Sociological Impact of Digital Media in Science Education

Andrew Yeung

University of British Columbia

Educational Technology ETEC 511

December 5th, 2016

Running head: SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF DIGITAL MEDIA IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

Abstract

Effective teachers supplement instruction with digital media to redirect learning using

already-present technology. Traditional instruction has conditioned students to be passive

audiences; together with often unreliable modern learning given limited peer review. Information

access can never be substituted for knowledge understanding. Technology is neutral depending

on application with the capacity to expand teaching or invade learning, reshaping classroom

sociology continually redefining educator and student roles. Instead of generalizing media like

PowerPoint or OneNote to be good or bad, integration must balance pros and cons within social

context. Incorporating Kahoot and Plickers enable active participation, leveraging technology

taken for granted in sustainable pedagogy. Rearranging architecture towards student-directed

inquiry shifts teachers from experts to guides, with digital media presenting identity via text

forming internet communities. Educational cautions include opportunity costs of time and

physicality, with technical literacy replacing writing, reading and mathematical ability. Instead of

silencing technology, digital media can be redirected creatively to provide equitable access

minimizing the socioeconomic disparity.

Introduction

Sociological effectiveness of digital media in education depends not merely on what but

how technology is incorporated. Social platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat have

transformed communication in the 21st century, redirecting instructional approaches to maximize

learning within saturated online infrastructure. Educational technologies like Edmodo,

Teachertube and Wikispaces are generally adapted from social tools, while having similar

functionalities augment restrictions for Science classrooms. Students navigating hyper-connected

lifestyles from being always online result in slower integration within pedagogy. Digital

technology and internet media have changed how people report and consume information:

1
Running head: SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF DIGITAL MEDIA IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

Expensive landlines are replaced by mobile plans and cable television is replaced by Netflix

demand; increasingly convenient smart devices enable synchronous interaction with searchable

knowledge.

Incorporating technology however does not automatically translate into good teaching.

Although multimedia like Wikipedia, Youtube and TEDtalks connect interdisciplinary expertise,

public content often lacks peer review impacting credibility. Evaluating reliability of sources

becomes pertinent curriculum, though availability of resources does not mean tools necessarily

should be used for education. Technology constrains perception and limits representation

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006), many with specific imperatives repurposed from the business world.

Pedagogy therefore must contextualize digital media towards learning outcomes, giving personal

relevance and immersive experience. Without reflection of social context, technology intended

as supplement can ultimately become substitute, fragmenting content for format (Tufte, 2003).

Traditional instruction has conditioned students to be passive audiences, reinforcing

learners as receivers without engagement (Lundberg, 1993). Different modalities via text, audio

and video historically favoured print media given publication scrutiny, as compared to digital

fluidity with none claiming responsibility for online discourse. Even if government corporations

desired greater accountability, tracking sheer data volume becomes overwhelming. Instead of

content driving pedagogy, technology inevitably advances driving both content and pedagogy

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006), requiring corresponding educational shifts. Possible losses for

individual design are balanced with gains from collaborative inquiry.

Digital Media in Classroom Pedagogy

Technology within the SAMR model ("Introduction to the SAMR Model", 2016) can be

viewed as enhancement and transformation, supporting pedagogy without replacing instruction.

2
Running head: SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF DIGITAL MEDIA IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

Newer tools accomplish similar tasks as older media, incorporating functionalities that promote

interaction. Redesigned exercises supplement learning with active participation, personalizing

instruction with instant feedback. Adams (2012) presents technology as teacher with digital

media re-schooling everyday life. Even chalk albeit not digital, extends capacity associating

meaning to gestures as the ‘cyborgian hand’ integrates mechanical with organic. While

technology is neutral pending application, digital media can serve as an expansion that integrates

learning management systems, yet simultaneously as an invasion that monitors classroom

activities, reinforcing teachers as supervisors (Adams, 2012).

Other researchers emphasize how differing roles impact sociological relationships with

learners. Teachers are commonly viewed as dictators, the sages on stage as knowledge experts

(Godsey, 2015). Educators package learning objectives like salespeople design infomercial

pitches, programming students as uncritical consumers (Tufte, 2003). Learning thus involves

buying products deemed essential to be occasionally recalled demonstrating understanding.

Teacher presence undoubtedly affects student performance, establishing proximity that not only

refocuses attention but limits free expression (Wassermann, 1994). Both educators and students

alike use digital media for instruction, shifting 21st century roles towards facilitators mutually

guiding towards shared knowledge.

Godsey (2015) questions, “When kids can get their lessons from the Internet, what’s left

for classroom instructors to do?” Although multimedia provides seemingly endless information,

access can never be substituted for internalization. Wisdom differs from knowledge in applying

learning to novel situations, manipulating variables for optimal solutions. Both online and print

media are fallible, though digital material evolves quickly resulting in higher likelihood of

misinformation. Even search engines carry political implications, returning articles corporations

3
Running head: SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF DIGITAL MEDIA IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

prioritize given inherent biases. Foundational background and network etiquette are pertinent for

navigating digital media not as a sea of knowledge, but rather alive information (Davis, 1993).

Case Study: Microsoft PowerPoint versus OneNote

Adams (2008) describes continual tension between pedagogy and technology, with

human aspects emphasizing spontaneity and mystery versus machine elements stressing rigidity

and mechanization. Instead of generalizing digital media as either good or bad, integration must

balance pros and cons within respective school contexts.

Microsoft Powerpoint continues to be the norm for marketplace presentations given user

friendliness and professional appeal. Slideshows designed using various templates, animations

and transitions are ideal for Science classrooms, providing audio-visual recordings for sharing.

For the IB Group 4 Project, integrative groups researched areas reporting water quality issues,

creating slideshows to discuss probable methods for purification within specific budgets. The

real world implications sustained interest, where even introverted learners actively contributed

benefiting from interactions. With timing set to advance slides every 20 seconds, groups needed

concise design along with sufficient rehearsal. Some of course interpreted timing as merely

having to speak faster, though having structural consistency allowed for continuity and equitable

assessment. Tufte (2003), in contrast with the article entitled ‘PowerPoint Is Evil’, discusses how

the rectangular design with bullet points and hierarchal lists “routinely disrupts, dominates, and

trivializes content”. While key points are preferred over text boxes, predetermined slides follow

linear trains of thought restricting organic interaction with students.

Microsoft introduced OneNote software to its Office suite given increasing prevalence of

touchscreen media. OneNote provides freeform interaction with drawing tools, automatically

sensing transitions between inking and typing, selecting and panning. Although students are

4
Running head: SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF DIGITAL MEDIA IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

encouraged to maintain lab books as working experiment documents, OneNote notebooks

organize learning into searchable pages and digital sections. Teaching notes synced onto cloud

servers can be viewed and edited in real time from anywhere in the world. Otherwise, having to

periodically upload and download can become a management nightmare. Current revisions to

provincial curriculum highlight personalized inquiry over prescribed outcome, whose guiding

principle is to develop student curiosity based on classroom sociology. One Science 10 block

might look different from another in terms of approach or even content, evaluating learning of

big ideas using the landing pad assessment model. Teaching with OneNote provides flexibility to

adapt pacing as well as direction in response to formative engagement. OneNote technology

however when misinterpreted as a glorified overhead, suffers the same glow hiding teachers and

leaving students as receivers.

Redirecting Digital Media

Effective approaches for educational technology consider how digital media can be

redirected to improve performance using already-present technology (Hlynka & Jacobsen, 2009).

Modern pedagogy creates opportunities to move students from passive consumption to active

contribution. Case study method, for example, presents complex problems with no perfect

resolutions, engaging learners through joint inquiry. Teachers guide students from the comforts

of certainty to accept some degrees of ambiguity (Johnson et al., 2013), exercising discretion

refraining from bias and judgment. In this manner, both educators and students participate with

mutual instruction and learning.

Digital media can offer novel resources to organize learning environments. Using Kahoot

games transform already-present smartphones into clickers, enabling synchronous interaction for

multiple response. Using Plicker cards with anonymous shapes provide real time interaction,

5
Running head: SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF DIGITAL MEDIA IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

easily scanning that accommodates changes in answer. Using PHET simulations allow

visualization of Science concepts through playing with variables. Students differing in home-

computer access can research on smartphones replacing mobile iPad carts. The LilyPad Arduino

(Buechley, Eisenberg, Catchen, & Crockett, 2008) is another successful example of redirecting

social infrastructure with digital media. Buechley et al. creatively incorporated electronics

engineering with fashion accessories, improving gendered representations and seeding delight as

better career indicators than standardized testing.

Rearranging classroom architecture towards student-directed activity enables learners to

own spaces. Desks conventionally pointed frontward reinforce perceptions of teachers as experts

limiting engagement. While risking stage presence grouping into pods, learners face one another

exploring together as educators circulate to facilitate understanding. Rather than feeling anxious

of being called, reaching group consensus allows students to alternate reporting back.

Zhao and Frank (2003) discuss incompatible structures with schools often leaving

computers unused, underused or even misused. While technology is generally concentrated

within learning commons, computer labs are frequently occupied for regular instruction outside

information technology. Redirecting access through distributing labs can help, though short

period lengths continue to pressure maintaining existing practice, where only items requiring

little change are experimented with greater frequency. Emerging technologies often demand

proficiencies greater than occasional professional development can provide. Technology

integration additionally depends on human values biased toward self-interest, limiting choice

acting in response. Successful incorporation depends on socialization from immediate

colleagues, whose evolving nature suggests possible unreliability and time investment.

6
Running head: SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF DIGITAL MEDIA IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

Lapowsky (2015) further asserts how “schools aren’t good at making changes or

measuring the effects of those changes,” in support of AltSchools that approach learning through

independent projects over direct instruction. To effectively compare digital media in education,

differences between public and private sectors require due consideration, let alone well-funded

start-ups. Since technology abundance does not guarantee superior quality, teachers should

maximize already-present devices before investing with newer resources. Regular cost-benefit

analyses must evaluate technology based on usage and impact, considering satisfaction and

support given social context, along with sustaining aging equipment.

Modern Learning Cautions

Social networks shape technology innovation with goals of perfect exchange and ultimate

mobility (Haraway, 1985/1990). Educators must continually reflect whether digital media are

beneficial or detrimental to learning within teaching context. Rosen et al. (2014) describe

‘technococoons’ where mobile devices invade bedrooms causing sleep deprivation and

relationship deterioration, characterizing ill-being from physical to psychological symptoms,

attention deficits to misbehaviour. Growing up with digital media enables self-presentation in

text capable of being edited, reforming student identity as multiple and decentered through

autonomous shared profiles (Turkle, 2004). Conveniences of wearable technology impinge upon

privacy changing perception realizing modern Orwellian fears. Although the internet redefines

community through (a)synchronous connection, Turkle (2012) discusses how being alone

together can never substitute for physical distance and sustained conversation.

Digital media embodies novel social relations with students being regarded less as

knowledge objects but more as holistic systems, redefining working classes with technical

literacy (Haraway, 1985/1990). Language provides unmistakable benefits though word choice

7
Running head: SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF DIGITAL MEDIA IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

limits thought and expression, which parallels Davis’ (1993) assertion of language as virus and

memes as parasites, negatively affecting traditional literacy development. Spellcheck identifies

mistakes suggesting possible alternatives; Twitter restricts posts to 140 character tweets,

abbreviating grammatical sentences. Although concise vocabulary is essential for Science

communication, sustained argumentation is hindered as Adams (2012) describes the

disappearance of reading, writing and mathematical literacies.

Technology as well blends professional and private lives, redefining work hours

responding emails and maintaining websites. Educators conducting flipped classrooms spend

countless time as upfront investment, where direct instruction occurs through asynchronous

videos facilitating practice during school. Students having to spend regular evenings over digital

media assume home internet access, along with independent ownership of learning. Pitman

(2008) found although technology presents broader ranges of life experience, (un)selected

content with advertisements makes learners increasingly susceptible and desensitized,

emphasizing the importance of developing appropriate filters. Opportunity costs for what

students are not doing when interacting over digital media include reduced exercise, in some

cases accruing financial debt through competitive comparison.

Digital media is predominantly English-based with previous attempts of Massive Open

Online Courses toward democratizing education facing cultural barriers that stem from Western

assumptions of generic learners (Rivard, 2013). Technology widens the socioeconomic gap,

disadvantaging poorer communities with less reliable broadband internet. Affordances of

technology need to balance affordability of technology. While teachers cannot address individual

hardships, responsibilities include redirecting digital media inasmuch as possible to maximize

learning providing equitable access.

8
Running head: SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF DIGITAL MEDIA IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

Conclusion

Relationships with digital media emerge over time from hopeful enthusiasm to critical

resistance (Petrina, 2015). Being designed for specific purposes, not all technology is suitable for

education with certain knowledge deemed vanity, necessitating thoughtful examination within

social context. Effective teachers balance technology, pedagogy and content knowledge in

dynamic equilibrium, moving from what to how despite fear of change and lack of support

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Instead of silencing technology, media can be creatively transformed

within instruction and evaluation to redirect student passivity into collaborative learning and

interactive engagement. Rearranging classroom aesthetics toward student-directed learning

provide sociological dimensions of education, as teachers optimally incorporate resources within

saturated environments prior to considering newer technology. Educators leverage technology,

which has always been taken for granted, reflecting critically how as we inhabit tools, media too

inhabits us. As Zhao and Frank (2003) describe, multimedia should no longer be perceived as

revolution, but as something that for better or worse inevitably evolves together with learning.

Digital media not only expand teaching, but simultaneously invade classroom sociology,

continually reforming educator and learner roles thereby reorienting effective pedagogy.

References

Adams, C. (2008). The poetics of PowerPoint. Explorations in Media Ecology, 7(4), 283–289.

Adams, C. (2012). Technology as teacher: Digital media and the re-schooling of everyday

life. Existential Analysis 23(2), 262-273.

Buechley, L., Eisenberg, M., Catchen, J., & Crockett, A. (2008). The LilyPad Arduino: Using

computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer

science education. Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human

9
Running head: SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF DIGITAL MEDIA IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

factors in computing systems (pp. 423-432), Florence, Italy, 5-10 April. Library Portal

Access (ACM Digital Archive database)

C. C. Lundberg. (1993). A framework for student case preparation. Case Research Journal, 2,

132-144.

Davis, E. (1993). Techgnosis: Magic, memory, and the angels of information. South Atlantic

Quarterly, 92(4), 585-616.

Godsey, M. (2015, March 25). The deconstruction of the K-12 teacher. The Atlantic.

Haraway, D. (1985/1990). A manifesto for cyborgs. In L. J. Nicholson (Ed.),

Feminism/Postmodernism (pp. 190-233). New York: Routledge.

Hlynka, D. & Jacobsen, M. (2009). What is educational technology, anyway? A commentary on

the new AECT definition of the field. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology,

35(2).

Introduction to the SAMR Model. (2016). Commonsensemedia.org. Retrieved 24 November

2016, from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/videos/introduction-to-the-samr-model

Johnson, J. F., Bagdasarov, Z., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L. Devenport, L. D. Mumford, M. D. &

Thiel, C. E. (2013). Case-based ethics education: The impact of cause complexity and

outcome favorability on ethicality. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research

Ethics, 7(3), 63-77.

Lapowsky, I. (2015, May 4). Inside the school Silicon Valley thinks will save education. Wired.

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A

framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,

108(6), 1017-1054.

10
Running head: SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF DIGITAL MEDIA IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

Petrina, S. (2015). Critique of technology [Introduction + first section]. In P. J. Williams & K.

Stables (Eds.), Critique in design and technology education (pp. 1-6). Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Springer.

Pitman, S. (2008). The impact of media technologies on child development and wellbeing.

OZChild, http://www.ozchild.org.au/userfiles/docs/ozchild/research-

papers/ImpactOfElectronicMedia.pdf

Rosen, L.D., Lim, A.F., Felt, J., Carrier, L.M., Cheever, N.A., Lara-Ruiz, J.M., Mendoza, J.S. &

Rokkum, J. (2014). Media and technology use predicts ill-being among children, preteens

and teenagers independent of the negative health impacts of exercise and eating habits.

Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 364–375.

Rivard, R. (2013, April 25). The world is not flat. Inside Higher Ed,

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/04/25/moocs-may-eye-world-market-does-

world-want-them.

Tufte, E. R. (2003, September). PowerPoint is evil. Wired, 11(9).

Turkle, S. (2004). Whither psychoanalysis in computer culture.Psychoanalytic Psychology,

21(1), 16-30.

Turkle, S. (2012, April 21). The flight from conversation. New York Times,

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-from-

conversation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Wassermann, S. (1994). Using cases to study teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 602-604, 606-

608, 610-611.

Zhao, Y. & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological

perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.

11