"Wiki Web, Podcast Blog, Powerpoint, What's the Point?"

by Kevin Barry

David Ryfe asked me to write the opening commentary for a forum on using new technologies in classes on political communication. I was happy to do this and spent quite a bit of time contemplating the best way to address the issue. I thought about how I might start such a commentary in a way that would grab your attention and, perhaps, generate some consternation.

My poetic (?) introduction eventually gets to the bottom line... What's the Point?   Answering this question should come before adopting new technology tools in your classes.   My point then, to you, is to encourage you to identify what and how your students will best learn prior to sampling from the smorgasbord of technologies currently available.

In a workshop I conduct with my colleague Tom Laughner on this subject, we begin by asking faculty members to select a course that they teach and to clearly identify the major learning objectives that they expect their students to achieve in that course.  

The identification of learning objectives is a crucial step in the design of the course and communication of the objectives is critical if we expect students to achieve them successfully and efficiently. This case is made by Dick and Carey in "The Systematic Design of Instruction" (1996) when they state "Objectives guide the designer in selecting content and developing the instructional strategy and assessment process."

In my experience working with faculty members, the identification of learning objectives is often done internally rather than explicitly and, as a result, the objectives do not play the key role in guiding course design that they should.

For instance, let's say that Professor X needs to design a new course.   She proceeds by devoting a great deal of time to determining the content--the ideas, themes, and readings--that will go into the course.   She parses this content into lecture units, and then, at the end, wraps the whole thing around an in-class midterm exam and a take-home final paper.     

During the semester Professor X lectures to students on key ideas and themes, dramatizing as well as she can with various technologies (powerpoint, videos; etc.).   Students dutifully take notes, but have few interactions with the professor.   A few ask questions, but there is little in-class back and forth exchange.

Halfway through the course, students and Professor X go off to their respective corners--students to memorize notes and readings, and Professor X to write the midterm questions.

The questions ask students to synthesize, analyze, and critique the themes and ideas presented so far in the course.

Sound familiar?   There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this exercise.   But notice what has happened.   The instructor has asked students to demonstrate skills--of analysis, synthesis, and argument--that have not been practiced in class.   Remember, in class the Professor mostly speaks and students mostly take notes.   Thus, students never get to practice analyzing, synthesizing and critiquing in the presence of the instructor.  

The whole episode is a bit like learning to play the guitar without ever practicing with the teacher!

The point is that when designing courses, it is important to lead with learning objectives, and to ensure that content, class activities, and evaluative instruments reflect these objectives.

Without clearly defined learning objectives as the central focus of the design process there is a tendency for content to be the driving force. This is particularly problematic in an age when the potential content for any topic is expanding very rapidly. Content driven design often leads to courses that provide a shallow overview of a breadth of content rather than facilitating deep learning of the most important concepts.

A second function of clearly formulated objectives is to tell the students what is expected of them for successful completion of a course.

There are many tools to help in the process of writing clear objectives. My favorite is Bloom's Taxonomy, which defines a hierarchy of levels of learning in cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. Though it is not possible to completely separate these domains, in reality it is helpful to think of them separately as we plan. In higher education we most often focus on the cognitive domain when planning courses. In this domain Bloom et. al. define levels of learning as Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation. A good summary of the cognitive domain with sample verbs for writing objectives at each of the levels is available at http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/bloom.html .   Many other resources can be found by performing a library or web search on the term "Bloom's Taxonomy".

Once the goals for your course are clearly defined it is important to consider the research on best practice in teaching and learning in higher education. A very widely cited summary of this research is Chickering and Gamson's "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education".

According to Chickering and Gamson, the principles of good practice in undergraduate education are:

1.             encourage contact between students and faculty,
2.             develop reciprocity and cooperation among students,
3.             encourage active learning,
4.             give prompt feedback,
5.             emphasize time on task,
6.             communicate high expectations, and
7.             respect diverse talents and ways of learning.

Now with learning goals and best practice in mind we can move forward in the planning process. A very effective way to do this is to decide which major assignments or evaluations will best teach and test for the learning you have identified in your course goals. These major assignments then become the key to planning the details of your course, including if and how you or your students will use technology to help make the learning process more effective and / or efficient. After placing these major assignments/assessments in your course schedule you should consider what steps best facilitate effective completion by the students.

This is when it will be helpful for you to be aware of the technology tools available so that you can include them, when they will lead to more effective or efficient learning, as an integral part of the learning process.

As you consider the possibilities technologies provide, it is important to ask yourself a few questions. A good place to start is to ask yourself, and usually someone else at your institution, "Is the institutional support for the technology sufficient to ensure a high probability of successful implementation?" You will also want to consider how well the technology fits with your teaching style and if, and how much, training will be required for you and your students to use the technology successfully.

Having answered these questions and moved on in the process ensure that you have clearly identified the outcomes that you expect to result from the use of the new technologies and or strategies in your teaching. Clearly defining will help you assess the effectiveness of changes that you have made and to plan for further refinements in your creation of an effective learning environment for your students.

This then, is my point: use of new technologies in the classroom will be most successful when they are directly connected to explicit learning outcomes.  

Kevin Barry is Associate Director of the Kaneb Center for Teaching and Learning, and the Acting Director of the Centre for Creative Computing, at the University of Notre Dame.