpretations. When the conversation came around to how to incorporate new media into their classrooms, one of the professors conceded that:
“The latest in technology appeals to me very little. … Students attracted to the latest technology may not find my courses enticing, but so far a sufficient number do, and I see no need to offer more of what they are already getting plenty of everywhere else in our culture.” 2 Kornblith and Lasser, paragraph 95.
If the goal of history teachers is to instruct, motivate, inspire, and engage students, then to surrender potentially useful educational tools to more compelling cultural influences seems a questionable tactic at best and an abdication of responsibility at worse. The debate should not be whether education should adopt the latest innovations or stick with time-tested teaching techniques.3 Ann Wynne, “History Instruction and the Internet: A Literature Review,” chapter 2 in Dennis A. Trinkle, and Scott A. Merriman, eds., History.edu: Essays on Teaching with Technology (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2001): 26. For discussions of traditional versus future educational techniques see, Judith V. Boettcher, “The Journey to the Web: Simple Adaptations or New Curricula?” Syllabus (January 1998): 48, 50-53; and Lawrence A. Tomei, “Instructional Technology: Pedagogy for the Future,” T.H.E. Journal 25 (December 1997): 56-59; and Gary B. Nash, Charlotte Crabtree, and Ross E. Dunn, History Wars on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past (New York: Knopf, 1997). Rather, the debate about new media and education would be more productive if it focused on the most effective and efficient means to educate the individual student. Educators must view the digital media as a “delivery system” rather than automated education. Teachers must be willing to adjust their teaching styles and adapt to various tools to meet the educational needs of students regardless whether they are traditional or computer-based.
Simply put, the discussion about new media in education must consider an increasingly digital environment for students, teachers, and administrators. A look at the average college campus today would reveal a proliferation of cell phones and beepers owned by students, electronic payment for food services, IPods, and laptop computers. In 2001 the Pew Research Center conducted a study that resulted in the finding that “71% of online teens rely ‘mostly on the Internet’ for their homework.”4Chris Taylor, “Smart Library,” Time (November 17, 2003): 68. Recently it seems as if every bit of information utilized by students can be processed in an electronic environment. Even the administrative functions of schools have been virtually transformed into a digital environment such as the library catalogs, course listings, registration, tuition payment, and class syllabi.
Technophobe Sven Birkerts views the future direction of education with considerable dread. Traditional and cherished forms of instruction will not be able to withstand the onslaught of technology-based education. He writes, “Although we are only at the early stages of implementation—institutions are by nature conservative—an educational revolution seems inevitable.”5Sven Birkerts, The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. (Boston: Faber and Faber, 1994): 134. Neil Postman sees the incursion of technology into our schools as an insidious development. For Postman, society’s belief in, and reliance on, the educational benefits of technology are so great that it cannot possibly live up to the hype and ultimately will be detrimental to education.6Neil Postman, “Some New Gods That Fail,” chap. 3 in The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995).
Birkerts and Postman foresee a loss of traditional methods of teaching and learning that they do not feel can be replicated in a digital environment. We should not completely ignore their warnings. It may be tempting to look for solutions wherever they may exist. Individual classrooms do not or cannot always incorporate every new educational tool that becomes available to them. New media should undergo the same evaluation that all educational aids receive, and they should be implemented only when there are “acknowledged” benefits in the educational setting.7Randy Bass and Roy Rosenzweig, “Rewiring the History and Social Studies Classroom.” Section 3.
Discussions about new media often characterize the changes that are brought about by digital technologies as revolutionary. If “revolutionary” is defined as “a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something,” then this term is a precise (and useful) description of new media’s future in education.8From the on-line edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. (www.oed.com) The “fundamental change” offered by new media is an understanding that teachers as well as students must adapt to changing educational environments. As one historian working with digital technologies put it, “Effective history educators need not fear change.”9Ann Wynne, “History Instruction and the Internet: A Literature Review,” chapter 2 in Dennis A. Trinkle, and Scott A. Merriman, eds. History.edu: Essays on Teaching with Technology (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2001): 27.
Next Section: Intersection of New Media & Education
1 Gary Kornblith and Carol Lasser, “Teaching the American History Survey at the Opening of the Twenty-first Century,” The Journal of American History 87 (2001). Viewed online November 6, 2002. Available on-line at: <http://www.historycoop.org/journals/jah/87.4/kornblith.html> [subscription required]
2 Kornblith and Lasser, paragraph 95.
3 Ann Wynne, “History Instruction and the Internet: A Literature Review,” chapter 2 in Dennis A. Trinkle, and Scott A. Merriman, eds., History.edu: Essays on Teaching with Technology (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2001): 26. For discussions of traditional versus future educational techniques see, Judith V. Boettcher, “The Journey to the Web: Simple Adaptations or New Curricula?” Syllabus (January 1998): 48, 50-53; and Lawrence A. Tomei, “Instructional Technology: Pedagogy for the Future,” T.H.E. Journal 25 (December 1997): 56-59; and Gary B. Nash, Charlotte Crabtree, and Ross E. Dunn, History Wars on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past (New York: Knopf, 1997).
4 Chris Taylor, “Smart Library,” Time (November 17, 2003): 68.
5 Sven Birkerts, The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. (Boston: Faber and Faber, 1994): 134.
6 Neil Postman, “Some New Gods That Fail,” chap. 3 in The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995).
7 Randy Bass and Roy Rosenzweig, “Rewiring the History and Social Studies Classroom.” Section 3.
8 From the on-line edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. (www.oed.com)
9 Ann Wynne, “History Instruction and the Internet: A Literature Review,” chapter 2 in Dennis A. Trinkle, and Scott A. Merriman, eds. History.edu: Essays on Teaching with Technology (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2001): 27.