Technologies and Cyberspace

 

To gain an understanding of learning design and support systems from a feminist perspective, we must be aware of distance education technology and how it is utilized.  Technology can have positive qualities allowing for anytime, anywhere access.  However, this same technology has a potential for negative influences related to its effect on group dynamics, feminist teaching approaches, and issues of harassment and cyberstalking.

 

Hansen and Irvin (1996) discuss the inhibiting effects of interactive video courses, focusing on technology, teaching styles, and interpersonal relations.  Technology was found to be least troublesome.  However, male students more comfortable with the technology became the primary discussants.  Hansen’s teaching style was affected.  She confesses “I abandoned my feminist interactive teaching style and reverted to a traditional, hierarchical pedagogical mode” (¶7) of filling the class with lectures, videos and guest speakers.  Of greatest concern to both Hansen and Irvin was the lack of interaction and the difficulty of removing the barriers between two campuses.  To overcome this obstacle, and to become sensitized to distant students’ experiences, Hansen traveled to the remote site.  She discovered that students’ in-person and video personalities differ and that home site students are more empowered, dominate the discussion and make local circumstances the center of attention.  Hansen concludes that video courses can be positive for women through classroom design and lively interaction.

 

Rose shares similar experiences and findings with compressed video and its negative effects on the participatory, collaborative learning of the feminist classroom.  Rose believing “how we teach is as important as what we teach” (¶3), embraced “problem-posing education” (¶4) and “situated knowers” (¶7) versus the “banking concept of education” (¶3) with her Feminist Theories learners.  However, the requirement of an “extended syllabus”(¶9), specific room layouts, and the technology itself assumed a banking model pedagogy.  Due to a lack of interaction, attributed to the distance and the students’ educational backgrounds, Rose found herself “lecturing” or at least talking more than she had in ten years of teaching women’s studies.  Rose cautions us against unconditionally embracing technology; instead, she encourages the reader to ponder technology and its effects.

 

Machanic (1998) explores the freedom of the Net, its inherent threat to learners’ safety in the form of harassment or stalking, and the need for identified politically correct ways of behaving.  The Net permits individuals an opportunity to virtually explore alternate personalities, genders, and behaviours.  Hence, scenarios of nastiness and harassment can occur in on-line classroom environments.  When the learner does not feel safe, he or she will not interact fully on-line, and less learning will occur not only for those who feel unsafe, but for those who are deprived of the perspectives of those learners who are silenced.  Machanic suggests awareness, preparation, education, and consensus about appropriate behaviour in cyberspace is necessary to protect individual rights and personal safety. 

 

As demonstrated by these authors, technology has both positive and negative aspects related to learning design and support systems.  As feminist distance educators, we must be mindful of our feminist epistemology, the technologies we use, and its effects on our learners.