|
Further Study |
||
|
Introduction Digital Technologies Changing Literacies Teacher Training No Technology Methodology Courses &
Workshops Conclusion
|
In order to assess, explain, and account for our teacher training
methods, it is important that we conduct further research into the ways
in which we employ technology in both our teaching and our
research. The questions I address here need further investigation,
but there are others that revealed themselves as results from data
became visible. Below I offer additional questions for future research
as well as invite additional studies concerning the questions I attempt
to address here.
1.
Are rhetoric and composition programs training graduate students
to use technology in the classroom (theoretical practical)?
First, our community needs to know if, in fact,
programs are training their
graduate students to teach in technology-rich classrooms. What is the percentage of programs actually attempting to
train graduate students with technology?
Some programs have put the cart before the horse meaning that
departments and programs have managed to gain the resources to create
fully technological classrooms, but have somehow forgotten that someone
must be employed to maintain the technology, to train new teachers to
use it, and just as important, to teach experienced teachers how to use
it.
2.
What is the nature of that training?
Second, what is this training?
By the “nature” of training, I mean that others would want to
know how programs are “doing it.” For example, is the training required graduate courses,
required workshops, or paid training/certification?
Is the training voluntary workshops, university sponsored
workshops, or personal assistance via a technology consultant? Or are
new students in rhetoric and composition graduate programs entering the
fray with previous training and knowledge in/with technology?
Some programs are now offering “computers and composition”
graduate courses as part of the curriculum, but who teaches those
courses and what is the nature of their training?
3. How effective is that training?
How do faculty perceive that training?
How do graduate students perceive that training?
Assessing the training is also important.
What do the faculty members think about the kinds of training
they are offering? What
historical context did it grow out of? Is the training effectiveness related to some departmental,
university, or program goal/statement?
Do the graduate students involved in the program believe the
methods of training are effective?
Do the graduate students feel they are receiving proper training
with technology?
4. How much training should new teachers and graduate students
receive? What are the
limitations or boundaries of technology training?
How much training should programs require?
Should programs require one graduate course, two graduate
courses, more than two? How
many graduate courses, if any, are programs currently requiring?
When does the training with technology end with regard to the
required curriculum?
5. Who is providing the training with technology? Are graduate students being used as technology consultants? Are university trained consultants brought into the department to run required workshops? Who is directly involved with the training? Many graduate faculty in rhetoric and composition have had little or no training in the use of technology (lest we forget that many rhetoric and composition programs were created by faculty traditionally trained in literature).
6.
How do programs define terms like new media, multimodal How departments and programs define these terms create an ideology within the program. The definition, for example, of technological literacy, if defined as simply using a computer to write or communicate, will set the tone for the kind of technology training the department will offer. Likewise, defining multimodal composition/s as a "performance" will influence the way technology training is implemented within a program and/or department. So, the way programs and departments define technology and its associated concepts can and will have profound impacts on how teachers are trained and how writing students are taught.
7.
What explicit or implicit theories underlie technology training How do composition theories and pedagogies change as a result of new literacies and new media technologies? Should teacher training instruct new teachers to squeeze new media technology into traditional pedagogy? How much depends on the technology available at individual universities?
8.
What classroom environments are we training teachers to utilize?
These kinds of questions are not so easy to answer,
and are somewhat complex, which may be why our field only tangentially
addresses them. To attend
to such questions requires both qualitative and quantitative data.
Research to respond thoughtfully requires interviews, surveys, institutional case
studies, historical contexts, program goals and initiatives. Also, cooperation from graduate
students and faculty, who are sometimes in inconspicuous positions when it comes to making judgments
about their own education in a public forum, need to participate in such
research.
Given that the communicative act has changed, it only
makes sense that the ways with which we train graduate students in
rhetoric and composition programs also change.
Literacy has evolved into an all encompassing entity as a result of
new media. Graduates in
rhetoric and composition are expected to know how to use technology in
the classroom, but how much, and what kinds of technology training do
graduate students need to be successful teachers and scholars?
I contend that more research needs to be done in this area of
technology, training, and teaching.
In short,
this essay only scratches the surface, but initiates the kind of
research we should be conducting. There
is a need for further investigations into the ways that graduate
students are trained to use technology as a pedagogical tool.
What remains is how our community gets to the crux of this issue.
|