Though somewhat idealistic, this video: Web 2.0: The Machine is Us/ing us (which I originally found through another blog) is a great demonstration of the use of new media to demonstrate a concept…about new media. Why do I call it idealistic? Maybe because of my post earlier today about a substitute teacher facing jail time because a school didn’t have antivirus software installed, and it didn’t occur to her to immediately pick up the evil computer and fling it across the room to cast its demons out. So on the one hand, we, as end users of a computer are more empowered than ever before, what with having access to all this xml goodness. And on the other hand, we have a society that’s “not quite there yet” in terms of both understanding these increasingly more complex tools and refereeing the human behavior surrounding the digital capabilities.

This sounds like a joke. A substitute teacher facing sentencing for not shutting down a computer fast enough? I found a discussion of this on Intellagirl’s blog, and the original link back to the PC World article. The analysis at PC World is enough for you to get a full sense of what unfolded. The author, Steve Bass, correctly pinpoints the blame back to the school not having antivirus software installed and firewalls enabled. But let’s take it a step farther. Isn’t the real blame the creators of malware who willingly and forcefully subject us to advertising porn as well as real porn through their malevolent tactics? I’m also wondering why the state of Connecticut is wasting taxpayers money to try a substitute teacher. Further, the comment from a juror on Intellagirl’s posting– “If a 40 year old school teacher does not have the sense to turn off or is not smart enough to figure it out, would you or any other person wanting her teaching your child or grandchild?”– doesn’t even make sense!!! It’s mind boggling. This isn’t a contract renewal meeting, it’s criminal court!

I hope this turns out to be some internet hoax.

The Attack of the Pod People addresses student enthusiasm for downloadable lectures in lieu of, it would appear from the context, attending class. I neither fully agree or disagree with the author, but he is getting a fundamental point in terms of the student in question’s reaction to being able to podcast class materials–just because students like it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily good for them. That being said, in the context of this opinion piece, there is a fundamental blurring of distinction between lecturing and instruction that would be nice for a lot of faculty to pay attention to. In fact, I would say if your argument for not providing podcasts is that students would have no need to go to your class anymore (a concern I have heard more than once), then you are doing something wrong. Why? Because if all your students do when they come to class is sit and listen to you, then WHY NOT just let them download your comments and listen to them through osmosis while they sleep off last night’s hang over.

Schneider asks: “At 8 in the morning I may not be beautiful — hell, I may not even be fully awake — but I’m there, and I’m dressed. Any questions?”

Yes, I have a question. What else –besides being there and wearing clothes– are you requiring of your students during this class time that makes the class relevant for them, which allows them to build on their knowledge of the content and receive feedback, and which allows them to interact with their peers in developing their expertise? I’m not picking on Scheider. I’m just suggesting that going even deeper into what is offensive about the lecture-podcast besides a sense that because he, as the professor has to be there to show s/he cares, students should too. That’s not enough of an argument because it leaves the opposite argument open–if a professor feels that creating podcasts is how they show commitment to their students, isn’t that caring enough? Production, after all, can be very time consuming. In fact, it’s the treatment of content as something that only need be transmitted to the student for learning to occur that is offensive.
In this debate, I’m struck by the contrast between research on learning which lauds the importance of social interaction in learning and the importance of understanding how to communicate with others in a target community of practice versus the advancement of the technological machine, which many seem to interpret as permission to distance themselves (students and faculty alike) from (other) learners. It is a curious contradiction.