Higher education has experienced an unfathomable level of disruption in the past year, which drove most of us out of our comfort zones. When Carleton classes went online in the Spring of 2020, our faculty were forced into a learner role as they relied on unfamiliar technology tools to deliver their courses remotely. One Carleton faculty member described this reality as “going back to school to take the required class you don’t want to take.”
Who would have expected that teachers would need to relearn how to write on the chalkboard? And yet, in the spring of 2020, our faculty had to recreate that most fundamental element of the typical classroom. Some tried iPads or tablet input devices, others used lightboards, and still others mounted a cell phone above their writing surface to serve as a homegrown document camera.
Of course, the pandemic affected every aspect of the residential college teaching experience. It was harder to meet together at the same time, since some students had bandwidth, time zone or other challenges connecting from their family homes. It was harder to read the room and interpret student expressions during Zoom class, especially when students turned off their video. It was harder to break the students into groups and keep tabs on which groups needed faculty attention. And so on.
It is worth considering how we — as individuals and as a college — have addressed these unexpected “required classes.” It could be instructive to reflect on our own learning processes through this time.
The work of Lev Vygotsky can help us reflect on how we adapted and how we can survive and leverage technology changes in the years and decades to come. One of the core components of Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development is the Zone of Proximal Development (Galotti, 2017). This is the idea that humans can only absorb information within some proximity to their current knowledge. Information that is too far afield from one’s current understanding cannot be assimilated successfully; information that is too near it does not generate new learning; whereas well-constructed learning activities create an opportunity for an engaged learner to make connections between existing knowledge and new information.
Although many faculty started their pandemic teaching experience outside of their Zone of Proximal Development, they were able to close that gap with the help of the Director of the Learning & Teaching Center (LTC) and the Academic Technology staff. Through workshops and individual support, faculty made connections between their prior knowledge of teaching and the new techniques they were learning. Their solutions were incredible, and many are described in other posts in this blog and the Learning and Teaching Center blog. I encourage you to read through the posts and see the good work your colleagues have done this year.
As this academic year is winding down, we are starting to anticipate that higher education will be able to resume our residential learning environment in the fall. Yet our experiences and growth from the past year will stay with us. I propose five lessons from our expanded comfort zone that could change our approach to technology in the post-pandemic world.
First, let’s acknowledge that technology is here to stay. While the importance of tools such as a learning management system, video conferencing software and classroom audio-visual hardware has grown slowly over the past decade, over the past year they became essential. Even without knowing what the “new” technologies are going to be, it’s safe to say that new approaches will become beneficial, if not essential. The experience of learning and using new technologies for teaching and learning will be a permanent part of our work experiences.
Second, let’s embrace technology as a means to an end. As a technology leader, it is my job to support the use of appropriate technologies and the forecasting of what tools and what skills may be helpful. However, the tools by themselves are useless. Their value lies in what they can help faculty, staff and students accomplish. For example, this year we learned about the value of lecture recordings and captioning to help non-native English speakers, those with learning issues or disabilities, and those with gaps in their understanding of foundational material. Technology is not a goal in and of itself, although it has important affordances to support teaching and learning.
Third, let’s view technology knowledge as a continuum. Over the years I have heard family, friends and co-workers say that they are “not a technology person.” But the time for a technology binary is behind us. It’s not something that you have or don’t have. Sure, some people are more skilled or have more aptitude for learning to use new technologies than others, as is the case with every skill. In fact, technology knowledge and ability varies greatly among individuals. Most importantly, it grows over time regardless of one’s initial skill level.
Fourth, let’s identify opportunities for scaffolded learning. Vygotsky described scaffolding as a strategy to give learners appropriate and manageable activities to build their knowledge. A skilled instructor or a more knowledgeable peer can help the learner make connections between concepts. Let’s think of faculty interactions with academic technologists as opportunities for scaffolded learning, not simply opportunities to get an immediate question answered. And let’s be conscious about the importance of communities of practice among faculty who are learning to use similar technologies to accomplish similar goals, and supporting each other in the process. This past year highlighted the value of scaffolding for interactions with and among faculty and staff.
Finally, let’s agree that technology literacy is important. The past year has shown us that there are some things you can do with technology that you can’t do without it. It’s hard to imagine a fully remote institution without technology. The rapid immersion that faculty experienced in the spring of 2020 was unsettling and overwhelming for all, but those with more prior experience and comfort with technology were able to pivot more quickly. The same is true about students’ abilities to adapt to this changing educational landscape. If we agree that technology is here to stay, then it would be wise to continue developing technology literacy across the institution.
I don’t want to repeat the experience of the past year, but I also don’t want to give back the knowledge that we’ve gained. Let’s continue to expand our zone of understanding, to cultivate our curiosity, and to support each other at every step along the way. By reflecting on these lessons, we can be better prepared to engage with future disruptive opportunities, whatever they may be.
References:
Galotti, Kathleen M. (2017). Cognitive development: Infancy through adolescence (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. p. 85-89.
Image from: What is the Zone of Proximal Development? — Chapman & Company (Edited for clarity)