Reflections on 'Learning in New Media Environments'

?? Everyone is an Authority => Media is an Authority => No one is an Authority ??


Michael Wesch’s presentation Learning in New Media Environments“ is a thought provoking look at the future of education. He begins with a visual narrative of how media can mediate relationships and proceeds to outline the dichotomy of the technologically enhanced world in which we live. He describes our world as being "on the razor's edge between hopeful possibilities and ominous futures". The vast opportunities for openness and freedom come with a price of equal opportunities for surveillance and control. Along with tendencies for transparency come tendencies for deception. As Welsch points out, opportunities for mass participation also create opportunities for mass distraction (and more ominously from my point of view, mass destruction). Therefore, before we jump head first into embracing all of the benefits of the technological revolution, we must also consider the costs.


The vision that students need to be creative, caring, collaborative, daring, open individuals is one that many, if not most parents, teachers, and leaders share. Wesch ‘s presentation suggests that the walls of a classroom are not conducive to developing such an individual. He denounces the assumptions and messages conveyed by traditional classroom environments:


To learn means to acquire information
Traditional learning involves listening to the authority for good information
Authorized information is not open for discussion
Obey the authority and follow along

Although Wesch’s argument is compelling, we must carefully examine it from different angles. When students in his class became ‘authorities’ by producing a video that millions of people worldwide saw and assumed to be true and accurate information, where does ‘the question of truth’ and ‘reality’ come into play? The constructivist view that reality is created by individuals is a philosophy not everyone agrees with wholeheartedly. The video, A Vision of Students Today is certainly true for a portion of students in this society but can we assume that this is necessarily reflective of most or even many students in America or globally? The problem with sending such knowledge out into the world is that over 4 million people worldwide will watch it and make assumptions and generalizations that are not in fact reflective of everyone's reality. My college-aged son watched the video and was really impressed by the ‘facts’ it presented that he acknowledged as being true and others that he ‘learned’ by watching the video. However, a follow-up discussion with him uncovered his assumption that the profile portrayed in this video was not only ‘true’ it was ‘normal’. Although the students interviewed expressed a reality of what is common for some American students, does this really mean it is ‘normal’ for students to feel this way about their education? In actuality, these findings about students today cannot be generalized to all American students or to students worldwide. This point is illustrated by A Vision of Japanese University Students Today, a version of Wesch's original video that is notably different. Wesch must be given credit for providing the springboard for capturing students' perspectives with this type of digital ethnography.



Nevertheless, some take issues with Wesch’s class video supported the notion that our current educational system is at fault for students not showing up to class, not reading their books, or not being engaged. This is taken a step further is a similar video entitled A Vision of K-12 Students Today. The overriding message of that video was that students want to be ENGAGED and it is up to educators to engage them! The very notion of “Engage Me” implies that learning is a passive process on the part of students, and an active responsibility of teachers. This attitude reflects the impact of our current digital climate on today’s students who are constantly expecting someone or something to engage or entertain them.



A further concern is that an overemphasis on learning in new media environments and the ‘whatever, whenever, wherever’ attitude being promoted may be mediating relationships between children, their parents, and teachers in ways that are not good for society, just as Wesch witnessed in New Guinea. Never in the history of our planet has the sense of respect for authority and authoritative knowledge been challenged as it is being done today. This by no means that we should not embrace technology, collaboration, or engaging curriculum that is relevant to students’ life in the 21st century. Wesch’s class video and research schedule for his Introduction to Cultural Anthropology class is are excellent examples of how technology and media can be used to acquire, document, and implement knowledge for beneficial purposes. His idea of designing creative and culturally relevant lessons so that students are asking questions that are relevant to their world is undoubtedly on point. However, as leaders we need to be cautious about assuming that knowledge (especially that in Wikis) is relative. We also need to be cautious about the impact of failing to distinguish (and hold accountable) those whose responsibility it is to be engaging teachers and those whose responsibility it is to be engaged learners.






Ultimately, whether information is coming from an authority in the front of a traditional classroom with walls, from traditional texts, or from a barrage of tweets, messages, videos, simulations or other forms of media - perhaps the key is to teach students, teachers, and leaders how to be critical thinkers and analytical seekers of knowledge with the ability to recognize, synthesize, and share knowledge authoritatively. Technology and media have definite benefits but we would be wise to also consider the long-term costs and repercussions of overreliance upon them.