Hi Tim,

What's missing from your and AKMA's thinking is a critical evaluation of digital natives' Web 2.0 use. We tend to unquestionably assume that digital natives have some sort of advantage over us! I'm not so sure. Technically, yes; conceptually and critically, no. In my comment here please note that I'm trying to add balance, not betray any non-existent personal Luddite thinking!

'Irrelevance' is the key word in AKMA's post, and the lynch-pin for what I think is much erroneous thinking in this whole area of using Web 2.0 in education. Use of the Internet in Web 1.0 mode is NOT irrelevant, and applying Web 2.0 tools does not automatically baptise anyone into relevance. In 'good' education, students will have a voice regardless of whether or not Web 2.0 tools are used. The danger I am wary of is the loss of the professor's perspective among the array of half-baked and semi-critical ideas that the message- and perspective-swamping that some Web 2.0 networks provide. Further, Web 2.0 communities can be just as parochial as the guilds you mention.

I am personally rather suspicious of any talk of 'relevance' when it comes to applying technology in education. 'Networking' has its place, but so does didacticism; students wanting to 'network' for the purposes of discussing things theological have multiple avenues for this pursuit. What we should be asking ourselves is why students even bother enrolling in higher theological education at all, and acting to continually add value to their experiences based on what is relevant to them. I suspect that applying Web 2.0 tools will actually be somewhat tangental to this. Students come for a qualification, yes - but also for a qualified other's perspective or an introduction to key issues about a subject, and the opportunity to have a qualified other's feedback on their own thinking in that area.

The cynic in me proposes that while Web 2.0 encourages networking, it does not necessarily encourage levels of engagement comparable to what takes place within the guilds you speak of. Further, digital natives' short attention spans ('click-speed') and need for visual stimulus is proposed by Prensky; these are serious disadvantages in the concept- and terminology-rich world of theological education. Our tools are reflection, critique, evaluation - not access, convenience and connectedness. Compare the average NOOMA to the complex issues that DA Carson and other scholars wrestle with in peer-reviewed exchanges; which is most 'relevant' for stduents wanting to study theologically in higher education? I am not suggesting either-or here, and neither am I trying to devalue NOOMA! Instead, what I'd like to suggest is that if we embrace what is 'relevant' to the natives (here in terms of curriculum rather than technology), we may well lose what makes higher theological education precious to those who enrol in it. If we can intelligently use Web 2.0 tools to assist students to participate in dialogue related to higher concepts, well and good. But personally I don't put much value into whether or not an academic is using a blog. I'd rather they were engaging their enrolled students in the issues that theological scholarship is wrestling with, and challenging their students' thinking. Despite it being somewhat passe, Web 1.0 is still really good for this.

As you can tell, you hit a nerve...

Best,

Mark.

By  Nichthus, at July 1, 2007 10:19 AM  

I would be interested to learn how Nichthus determines which technologies pass muster for his approach to theological education, and how he knows whether I teach "concept- and terminology-rich" classes (presumably, as a judge of others he is aware that at least some technology-positive scholars participate in peer-reviewed exchanges over complex issues -- though perhaps not at the nonpareil heights that characterize D. A. Carson).

If I were to oblige my students to use quill pens and wax tablets, on the premise that these were good enough for their sainted forebears, I would not think it inappropriate for students to protest that they operate more effectively with ball-points and typewriters. "But writing with a quill affords more time for self-aware deliberation!"

Nichthus will have read carefully enough to note that I do not endorse Web 2.o+ technologies for any inherent virtues or advantages, and will have noticed that I do not exculpate either the technologies or their users from attendant drawbacks.

If Nichthus thinks that it's pedagogically helpful to ignore (or denounce) the cultural characteristics of one's students in preparing to teach them, I politely disagree; and if he does not, then I'm not sure of the basis for his disagreement with me.

By  AKMA, at July 1, 2007 12:35 PM  

Nichthus:
You write: "We tend to unquestionably assume that digital natives have some sort of advantage over us!" They have one advantage over me, at least often, they "get" the possibilities for basic use of the technology quicker - though decades of practice learning new technology also offers some advantages!

But what I intended to be saying was not (directly) related to the technology, rather directed to the underlying attitudes. As I understand it, the underlying attitude of Web 2.0 is collaboration, user generated content, and participation. As I see it, the dominant attitude that underlies much theological education is "teacher knows best". I agree with you that teachers often do know better, though I am not convinced assuming this always produces the best educational results! My two best and most educative periods have been:

(i) Doing my PhD, despite formal supervision that gave little more than encouragement to explore and which in terms of the techniques, skills and even information content of the topic was woefully inadequate, I sought out and got huge help from scholars and from print (this was back in the dark ages when a photocopy posted airmail from the USA was the height of technology). By exploring I learned heaps, and others (mainly outside the formal educative structures) helped me learn.

(ii) Reading for an undergraduate degree at Oxford (I also have one from a more modern University). The Oxford system of a weekly essay discussed with your tutor is brilliant, but without the coffees and arguments with my fellow students it would have failed for me. I am driven by an enquiring mind, not by marks ;-)

The common factor is that on both occasions it was informal, unplanned interaction with others that produced the greatest learning. In Oxford I had access to lecture series by world renowned scholars, but I regularly skipped them. I learnt in the library and in fellow students rooms, not in the lecture theatre.

Of course "applying Web 2.0 tools does not automatically baptise anyone into relevance". And, as you say: "In 'good' education, students will have a voice regardless of whether or not Web 2.0 tools are used.". My worry is the "style" rather than as any particular technology, Web 1.0 thinking (at least on its own) will not serve our students as well as Web 2.0 enabled thinking will. Enable students to learn, rather than "teaching" them!

(I guess, from AKMA's comment below yours, that we all hit nerves! But I hope we do not let such reactions stifle the discussion. For I am sure that the technologies of teaching theology will change, for better or worse - and if we fail to reflect, discuss and argue those changes will not be for better!)

AKMA:
As an innovative technological facilitator of education, Nichthus is certainly not advocating a return to quill pens, though for myself - being still in the middle of marking! - I wonder how much more reflective and measured student writing would become in a course that did demand such a technology fast!

(A significant part of your apparent disagreement, I suspect comes from my selection of a small fragment of your post to comment upon, and may illustrate at least some of the very dangers and problems to which Nichthus draws our attention. Fragmentation, quick responses, lack of real contact... there's perhaps an irony or two in this exchange - not least because N is much more nearly digitally native than I and somewhat I suspect more so than you ;-)

By  Tim, at July 1, 2007 1:38 PM  

Hi AKMA,

Thanks for the reply.

You say that:

"I'm not sure of the basis for his disagreement with me". My main point is this: "We tend to unquestionably assume that digital natives have some sort of advantage over us! I'm not so sure. Technically, yes; conceptually and critically, no." That's really where I'm coming from, and I suspect there may well be some agreement there? I am certainly with you in terms of valuing the cultural characteristics of incoming students (Foley 2005 in "Theological Education" gives a good perspective), but all culture should be embraced from a critical perspective of sorts. This criticism is seriously lacking when it comes to any talk about digital immigrants and natives.

You also say that:

"If I were to oblige my students to use quill pens and wax tablets, on the premise that these were good enough for their sainted forebears, I would not think it inappropriate for students to protest that they operate more effectively with ball-points and typewriters. "But writing with a quill affords more time for self-aware deliberation!""

This I think misses my point... I am certainly not against Web 2.0, and neither do I have a Luddite's perspective. My concern is that we may overlook the fact that we are not solely talking about a means of expressing ideas here; we are talking about a cultural shift in terms of what digital natives think it means to learn. I am certainly not suggesting that we ignore Web 2.0, just that we make use of it after some careful deliberation. Further, we should not write-off Web 1.0 in the process. My objection is not the technology itself, rather it's the teaching and learning assumptions that tend to surround it and its use.

Our perspectives are both probably too deeply grounded to adequately explore in this format... I would certainly welcome an opportunity to explore this further. Tim will have my email address!

Best,

Mark.

By  Nichthus, at July 1, 2007 1:55 PM  

Sorry, thanks to the rapid response Web 2.0 enables ;o) I posted my message above before I saw both of your responses!

It is really all about engagement, power sharing, conversation, shared perspectives... these are all very deep issues.

Thanks for the valuable exchange. I would be interested in pursuing these ideas further... again, email might be best.

By  Nichthus, at July 1, 2007 1:59 PM  

I'd be happy to "talk" to either or both of you more by email, though my email usage is more comfortable responding to emails than initiating "conversations" in that medium.

I'm (at least) equally happy to continue on blogs, where others can read and join in, I have often in the past greatly valued contributions to such discussion by people I do not know, but who somehow found a post and commented...

Online media (including email) which are text abstracted largely from the personal indicators we elsewhere in life take for granted often induce a sharpness of response which sometimes requires a different sort of interpersonal negotiation. I have learned a lot from watching myself and others perform this. I'd love for my students (especially those not digitally native, indeed particularly especially those who are hardly at all yet digitally literate - of whom in Theology we currently have quite a few ;-) to have opportunities to watch and hone such skills.

The digital natives perhaps can be trusted to develop them elsewhere, but where will the digitally deprived get the chance if we do not provide it?

By  Tim, at July 1, 2007 3:17 PM  

Post a Comment