This is where we’ll talk about Derek Mueller’s “Digital Underlife in the Networked Writing Classroom.” PDF | Link Since Derek is one of my new colleagues and the guy who is likely to teach his version of this class next year, I do hope he joins in on the conversation here!
Really, this is probably something I should have assigned last week when we were talking about social network technologies, and I think he answers well the questions and comments people had about students being “distracted” by laptops int he classroom. A lot of that discussion kind of assumes what it is we mean by “paying attention” in the first place, and I think Mueller does a good job of pointing that all out.
I was sort of/kind of familiar with Brooke’s work on “backchannels” before, and I think the list on page 244 of these activities is accurate and helpful for me as a teacher. One that I see all the time that I guess isn’t exactly a backchannel discussion is students conferring with each other of about an assignment– in other words, the teacher puts students into a group, tells everyone what the task is, asks for questions (receives none, of course), and then, the first thing that happens when the students talking with each other as a small group, someone asks someone else in that small group “what are we supposed to be doing.” I guess that is “commentary on assigned or requested classroom roles,” though.
In any event, this backchannel, even the one mediated through technologies like Facebook and Twitter, isn’t all bad, and, as he points out at the end, it’s a space that teachers are probably best off understanding and finding a way to use rather than trying to simply shut it down. As he says at the beginning of this piece, you can suppress these backchannel discussions, but not without consequences.
I must say I also very much relate to what Mueller is talking about in summing up Moran’s work from a little more than a decade ago. Teaching online as much as I have as of late makes it a little more difficult to just “go back” to the way things were in those pesky face to face classes, even when they are in computer labs….
I have to admit that I felt like a lot of this was a bit over my head. I understood some of the broader points, but being unfamiliar with many of those who he cites made it a little confusing. But, a couple of things stood out for me.
“As spatial-attentive dynamics shift, so must our thinking change about the visual verifiability of attentiveness.” I could definately connect with this idea of visual verifiability of attentiveness. First, I think the common conceptions of what attentiveness looks like are often naive. Teachers think that if students are sitting up, face-forward, nodding their heads in agreement, then they must be paying attention. But, this is often just a rouse to avoid looking lost or bored.
Also, I definately agree that divided attention is becoming more and more the norm in the professional world and students today are probably more savy with this than us “digital immigrants.” And, realistically, it’s not going to go away just because some wish it would. People are expected to be able to multi-task… just look at job postings… it’s the new “effective communication skills.” Everyone wants employees who can handle mulitple tasks at once, and we should be encouraging our students to develop these skills further.
I do think that we should try to understand the digital underlife rather than just condemning it as a distraction. But, that being said, it should also not be seen as a free-for-all. It has to be balanced. And, I definately don’t think that institutional bans are conducive to our modern educational goals.
One thing that kind of confused me was the following: “That variations of underlife can account for the richest, most lasting encounters might suggest to us that subsidiary, non-primary channels simply work better than we often give them credit for, particularly when it comes to writing.”(7) I’m not sure what he meant by “work better.” I guess my question is, Work better for what? Maybe I just missed it, but I was a litle confused there.
I felt similarly, Dave! I read along and did the whole *insert big concept I’m not fully grasping here* thing a couple times, too.
Mueller’s article made me rethink one of my posts from last week in which I spoke intolerantly about students’ Facebooking, etc. in class. Dividing one’s attention across platforms and interfaces is a form of productivity — like multitasking — that is definitely commendable. Many students probably don’t see it as disrespect (even though it is), and I’m sure I would seem old and lame if I suggested that laptops, etc. shouldn’t be allowed in class.
Multitasking is important, sure — and maybe I sound like a fossil when I say this — but I actually lament the loss of the do-one-thing-and-do-it-well mentality. Not only do I think a lot of students’ behaviors border on ADHD (TV! Music! Facebook! iPhone! Homework?), but I also think the culture necessitates over-committing and requires multitasking to a fault; students (we!) try to do too much at once and their (our!) performance suffers. Balance, People! (I’m totally guilty of this myself and am trying to take my own advice…)
Of course, banning Internet access in the classroom won’t fix this, because as you say, Dave and Prof Krause, students weren’t focusing 100% on the lecture/coursework anyway. They’re “commenting” and “evaluating” and conceiving of “creative departures” and engaging in “private activities” all the time (244) — they’re multitasking constantly! We can’t stop such behavior, so I can see a lot of validity in Mueller’s point that we should embrace it instead (though I’m not quite agreeing with him here — yet, anyway).
Thanks for your remarks, Carrie. I wrote the article because I was concerned about what appeared to me a growing trend to banish digital underlife BEFORE we’d really done very much to reckon with what good it might do for teaching and learning. I try to make a strong case for the viability of digital underlife; rather than saying digital underlife has a zero value (or worse, a negative impact on the scenes of teaching and learning), I want to see more exploration of what is happening there, especially if students (or conference-goers) find it to be so rich.
On the other hand, I am sympathetic to your point about the loss of the do-one-thing-and-do-it-well mentality. I don’t think that makes you sound like a fossil at all. In fact, I find myself thinking at times, “Would a little bit of focus be too much to ask?” Inviting or even encouraging digital underlife in the classroom need not be at odds with focused attention. My hope is that by making these issues more explicit with students we can be in a better position to shift collectively between the two, moving as needed from more fragmentary in-class attention structures to more focal ones.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, Dave, from you and from everyone. Let me try to answer your last question first, “Work better for what?” I see a tension in how backchannels are valued. Moves to banish backchannel activity often define them as a nuisance. They attract attention and thus, so the story goes, they must be at odds with the primary attention structure (e.g,. the lecture hall, the teacher-prompted class activity). This is admittedly anecdotal, but I think participants in backchannels would describe their value differently. This is not to say backchannel participation is some kind of panacea. Yet there is cause for revaluing them. My article attempts to call for revaluation in the face of so many moves to banish, to forbid. More to the point of your question, backchannels may work better [for learning, for entertaining dialogue, for real-time engagement, for communion, and for participatory interchange] than we often give them credit for. Of course, deliberate or planned uses of backchannels are a relatively recent development, so there remains much work to be done where we (as administrators or instructors) welcome and even encourage backchannel activity.
It kind of reminded me of the whole, “let’s ban wikipedia” articles we read earlier in the semester. We can’t ban everything and it’s silly to try.
I, too, was slightly lost with this piece. I think more understanding of some of the theories, ideas, and opinions discussed would really benefit me. Even so, I found the ideas new and interesting. I like how this modern-day way of multi-tasking can be broken down into what Mueller shares as “back channels” and “digital underlife.” I definitely appreciated his suggestions towards the end about how teachers can view these things and how to better deal with them. I completely agree with each point, and like how he encourages teachers to appreciate the traditional aspects of education but to accept and acknowledge the more up-to-date material and methods, as in the third point “Appropriate responses to shifting attention dynamics beyond the academy” (248). Quick question: Would that video about Twitter being used in the classroom constitute the embracing of these back channels and effectively fulfill some of the suggestions Mueller makes for teachers? Or is there a better example? I was trying to think of some examples from recent readings, etc…
I think these two pieces [this one and the DePew and Rust article] really accentuate how important are the curriculum designers and the technology facilitators. In our district, of course-public k-12 school, we really don’t have people who help us to design something, If we want to do it, we pretty much need to make it happen ourselves. That is what makes this whole thing so complex. There are so many intricacies to consider and this is just another one to add to the list.
I appreciate what Mueller is saying. I don’t think with the current technology, it is so very different from dealing with the artistic kid’s drawings during class, or the avid reader who sticks a novel behind the textbook and reads his or her own novel instead of the assigned reading during class-so we shouldn’t be that terribly distressed by the distractions of technology. I wonder if we [meaning many teachers] get frustrated with students and their technology simply because we didn’t do that when we were ‘their age.’
I felt this was the most important part of the article (p 187) “Who decides this mediation occurs? The software desiger?An IT specialist? The instructor? The students? …..what new practices can one design with these interfaces that they could not design with others? This is an opportunity to push the boundaries of our pedagogical paradigms?”
Also, this article as well hits on my research paper “studying how online teaching practices can be adopted in the face-to-face classroom may create a whole new resource for discovering sound pedagogical practices, especially for writing classes,” This goes right along with my paper-creating a hybrid class using online applications in a face to face class.
II thought this article brought up some really interesting points. I mean, I don’t allow laptops in my classroom because they can be such a huge distraction. Students don’t need them and if we do need access to the Internet for whatever reason, my computer has it. We can look something up, project on the overhead screen, and get the information together. Yet, as I do this, students are on their cell phones checking their text messages, never quite satisfied with what is happening in the classroom regardless of what we are doing in class. They are so used to being entertained in five different ways at once, sometimes I think it would take a circus to keep them entertained and “on top of it all” in the classroom.
I like that article refers to the face book, texting, and iPod problem as an attentional crisis, because that’s exactly what we have on our hands. This digital underlife that pushes the rules, roles, and boundaries need to be dealt with in order for teachers and students to continue on. What must be done, like he points out, is that teachers have to embrace the digital underlife and find ways to bring it into the classroom, like the Twitter Project in Texas.
Angie; I’m pro laptop. I hear many teachers say students don’t need them, but they sure do come in handy and as for myself, I couldn’t possibly do a fastwrite effectively without my laptop – I’ve embodied the darn thing. Also, having all my fastwrites sorted out and ready for the printer is very nice. I guess I’m more of a “hey, I have no idea what to do with this stuff yet” plan; I don’t want to ban it until I know more.
I think I’m pretty shaky on understanding what Derek means by digital underlife…?
This is what I take as Derek’s definition on page 241:
If you’re thinking “give me an example,” I would say pretty much anything a student does in a f2f class with a laptop or cell phone when they are (supposedly) not paying attention: texting, facebook, twitter, checking email, etc., etc. And in an online class, I suppose that might include any kind of email/texting/facebooking/etc. conversations that are going on in the background here. Oddly, the “underground” in an online class might be the “above ground” when you meet each other f2f in other classes and in the GA hallways.
Yeah, that’s how I took it and why I mentioned the fact that I banned all such electronics in my classroom. But it seems like this article was saying to try and embrace it like Wikipedia or Twitter, how can we use these to our advantage rather than continuously “policing” everything students do and telling them no to this and that. Maybe?
I’m not a fan of policing, but I recognize there are times when we as teachers do need to assert control. In a section of ENGL328 I am teaching right now, for example, we were moved at the last minute into a computer lab in Sill Hall. The room is designed much like a lecture hall. There is a platform at the front of the room where you will find a teaching station (chalkboards, marker boards, a computer tied in with a projector, so on). Students sit, facing forward, in three rows, each slightly higher than the one in front of it: sort of like theater seating. Each student also sits at a computer terminal; all I can see from the front of the room are the backs of flat-screen monitors. I cannot tell what is on the interface. For the most part, this hasn’t been a problem. At times, students have complained to me that their peers (whose monitors they can see) are farting around on Facebook or looking up sports box scores. Still, I have limited means of intervening into their willful digressions. I could become very stressed out of this, but usually I do not. The only time I have called attention to this as a problem is when their peers are talking. If we are having in-class discussion, I ask them to be respectful of each other, and by “respectful,” I mean present in the conversation and reasonably quiet (no clickety-clack of keyboards–the keyboards are extremely loud in this space). This semester in this classroom has pushed me to think more about the role of classroom design. This has been an issue of much discussion over the years in computers and writing scholarship, and I don’t know whether we have arrived at a one-size-fits-all solution to computer labs/classrooms (disciplinary differences have bearing here, as well). The floor plan and seating bear tremendously on the classroom as an attention structure. Certain layouts or fixed seating arrangements (also positioning of monitors and teaching stations) can be hard to overcome. I offer all of this to say that I still find it hard sometimes to build an attention dynamic in the classroom that works for everyone. Some students will be bored no matter what the mode of delivery, no matter the floor plan, no matter the project. I don’t think banning mobile devices will change that. Still, we have a job to do–sometimes it is a difficult job.
Just to build off of what Derek’s saying here a bit: our computer labs in the department are set up in almost the opposite fashion, which the computers around the outside of the room, the monitors facing in, and with a large discussion area/table in the middle of the room. I personally think this arrangement works better than the kind of set-up that Derek is describing, but it has its own downsides. It essentially creates a sort of “panopticonic” layout where I as the teacher can stand there and look in on each student’s computer screen from where I stand, not unlike the guard in the tower being able to look in on each prisoner’s cell.
Loved it!
1. The question “what must be done about digital life” is so relevant and important to answer. It seems that it is a question that all teachers will have to ask and find their own answers, hopefully through research and deep thought. Sometimes, I think educators make decisions so quickly in the classroom and are not aware of how productive digital underworld activity can be. What if the student is reflecting their experiences in the classroom on twitter or facebook? Writing in the moment, (kairos?) is important.
2. I was shocked that the uni of chi law school would actually ban laptops in 2008! How did this affect the students?? What happened to their grades?? I know that it is really important for law students to have a group to turn to and study with and how can they do that without being looked down upon.
2.a. I think that if the uni is finding students being “disruptive” through their digital activity then it is definitely a question of intellectual and emotional maturity.
3. “Digital underlife pushes the limits of the institution”– aren’t educators happy about this? Doesn’t it give a wider perspective on how things are changing and a opportunity to participate in a very important moment in time? I think educators have an advantage over the students because some have seen life without a digital world. Educators have a perspective that younger generations do not.
4. Now I have a deeper concept of how identities are changing. It is hard to put that concept into practice. The example of what is expected of students and what students are doing helps a lot. It is so easy to say identities are changing, but how and why are the most difficult questions to answer.
5. Finally, Mueller’s suggestion to be more receptive is absolutely right on. What are the unis going to do? Ban every laptop? Put chains on people? I’m kind of exaggerating but I am still so shocked at the uni of chi. I don’t think so.
Great to see so many thoughtful perspectives here. Renee, I think you are right that banning technologies fundamentally misunderstands underlife. On the other hand, harnessing digital underlife has its challenges as well. In other words, when we try to fold the backchannel chatter into the formal curriculum (and make it something the teacher can observe) it stands to lose its verve.
Another thought your response here triggers: schools have long been understood as social systems, but in an age of networked writing (that is both mobile and distributed), schools are not the monolithic social system they once were. Now they are one among many overlapping social systems–by “overlapping” I mean that we often attempt to be multiply present in different conversations that blur work/school/home boundaries or family/friends/colleagues boundaries. I don’t think this is entirely a good thing; neither do I see it as all bad. Technological developments, we must remember, are *almost* always double-edged. But I think we would be negligent to ignore these changes, and I see this negligence most plainly in the rush to ban devices in the classroom before we have even started to explore their possibilities. Why make such possibilities unavailable?
Maybe overlapping social systems makes people feel fuzzy, confused, and split-focused. Maybe it adds to the problem of too much information coming in.
When you think about it digital underlife is another form of paper wades, notes, pulling hair, tic tac toe. The underlife has been going on ever since students or a group of people get together. Even if you look around in church, there is underlife going on. Now we call it digital underlife because it goes across the web to a bigger audience. Students, adults zone out on nice days and day dream of what it would be like some place else. People are not engaged to the speaker–even movies 100% of the time. I agree with Mueller and think we need to reflect upon and look closer at what and when students start participating with underlife. We as educators could learn so much as to where our students are traveling. I have always wondered about classroom distractions and the more I use to try to make it perfect the more they would act out. College level is different than middle school or high school. I think this is a facinating subject because it goes on at the work place, dinner with the family and social events.
What makes us assume that students are paying attention to what we are saying even if they dont have laptops or cell phones in front of them. I had them doing something the other day and I said we need some music, someone got out their laptop (i forgot mine) and others had ipods on and they worked so well and were on task the whole time. They were suprised I suggested it, but we have put music on before as well. I think it allows them to relax a bit. I am not saying they need to be texting in class and all that, but they are distracted when they what to do these things and cant. Why is it so urgent to have them focused on us all the time?? I dont think it really does make them focus but tune out. I have had students who i thought might not be paying attention repeat back to me everyword I was saying. They are either going to pay attention or not pay attention. It does not matter if they have a laptop in front of them or not. I dont think they need to be on FB and all that the whole time, but they want to if they get to get it out of their system they can then relax and really focus on the class.
Well, that’s my main question, Cristin. I think that a lot of my colleagues think that if students don’t have laptops or cellphones that they will automatically receive their students undivided attention. Obviously, they don’t remember notes or whispering or daydreaming….
I have had students knit in class, what makes that any different?? I would color if i could, and have. I have had students text other students on class to see where they are, I have emailed the class during class something I wanted them to have. It is all about using the technology for our advantage and not banning it. Does anyone know what happens to a book when it is banned???
Banning a book may be the best way to create an instant hit, right? A best-seller even. Banning mobile devices likely pushes underlife deeper down: students will work harder to make their informal, digressive communications covert.
I think we can make a lot of headway with these issues simply by talking with students earnestly about attention, by helping them think through the classroom as an attention structure will a great range of things happening in it at any given moment. By doing this, many students will be more fully aware of the ways they are multitasking, the ways they are paying attention (or not), the ways their attention and the attention of their peers works.
Absolutley……I agree, I was just saying when we ban things it makes it seem more mysterious and that is not the goal of technology.
Ha! Good pts, Cristin!!!
Actually, Cristin, I was at a conference a few years ago where the speaker’s main point was that teachers should use music to connect the students to the topic. (Primarily the idea of ending one day’s class with the same music that the teacher would use to start the next day’s class). The theory was that students would make connections with it. I tried it, and I truly believe there is something to it (I was teaching middle school at the time). I think some kids function better with music–maybe some don’t.
I agree that if teachers think they have students’ undivided attention just because they are not facebooking, they are most likely wrong.
I use music as much as I can, used it when I taught high school as well. Those were the quietest and most productive days in my classes. The kids were often suprised that I played it and that they worked. It was great.
“We have observed an unprecedented unraveling of presumably once-ordered domains of the classroom and conference hall.” For me, “persumably,” is the key word here. The piece seems to say that we need to re-think what we consider ordered. In a way, a student’s use of a cell or laptop in class only makes more visible their loss of attention. However, we also need to keep in mind that part of what we’re teaching in a class is how to look interested even when your not. Out in that rumored “real world” students will encounter situations they don’t want to be in and they will simply have to look as though they care.
On a personal note, I’m a loss as to what to do with laptops and cell phones. I tell my students to bring laptops, encourage them to do so actually because I feel it’s simply part of who we are now. Cell phone I discourage, although what I really want to discourage is students who text too frequently during class. I really don’t mind at all if a student glances at their phone to check the time. However, at times any of this can get annoying. The biggest fear is that it will spread from one student to the next and before you know it the whole class will be on Facebook and I’ll be talking to myself; then again, fifteen years ago I might have been talking to myself, but at least I wouldn’t have been aware of it.
Well, hopefully, this class is giving you some ideas about what to do with laptops in writing classes now. When I teach something like first year writing, I have students use laptops all the time to share drafts, to do research, to participate in online discussions, to put together short videos, to look up MLA and various grammar things, etc. To me, the reason why you’d use a laptop in a writing class is the same reason why, 20-30 years ago, the main technology you’d use in a writing class would be paper and a pen.
How this fits into Derek’s article, it seems to me, is that the underlife is present with these technologies and without. Brian, you raise the issue in that last sentence of your comment, and I think it speaks to the pedagogical approach. Personally, I think that if you are lecturing in a first year writing class as the main pedagogical approach, you mostly are indeed talking to yourself.