Technology in Pedagogy: Assessment and Collaboration Khagendra Acharya Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, Nepal
[email protected] ABSTRACT This paper spotlights the variables that constrains the use of technology in the pedagogy of developing countries like Nepal and proposes a framework for the collaboration among educationalists in these countries and their counterpart in the developed ones. Since the variables like the teachers’ expertise and students’ capability in technology, the students’ expectations and the teachers’ treatment to the subject taught need to be taken into account, the paper proposes and demonstrates how Center and Jackson’s general model of public relations is one of the most appropriate frameworks to limelight the conditions. Once the constrains are comprehended through this model, we can identify the sectors where inter-countries collaboration is appropriate. Keywords: general model of Public Relations, pedagogy, edutainment, techno-geek, digital natives/migrants
1. INTRODUCTION The use of technology in pedagogy has been one of the most contested issues in academia, especially in developing countries. In developed countries, the debate hardly sustains in the magnitude of developing countries, for the scholars in developed ones have consensus that technology use is essential. Consequently, there is a very significant proliferation of literature advocating the use of technology in teaching in the developed countries (Allen, 2004; Dede, 1995; Muthukumar, 2004). Most of these writings unequivocally accept technology as the most essential part in teaching, if not a panacea for every problem in pedagogy. In a sense, a tendency to place emphasis on inevitable role of technology to the extent of obliterating human part of teacher by technology part has been very dominant (McCluskey, 1994). Even in any of the skeptical arguments, only words of caution for appropriate use of technology appears: “Inappropriately used in the classroom, technology can be used to perpetuate old models of teaching and learning. … Teachers can use multimedia technology to give more colorful, stimulating lectures” (New Horizons, 2005). The notion indicates that the concern of scholars in developed countries is possible misappropriation of technology; there is not any skepticism regarding the use of technology in teaching. The concern of scholars in developing countries, however, is The argument in this article is based on my contribution as a panelist in an International Conference organized by H. M. Patel Institute, Gujarat in 2009. I acknowledge Mr. Hem Raj Kafle and Mr. Tirtha Ghimire for their insights.
40
Proceedings of the First Annual Session of South Asia-China Culture Forum
multileveled — they ought to assess the need, upgrade themselves for the use of technology, and make the technology available. This paper, based on general model of Public Relations (PR) process postulated by Center and Jackson develops a framework for the assessment of technology use in the pedagogical practice and proposes the nature of possible collaboration among the educationalists in developing and developed countries. 2. GENERAL MODEL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS General model of PR follows a series of logical steps to constitute a continuous four-step process: the first being fact-finding and data-gathering and the other in order are planning and programming, implementing appropriate strategy and evaluating (Center and Jackson, 2002). Here, I avoid any further elaboration of the model as it is discussed below. 3. THE MODEL IN ASSESSING THE NEED Fact-finding and data-gathering, when applied in class-room context, concerns the assessment of not only the instructor but also the students in terms of familiarity with technology. The question that becomes pertinent in this regard is – are we techno-geeks or technophobes, digital native or digital migrant? The second question that is of equal importance concerns more pragmatic issue i.e. the students’ expectation and needs in the classroom regarding the nature of treatment to the subject matter taught in the class. To share my experience in Kathmandu University (which I think applies to many), I have found students having three types of expectations – those who desire entertaining treatment to the subject, those who anticipate only teaching and those who wish for the combination of the two i.e. edutainment. Investigation into these two questions provides an overview of the existing environment of the class. The second stage – planning and programming – is based on the finding in the first stage. The type of class environment we own largely determines the goal which then dictates the objectives. Goal generally determines the contour whereas objective states the destination. At this stage, primarily we need to get answer to the questions like, i) should we use technology? ii) If so, what should be the nature and magnitude of the use? These questions necessarily lead to the third stage. The third stage – implementing appropriate strategy – follows by design from the second stage. Because the third stage is the function of the earlier one and tangible aspect, it should specify the type of game plan and the technology to be used in the class. The process can be illustrated using permutation and combination of the elements discussed in the first stage of PR. For instance, if the teacher is technogeek and the students are digital natives which are generally characteristics of classes in developed world, any highly sophisticated technology can be unquestionably used. However, any of the remaining combinations demand thoughtful selection . For example if the class comprises digital migrant teachers and students which is the nature of classes in developing society, the use of technology demands carefulness. In the latter case compared to the first one, the 41
demand for discipline is higher and thus the need for teachers’ authority exercise is more. Consequently, the use of technology in these conditions demand for its controlled and very often minimal use. Nevertheless, the point to note is the necessary revision that this equation might undergo due to the students’ expectation and needs in the classroom regarding the nature of treatment to the subject. The fourth stage – evaluation – concerns the magnitude of effectiveness of technology use. We need to assess efficiency and impact of technology use. Unless these two aspects are studied, we cannot determine results and decide what, if anything, to do next or do differently. 4. CONCLUSIONS The four-step process, which finally directs either to intensify or continue or deter or delay the use of technology, brings home an undeniable fact: use of technology is not a panacea; it is spatio-temporal need that is dialectically determined by various components of the class. Nepal, being a developing country has its own constrains regarding deployment of technology and thus it demands for inquiry into the nature of need. Once the nature of need is assessed by concerned stakeholders, the issue of collaboration and intervention becomes pertinent. Since the educationists in developing countries work with constrains, any collaboration and intervention to maximize the use of existing technology, upgrade the teachers’ knowledge about new technology, and implement new-technologies will be beneficial to both the sides as a principal of collaboration. REFERENCES 1. Allen, E. (2004). Nanoscale Science and Technology. New Horizons for Learning. Retrieved on 29 April 2010 from < http://www.newhorizons.org/ strategies/technology/allen.htm> 2. Center, A. H. and P. Jackson (2002). Public Relations Practices: Managerial Case Studies and Problems. 6th Ed. India: Prentice-Hall, 2002. 3. Dede, Chris. Testimony to the US Congress, House of Representatives: Joint Hearing on Educational Technology in the 21st Century. New Horizons for Learning. 29 April 2010. 4. McCluskey, L. (1994). Gresham’s Law, Technology, and Education. Phi Delta Kappan 75(7): 550-552. 5. MuthuKumar, S.L. (2004) Learning with the Internet. New Horizons for Learning. Retrieved on 29 April 2010 from 6. New Horizons for Learning (2005). Technology in Education. Retrieved on 29 April 2010 from 42
