Mirrors or Windows?

Yes…I know… not the most original title considering there are about a million blogs using these metaphors but I have found some value in thinking of the use of technology in these terms. I first heard these metaphors used to discuss the teaching of diversity and multiculturalism. I was on planning committee for a diversity workshop where we were creating activities for high school students in an effort to foster “respect”. In one of our meetings, the director of diversity asked us to consider if the activities we were creating were “mirrors” or “windows”. Were the activities “windows” onto diverse viewpoints or self-reflections? She was not trying to guide us one way or another. She wanted us to have a clear understanding of the effect of the activity. After reading Jonassen’s chapter on asynchronous communication, I felt that the “windows” and “mirrors” metaphor could apply to how we view our use of the web 2.0; especially as it applies to discussion boards.

Thinking back to my previous classroom, I asked myself if my use of discussion boards fell under the category “mirrors” or “windows”? Were the discussions mainly reflections for the group (“mirrors”) or was there an opportunity for learning from viewpoints outside of the group (“windows”)? I realize now that I have been mostly “mirrors”, with an occasional “window”. Students have been reflecting and responding from within the group. Although I have been happy with this level of participation, I’m starting to feel as though I have not used one of the most valuable utilities of being connected to the WWW; the first two W’s – World and Wide.

I don’t believe working with discussion boards in a “mirror” is a negative thing. Not all activities need or work well with “windows”. In Jonassen’s discussion board example, the one where the students would propose an ordinance regarding the legality of same-sex marriages, it would probably benefit the students to discuss the ordinance first in a group discussion (“mirrors”) before presenting it to an outside group (“windows”).

In my particular case, I was thinking of a discussion board assignment I gave where I asked students to discuss whether industrial change in Latin America was worth the environmental sacrifice. We had just read a short story by Horacio Quiroga that had a central theme of “man vs. nature”. Students shared and discussed each other’s viewpoints. This activity was primarily a “mirror” and I found it to be successful in engaging the students’ interest towards Horacio Quiroga’s writings. In thinking of this of this activity in terms of “mirrors” and “windows”, I could have a created a “window” by inviting the participation of another group of Spanish-speaking students from outside of the class. Preferably students from a high school class within Latin America or the Caribbean (the logistics of getting this accomplished requires some effort; right now I am just exploring the concept). If reaching out to another teacher in another country seems daunting, another way to have incorporated a “window” into this activity could have been to invite native Spanish-speaking students or even parents from within the school community. If that still seems difficult, I would create a “window” with a Webquest or Online Research Module where the students would be guided to essays of opposing views. I believe the overall assignment with a “window” would have had a greater impact on students’ views and has greater potential of being a greater overall experience.

I hope that the use of “windows” and “mirrors” has not been too confusing. Basically, what I am hoping we consider when we use communicative tools is to not forget that we have the ability to communicate with the world. And if the world is just too unrealistic, then just try another school, district, state, etc…