I’ve enjoyed thinking and learning about technology and tools with everyone these past couple weeks.

I really liked Martha’s three words to keep in mind when considering these issues: positionality, intentionality, and transparency. I think these three words were a through-line in a lot of the readings and are all things I am working to integrate in ALL decisions I make about my teaching, but particularly around using (or not using) any technology.

One tension I noticed in the annotations and portfolio submissions was around what I would call a baseline orientation towards technology. Some folks are kind of inherently optimistic and open to exploring new tools as they come along, and some folks have a more cynical or dubious outlook. I would probably put myself in the latter category. As I reflect, I think there are probably two reasons why.

First is that I have myself as a student never had any major epiphanies that required technology. Most of my fondest memories as a student revolve around really engaged deep discussion with other people in the same room. I have also spent time in universities in Madagascar near where I do ethnographic research, and often classrooms there are really barebones … and yet, students are learning and professors are teaching. So I think my baseline orientation as a skeptic of technology has something to do with those experiences.

Second, I think that I struggle to separate technologies from the companies and boardrooms where those tools are developed and marketed. Can I, should I, separate the tech from the tech-bro who made it and profits when I use it? Even when teaching tools don’t have a clear link to a sucky company or celebrity-CEO, I think this dynamic elsewhere has helped to make me less likely to jump at the opportunity to integrate technology more in my teaching.