Rebecca Nesson, Dean for Academic Programs, SEAS, and Charles R. Nesson, William F. Weld Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Founder of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, and Principal Investigator of BKC’s Nymity project, have worked together for many years as a unique father-daughter teaching team at Harvard. Ranging from First-Year Seminars to offerings at the Law School and the Extension School, their courses focus on the deliberative practices of juries and their role in determining justice. Since 2006, the Nessons have embraced new technology in their classrooms to encourage student engagement and productive dialogue across differences as they and their students consider issues of jury bias and power in their courses.
Leveraging digital spaces to enhance student engagement
The benefits
The Nessons leverage digital spaces and encourage students to come together in “adventurous” ways. Their first co-taught course, CyberOne: The Court of Public Opinion, was offered in 2006 via the Second Life online game, and included a replica of a Harvard Law School lecture hall. In their current First-Year Seminar, We the Jury: Deliberation and Justice, students engage in structured deliberations much like a real-world twelve-person jury. However, in addition to traditional classroom discussions, the Nessons also incorporate the Berkman Klein Center’s Nymspace platform. This anonymous chat platform allows students to discuss potentially controversial topics in a way that emboldens them to voice their opinions more honestly without fear of social reprisals. The Nessons believe that students are often wary of going against popular opinion, so the platform helps combat groupthink and self-censorship by allowing students to put varied ideas on the table without worrying about any potential loss of social capital.
The Nessons are also contemplating how to use ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence tools in the classroom. They argue that educators must acknowledge that students have access to these tools and will use them, so it is imperative that educators re-evaluate the structure of assignments and bigger-picture learning goals. Charles notes that he is “open-minded and optimistic” on this topic. The Nessons have identified promising possible directions for using generative AI to promote questioning skills, serve as an ideation partner, and help with basic feedback.
“A course is formed by the person-to-person interaction and the people who come together to participate in it. We have all along been adopters of technology in attempts to figure out ways in which it can help form the community in the classroom and enable the pedagogy.” - Rebecca Nesson
The challenges
The Nessons’ approach to technology pushes back on the common notion that bringing a computer into the classroom dehumanizes the experience and distracts students from active engagement. On more practical and logistical fronts, they reflect that open digital spaces are not as conducive to learning because of the prevalence of online “trolls” and student concerns that the space is not actually private. Thus, they recommend using a closed space, such as the ones above, that only the students in the course have access to for these digital interactions.
Takeaways and best practices
-
Let the pedagogy drive the technology.
The Nessons note that practitioners must be deliberate and let the pedagogical goals drive the technology usage, rather than the other way around. While there are many flashy platforms available, intentionality is key for productive, rather than distracting, use. -
Use technology to strengthen community and open dialogue.
The Nessons argue that trust among students has deteriorated in classrooms, and students shy away from debate as a result. By offering opportunities for students to engage in facilitated conversations anonymously, they are often more open to voicing and engaging with different perspectives. -
Choose your platform with privacy in mind.
Even in digital spaces – perhaps especially – building trust and privacy is key. Rather than using open platforms, consider closed platform options so that students feel safer engaging.
Bottom line
Contrary to many popular beliefs, technology has the power to level up student engagement, build community, and strengthen the quality of classroom discussions.