The Great Divide: Professor 1.0 and Professor 2.0

Similar to many students, social media is part of my day.  It needs to be: family, friends, life, etc – all of these aspects of my life hold the main one up, which is my education and future.  The logistics of my life are different from students of previous generations because students now live in a world where digital technology is part of how we interact, how we learn, how we structure of everyday routines, and why we do what we do.  Therefore, professors really shouldn’t be surprised that their students are vigorously (and sometimes rigorously) using technology, especially hand-held technology, in the classroom.

However, there is a divide between professors who choose to use technology in their classrooms and those who do not.  This divide originates with the student.  The student represents the potential of how education is going to, either, stay traditional, with a traditional classroom setting where the professor lectures to a group, or become an entire new animal, where the students and professors interact on a more collaborative level.  The design of classrooms would inevitably change, perhaps with a more pluralistic social structure that recognizes students and professors as collaborative colleagues.

Some professors (Professor 1.0) argue that technology is a distraction and, therefore, the use of it in the classroom should be limited, or completely banned (my aside: good luck with that one ;P).  Other professors (I’ll call them Professor 1.5 since I love decimals) agree that technology should be in a classroom setting, but with limitations on what technology is used and how it is used.  These professors are stuck in the middle of the leap of progression that is occurring in education.  Changes are big, but similar to any revolution, changes are small details.  The bigger picture, as well as the enormous change in pedagogy and practice that is occurring will one day be seen.  One day, hopefully, soon.

And then there is the Futurist: Professor 2.0 embraces the idea of students not only using technology in the classroom, but also believe that students should be given the hard skills to harness how this technology can be used to benefit them personally and professionally.  These wizards are willingly to learn and apply new skills in their classrooms in order to mould students for the Digital Age,  vigorously and rigorously so.  In fact, Professor 2.0 is coaching previously ‘soft’ disciplines into playing hard ball academics.  Such is the case with the Digital Humanities, a new field that is developing with the collaboration of many departments that centre around traditionally Humanities-based projects.  Please refer to the interviews with Ryerson University’s Digital Media Zone Executive Director, Valerie Fox, and/or Dr. Constance Crompton of the University of Victoria for more information on some awesome, on-going advancements on the Digital Humanities frontier in Canada.  Professor 2.0 is a frontiers person of sorts, one who is exploring the digital frontier for what resources can be found that help them teach and learn.  Like all explorers of a new frontier, they face many unexpected obstacles, one of which is the divide created between them and other professors who rely on traditional methods of teaching and are not willing to change tried and trusted methods so quickly.

The divide between Professor 1.0 and 2.0 creates tension – and some of this tension is personal, not just professional.  Technology takes time to learn to use.  It is not always a click of a button, but sometimes requires education on how tech things work.  The designing of a blog, for instance, may require that the blogger have some knowledge in programming and web design.  Also, free blog platforms, such as WordPress, take time to learn, use effectively, and network (and market) your blog.  In other words, Professor 2.0 needs to be educated in the technology they use in the class.  Ultimately, it comes down to one thing: showing that new learning tools are helping students learn.

Traditional teaching focuses on standardized educational methods, such as teaching students how to prepare essays, step-by-step projects, and giving in-class quizzes and tests.  What work is not completed in class is taken home.  Lectures are a time for the professor to profess.  This method is fading out because students are have a more difficult time engaging with the lectures and the work because it is not on the mediums they use.  Professor 2.0 has an edge because they use Web 2.0 tools in their class – and the stakes are only getting edgier as software developers and Web 2.0 companies are investing more and more into education (please see my post on Web 2.0 technologies entitled “The Digital Divide, part 2”).  Academic publishers are also getting on board by providing electronic copies of journal articles.  Why?  Because the investment is a constant resource.  To invest in students is to invest in the institution.  How this institution evolves as a result is what professors and other members of the academic public can and must shape.

What about Professor 1.0?  As their 2.0 colleagues venture forth into the new digital world of education, Professor 1.0 is still trying to harvest knowledge on dying soil.  There efforts in class are needed, but only regulate the classroom.  Sometimes, they even may hold back the class.  Their knowledge and expertise is still appreciated, but is being countered by the Web 2.0 technologies.  For instance, a professor may be able to teach Shakespeare, but so can the many databases there are out their dedicated to the Bard.  A math professor is sometimes outwitted by the Khan Academy, which can teach students complicated math and statistics at students’ own speed.  Professor 1.0 is gradually finding themselves marginalized by the technology their students use.  Yet, they shouldn’t feel hostile or intimidated.  The benefits of learning to incorporate technology within the classroom are extensive and unique.  So, why doesn’t Professor 1.0 jump on board?  Scholar Thomas R. Klassen thinks that it is a generational problem.  Many professors who are lopped under the title, Professor 1.0, are part of an older demographic who were not educated using technology, especially not Web 2.0 tools.  Professor 2.0 grew up and into using technology in and out of their classrooms. In the Thomas R. Klassen article, “Upgrade Anxiety and the Aging Expert,” Klassan writes extensively on the benefits  of technology in the class for the aging expert.   He makes several solid points which I would like to further explain:

(1) “Information and communication technology have resulted in the democratization of knowledge, as colleagues at smaller institutions now have the same, or at least similar, access to scholarly information and databases” (8)

(2) “Many universities are not taking advantage of the skills possessed by younger and older professors respectively.  Nor are younger and older faculty members taking advantages of each others’ skills, either” (10)

The first point touches on the fact that knowledge is now so easily attainable.  All knowledge from every discipline can be found somewhere on the web.  It is futile to think that the professor is the sole source of this knowledge anymore.

The second point reveals the main problem: the lack of communication.  Professor 2.0 may feel slightly superior to their 1.0 co-workers (and vice-versa).  They may also feel as though they can compete with their older co-workers’ experience in the field.  Vying for power only results in the eventual collapse of the system.  So, we have to have a common understanding of the importance of Web 2.0 tools.  There are some important questions that should be raised, including the following:

1) What Web 2.0 tools should be used and why?

In a recent study by Michael Simkins and Randy Schultz entitled, “Using Web 2.0 Tools At School,” the scholars found that the Web 2.0 tools used in class were also for personal use.  So, the personal and professional usages of these tools must be blended.   This is part of what is called “Hybrid Pedagogy” (defined in point 3).  This type of pedagogy recognizes the need for technology used in the everyday for professional use.  For instance, if a student uses messaging with friends they may also, under certain guidelines, use it to communicate with their professor during class.  Furthermore, a wiki is something most people are familiar with, thanks to the world-renowned site, Wikipedia.  Wikis, which allow users to modify the content on a site, may be used in addition to class discussion and lectures.  These allow students to interact with material in new ways and on their own time while also ensuring the professor still has control over content.  Youtube videos can also be used for presentations or podcasts, etc.

2) What should be restricted?

Anything too personal or unrelated to the course content.  If students use online discussion boards to discuss personal matters unrelated to the course then the instructor can set a limit to how much is shared.  Anything inappropriate is instantly declined based on an ethics code.  Anything unrelated to the course can be deleted.

3) What is Hybrid Pedagogy?

The blending of two or more teaching methodologies.  Professor 2.0 has the advantage of using traditional methods of teaching without relying on these methods.  So, technology allows them to frame the same content in different contexts (on different mediums) to make the class structure more open.

I suppose the main question is: how can this divide be bridged?  It is only through collaboration and open communication can knowledge be shared.  Since teaching, learning, and other educational activities rely on the communication between colleagues and students, then bringing technology into the class relies heavily on how we can use this technology effectively.

Works Cited:

Klassen,  Thomas R.  “Upgrade Anxiety and the Aging Expert.”  Academic Matters. OCUFA. May 2012: 7-10. Print.