I think Mike's first question, "to what extent is technology itself a cause of problems" isn't really at issue. Technology itself is not the problem, but it is instead our attitudes toward and understanding of technology that can contribute to problems. Donna makes the understanding problem clear by giving us several examples of colleagues who are unwilling to see the possibilities for learning and interactivity using networked computers and the web because they will not even take the time to look. Our mission, then, is to find ways to reach our WAC/CAC colleagues so that they may begin to understand that our work with computers isn't just multiple choice, one-way, drill and kill computer-aided instruction. As Donna says, we need to "demonstrate that technology does not necessarily undermine teaching, but might well support it." We may tire of reaching out, offering colloquium after workshop after tutorial for colleagues, but as Donna and Christine suggest, outreach is still a key factor in helping others see the value of the teaching we do with computers and the Internet.
Tharon adds to Donna's exhortations by reminding us that most of us do, after all, have training in rhetoric—we have the ability to adapt content for different audiences, including both our students and our colleagues. As Tharon says in answer to Mike's first question, teaching with technology is not about teaching technology, but instead is about teaching communication that happens to be mediated by a technological interface. I support Tharon's challenge to WAC/CAC faculty to get beyond being intimidated by highly technical expertise and jargon, to approach computers and the Web critically, just "as we'd analyze any other act of communication." Surely, then, our colleagues and students would be able to see that we have not swallowed the technology pill hook, line, and sinker; we can differentiate effective electronic pedagogy from simplistic one-way canned electronic instruction.
Mike also asked whether there are fundamental differences between students and teachers who can work effectively online and those who work best face-to-face. Partially in answer, Charlie asks us to reconsider what many of us think of as an a priori of education: that face-to-face learning is necessarily more effective. How do we know this, other than gut feelings we have about the importance of the human body, body language, and the human voice in the same room? Are there not learners who work better outside this setting? We must not back away from this question; this is why I stress in Benefits 5 of my opening statement that whenever possible we should make multiple pathways to success available to our students: computers, Internet, Web, library, oral discussion, group work, solitary writing, or whatever works best. I will often let groups of students take different pathways even within the same class period, resulting in near chaos! I know that this approach sounds like juggling with too many pins-- I risk dropping them all and losing the students' good will—but whenever I consider "appropriate uses" of technology, I can't get away from the question "appropriate for whom and when?" So I would humbly recommend that WAC/CAC faculty consider three guiding principles to accommodate a diversity of learning styles: balance, complementarity, and variation. Now that I think of it, these must be the rings that make up the three-ring circus I mentioned in my opening statement!
– Michael Day
mday@niu.edu