Société
historique
du
Canada
A
N
ew
W
ay
to
A
ttain
an
O
ld
I
déal
Imagine theidéal university-level teaching circumstances: asmall student-teacherratio, say 8 to 1; a high degreeofinteraction,both student-teacher and student-student; frequent opportunities for students to write and critique each others’ writing; small groups
making discoveries and solving problems together, without the intrusion ordominationof the instructor. Inshort, thekind ofcol-
legialityaround which higheréducationwas originally designed to function.
A thingof the past? Yes. Theexpansionof post-secondary insti
tutions, skyrocketing enrolments, students’need to work as much asforty hours perweekto supporttheir tuition,aswell as other fac
tors hâve made the original dynamics ofhigher leamingseem an impossible dream. Athingof the future? Againyes. Newtech
nologies as appliedto teaching and leaming hold the potential to revive the university environment of an earlier era.
In September 1996,I explained to my students in History 2100
—Ancient Greece and Rome—that we would be exploring some of the oldesttexts in Western civilization using some of the newest technology. We would meetin personperiodically, but more and
more frequently as the year progressed, we would use electronic
conferencingsoftware called FirstClass to médiate our discussions. FirstClass is akin to internet e- mail with a few enhancements.
Individual messages, for example, are easily“threaded” in such a waythatfollowing thediscussionof a singleissueis easy.
Astutorialleader, I would postquestions to stimulateadiscussion
of issues arising from twice-weekly lectures and regular reading assignments. Students couldrespond eitherto my questions orto the responses of their classmates. Individualscould communicate
privately with one another or withtheentire group publicly. Those who didn’twish to share their thoughts with the whole group (for whateverreason) could sendcomments directlyto me. Attheend ofeach unit and by the end of the term, therewouldbe a complété transcript of the debateswhichhadtakenplaceand students would hâvea record of thebody of leaming theyhad produced themselves
collaboratively.
This method of leaminghas numerous advantages. First, it is based inwriting. Students hâve ample opportunities tohone their
rhetorical skills and to work at their own pace without being puton the spot as is so often the case in regular, oral classroom settings. This isa particular benefit to individualswho are inhibit-ed, new to the English language, or unaccustomed to or uncom- fortable withthe opinionated andadversarial nature of convention- al tutorial debates. On occasions, shy students hâve responded to meprivately and, with their permission, I hâve redi-
rected their comments to the whole group. The effect of thisisto make reluctantstudents moreconfident in theirabilitiesby allow-ingthem to run anideabythe instructor first.
Anotheradvantage dérivés fromtheasynchronousnatureofelec tronic conferencing. Students no longer hâve to be in the same
placeat the same time toparticipateintutorialdiscussions. This is helpful to students who live at a considérable distance from the university campusorwhosejobsmakeitdifficult or incon
vénient to attendclasses. Computers areavailableatailrimes of the dayand night and students fortunate enough to owncomputers can
hook upremotely whenever they wish. Ideally, participants login
several rimes over the course of a week, read through the discus sions that hâve transpired to that point, contribute their own thoughts, and log out.
There arestill more benefits. This method of teaching ishighly adaptable, allowing the instructor to modify objectives and tech
nique as the course evolves. In HIST 2100thisyear, for example,
it became necessary to reorient the weekly tutorial hour so that more factual and conceptual structure could be given to lectures that wereoften expansive, abstract,andpotentiallydifficult to place
into a largerhistorical framework. The computer component of ourcoursepermittedus to dothis additionalworkwithout forego-ingtheimportantpedagogicalexpérience of discussionanddebate becauseof rime constraints. Furthermore, thismeans of communi
cation tends toremove some of the subjectivity inhérent in culti-vating skills andevaluating tutorial discussions. FirstClassprovides a written record of students’ contributions which permits the
instructor to knowprecisely what aspects of a student’s workneeds
to develop skills, as well as to reinforce aspects of leaming that studentshâvemasteredproficiently. Finally, exposuretocomputers and cutting-edge methods of communication give students hands-on expérience which can only help when they graduate from uni
versity to anincreasingly technologized job market.
This lastpointleads me to address those who hâvecriticizedthe
introduction ofcomputer-mediated leaming and the linksbetween
new technology inthe classroom and thedemands of the modem
economy. YorkSocial Science professor DavidF.Noble has recent-ly condemned whathe calls “the wiring ofhigher éducation,”
claim-ing thatas we couvert “instructional activity into a commodity” we
areusingourstudents as unwitting and unwillingresearchsubjects. Toan extent he iscorrect,but first, thisis nothing new,andsecond, itisnot the technology thatis the culprit. University instruction has for générations been associated with the pragmatic impératives
of the world beyond academia. Our students accept this; indeed, most ofthem insist that the skills they develop at university will enhancetheir career prospectsandrelate directly to future employ-ment. To adegree, students are part of anexperiment. A good teacher isalways experimenting with new ways to enhancethe class room expérience, looking for the best possible means of achieving pedagogical objectiveswhile pushing forwardthelimits of intellec-tualendeavour.
The critics would probably agréé that the best kind of higher leaming is typified by the classical idéal outlined inmy introduc tion. Thus far, my expériences teaching with computershas been far from flawless. One can, however, see the potential of new
technologiestoenhance university-level leaming, bringing intima- cy, intensity, and engagementback into theclassroom without
com-promising access or overextending budgets. Computers may not revolutionize the way we teach and learn at university but they can retum to us some of the dynamism that makes for true
intellectual development.
By DavidRimmel, Graduate Programme in History, York University Reprinted from CORE, the Newsletter of the Centre for the Support of Teaching (CST), Vol. 7, No. 2, March 1997
