Translucent Technologies

Translucent Technology:

Transparent Technology for Instruction
is Neither Possible Nor Desirable

[Expanded 5/8/02 pre-print version of Steven Gilbert’s June, 2002 Syllabus Column]

"Tomorrow's Way of Life: Transparent Technology … The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.” [1]

"Many researchers at PARC today think that it is time to move beyond the personal computer because it commands too much of our attention. The goal of these researchers is to make computers disappear so people can use them without thinking about them.”[2]

“The medium is the message.” [3]

"Now we see through a glass, darkly; then we shall see face to face. now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."[4]

We always see through a glass at least a little darkly. There has never been a truly transparent medium, especially for teaching and learning. And there never will be. Educators and learners always make choices about the media in which teaching and learning are attempted. Today, every faculty member and every student has more choices than ever before – not only among communications media, but also about pace and depth of interaction. Every choice has consequences. [As do the expertise of the teachers/leaders, selection and organization of intellectual content, and extent of personal commitment of each individual involved.]

Even within traditional classrooms, significant communications media choices are made every day. When a professor steps out from behind the lectern toward the audience, he/she changes whatever happens next. When a student approaches a faculty member with a question just before or after a class, he/she changes whatever happens next.

New options have new consequences. Students at an off-campus site participating in a class via two-way video, one-way audio are more likely to choose to talk out loud with each other during a presentation than students who are in the same room as the faculty member. The classroom environment is part of the medium, and every medium favors some kinds of communication and impedes others.

We have been offering a weekly series of “WebCasts” [5] this year in which we simultaneously offer the audience audio presentations or discussions, centrally controlled display of PowerPoint slides and Webpages, and real-time brief survey questions. There is also a "chat room" or live discussion board built into the interface, so that all members of the audience can hear the conversation, see the slides, and see the chat room simultaneously; they can contribute a comment or question by typing in a designated form at the bottom of the interface and pressing the "enter" key.

When we first used this combination, I found the chat room irritating and distracting. It was often dominated by those who were having technical problems or who hadn’t prepared appropriately for the event and needed information that was available on the Website. As an older person who has been accustomed to demanding that students not whisper in the back of the room, I was somewhat offended when participants responded to each other’s questions while I was talking with our specially invited guest presenters. Finally, I couldn’t comfortably attend to the questions and comments in the chat room at the same time I was focusing on the oral comments of my guests.

Fortunately, in another series of WebCasts [6], Trent Batson (now of University of Rhode Island) initiated the practice of assigning one of the “presenters” to focus primarily on the chat room, and then “voice” selected themes, comments or questions from that discourse. Audience members were encouraged to participate more actively in the chat room, because they knew someone would be relaying their comments to the leaders of the event. We have adopted this practice of designating someone as the “Voice of the Chat,” freeing the rest of our presenters to ignore the chat room if they find it distracting.

More recently, we took two more steps that have changed the character of this activity. We begin every WebCast by explaining carefully and assertively that we provide a specific option for getting help during the WebCast, one that will get a rapid response, instead of using the chat room for this purpose. We have also begun inviting one or two experts in the topic of the WebCast to be “chat room discussants.” We ask them to participate in the chat room as if they were members of the audience AND TO SET AN EXAMPLE OF MODEL CHAT ROOM BEHAVIOR by contributing substantive comments, asking questions, etc. The results have been delightful.

Our WebCasts now function effectively in three ways (audio, text, slides), and participants can choose to follow and/or actively participate in any combination they find comfortable and useful. They also know they can “view” a full digital recording or archive later if they miss anything.

We believe we are now using this media combination much more effectively because we are attentive to its characteristics and more aware of the preferences and needs of our “learners” -- and ourselves.. We believe we have enabled our audience members to participate much more effectively and with greater satisfaction because we offer guidance and examples of how to use each different channel of communication . We will continue to pay attention to the possibilities of this media combination and find ways to enable everyone involved – learners and teachers – to take fuller advantage of its features. We will enable and encourage learners to make the choices that work best for them. This is what good teachers have done for many decades with any new technology, any new instructional option, even a new textbook.

The alternative is perilous. By ignoring the implications of any medium, you may be subject to its abuse or to unintended consequences. By striving hardest to make it invisible or transparent, you are most likely to be punished if you fall short of perfection. For example, many have found that when using full-motion video, the closer to commercial-quality formats and style, the more likely the result will elicit students’ TV watching behavior, rather than their classroom or library or study behavior. Of course this can be mitigated by preparing and guiding students for the medium, or by modifying the environment in which it is used – just as we have done with the WebCast system described above.

Finally, and a worthy topic for another column, many of the new media options offer ways of personalizing communication between students and faculty – enabling all involved to connect more fully as human beings, not just as those who deliver and receive sterile information. But this is most often achieved by increasing consciousness of each medium’s characteristics, as opposed to letting it disappear.

We can teach and learn better by understanding the available communications media and other technology options. We can learn their capabilities and their limitations; and we can recognize our own.

Of course, the goal is some balance between ignoring the media and spending too much time and energy on decisions about them. In education, technology should be neither transparent nor opaque. In teaching and learning, technology should be translucent.

Most of us can only see the truth and communicate with each other “through a glass darkly,” but that can be enough if we share those glimpses.

REFERENCES:

[1] - Mark Weiser, head of the Xerox PARC Computer Science Laboratory, in Beekman, Computer Confluence: Exploring Tomorrow's Technology, P. 260, Chapter 9, Copyright 2001, 572 pp. Paper format ISBN 0-13-088237-2

<http://www.prenhall.com/divisions/bp/app/beekman6/cw/chap_connect/chap09/c09p09.html>

[3] Marshall McLuhan [Where? Various

[4] New Testament, Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth

[5] Tuesdays, 2:00PM Eastern; see: http://www.tltgroup.org/calendar/interviews2002.htm. To see/hear recordings ("archives") of some of our previous WebCasts, see:

http://www.tltgroup.org/calendar/interviewarchives2001.htm. We use the HorizonLive system; see: http://www.horizonlive.com

[6] The “eColloquia” sponsored by WebCT was unfortunately short-lived.