Over the years we have all considered that the use of “current technology” in our classrooms has helped to make our learning environments more interesting and relevant to students. Engaging is the current buzz-word to describe this phenomenon.
Schools have always explored the adaptation of current technologies to engage students in the curriculum. Slide projectors, 16mm film projectors, tape recorders, TV sets and video players – in their time – have all been pressed into action in classrooms across the country to help bring the curriculum to life for young minds.
But in 2008, are students still excited to sit in front of a 16mm film projector – other than for the novelty value? What technology is relevant for students in 2008?
More importantly, how do students interact with the technologies of their era?
Projectors, TVs and videos all had one thing in common – they presented information to a passive audience. They were owned by the institution, and made available to the masses for the occassional performance.
Does this technology model remain valid in 2008?
Well, in a word – no.
Most importantly, students now own the technology themselves. It is something that is in their bag or pocket or home, to be used whenever they feel it is necessary.
And this change of ownership has resulted in them having a vastly different relationship with the technology.
The results of my most recent survey of teenagers suggest that students have, not unexpectedly, moved on to “new things” far more quickly than their educators, not only in the technologies that they use, but in the way that they use them.
So how are students using “technology” in 2008?
The one-word answer is communication. Students use no longer use modern technologies for the passive absorption of prescribed information, but for the creation of information.
And, when talking to these students, the word technology no longer means “hardware”. Or “software”. It more often means “content”.
The top February 2008 communication activities (and we need to understand that these preferences change monthly rather than annually!) revolve around MySpace – it appears to be replacing dedicated chat software (such as MSN) as the preferred means of one-to-one communication.
E-mail barely rates a mention, unless students are pushed for an answer. They state that they use e-mail only when they need to respond to a teacher, or an organisation, who uses that form of communication. They rarely (never in my survey) generate an e-mail conversation themselves. Certainly never with their peers.
Cost is a factor in student technology choices. (In this respect, they are no different to previous generations!) That’s one reason why MySpace comes out on top as the “most often-used technology”. It’s free!
Text (sms) and phone calls are popular, and mentioned regularly, but seem to be waining a little, because they are considered to be too expensive for everyday use. The popularity of these options rises dramatically if students are with the same provider, and that provider has a “free-minutes” option. Or if the students don’t have unhindered access to a broadband internet service at home.
The second most popular “technology” mentioned by students in the current survey is YouTube. (See how the word technology has changed from the way we have used it previously?) I gave a group of Year 12 students a laptop last week, and left them to “use” it however they wanted. Without any prompting, the group spent nearly an hour exclusively watching YouTube videos. Everyone had a “favourite” video to share – sometimes made by their friends – and they all knew the necessary search terms required to find it.
Online mobile phone content (Google maps, sport, news, etc) is gaining popularity, but is limited to those students that have “free” access to these services through their phone provider (3 seems to be popular for this). Cost is again an issue that is shaping usage.
The ubiquitous iPod has almost become so passe and so mainstream that students often overlooked it when considering their use of “technology”. It is just the way that they listen to music. And those with suitable hardware also use their iPod for watching videos. The latest iPod Touch device includes instant, one-click, access to YouTube – and when given the option of using one of these devices there was a unanimous “must-have, when they get cheaper” response. It is considered a recreational entertainment device, rather than a “technology”.
Just wait until these students’ mobile phone needs, their YouTube needs, their MySpace needs and their mapping/navigation needs converge in the soon-to-be-released (in Australia) iPhone! It seems that initial and ongoing costs will be the only limiting factor to the popularity of these devices.
So what is the future for printed street directories, with the advent of sat-nav devices, Google Maps, and wide-screen 3G mobile phone access?
Or more importantly for us as educators – how will current technology infrastructures, to which we are devoting so much time and effort (and expense) to construct in our schools, support the curriculum in the future? Will these technologies still be engaging students in 5 years time? Are they engaging students now?
