FAB2 ‘Opening the Arms’

(Strategy for Digital Resilience)

Alison Longden & Tom Monaghan

September 2016

Abstract

This research builds upon the FAB Model of Digital Resilience, identified in the emCETT

Action Research project (Longden, Monaghan & Mycroft, 2015), which explored trainee

teacher resistance to using technology in teaching. To effectively take forward this model,

we need a clear digital strategy which will help us to evaluate the effectiveness of

interventions and identify further measures that can be taken to improve digital resilience.

Summary of findings

We have identified four principles which underpin the FAB Model of Digital Resilience and

also learnt to:

Explicitly teach the FAB Model of Digital Resilience, to provide a framework and

vocabulary for students to articulate their needs

Introduce a pre-course ‘hackfest’ for digital exploration

Limit introducing new tech mid-year

Ration ‘Digital Nurse’ 1:1 sessions, to limit dependency

Run regular rhizomatic ‘pop-up’ sessions, on and off-line, in negotiation with students

Develop a bank of instructional videos on a dedicated YouTube channel

These findings will help to shape digital strategy and influence the curriculum, providing a

replicable case study. We can potentially bring about cost savings and increase personal

digital resilience as a result of moving away from the 1:1 digital support model.

Introduction

“For students to thrive in a digital age” they need “confidence to respond to complex and

changing circumstances, rather than the mastery of specific systems” (JISC, 2011). Though

what about the teachers? The Education and Training Foundation Professional Standards

(2014), place an expectation on teachers and trainers working within adult and community

education to “promote the benefits of technology and support learners in its use”.

Furthermore, blended learning, defined by Bennett, Iredale and Reynolds (2010) as the

systematic combination of both face to face and online delivery, is increasingly being used in

organisations.

The teacher education programme at Northern College is endeavouring to support the digital

literacy of trainee teacher’s through developing their digital resilience; that is, where learning

to do one thing strengthens confidence (and neurological pathways) when it comes to

learning the next thing. The pedagogy underpinning the programme is Teaching for a Social

Purpose (Mycroft, 2013) with teaching to your values, reflexivity, embedding diversity and

changing worlds at its heart.

In 2015, we conducted a small scale action research study (FAB1: Unfolding the Arms,

2015) exploring educators’ resistance to using technology. What we found were themes of

self-limiting assumptions presenting as both resistance and barriers to the use of tech, the

most powerful of which was ‘imposter syndrome’ (Brookfield, 1995). In addition, four further

themes were identified that gave us clues about achieving digital resilience: first principles,

purpose, support and fluency. From this a model of digital resilience (Longden, Monaghan &

Mycroft, 2015) was developed (see Fig.1) which has informed the teaching, learning and

assessment on the teacher education programme at Northern College. The rationale being

to improve the digital resilience, and so ‘open the arms’, of teachers with regard to using

technology in their practice.

The aims of this action research study are therefore:

To evaluate the effectiveness this model of digital resilience

To identify further measures that can be taken to improve digital resilience

To influence digital strategy

Fig.1

Literature Review

Why do we need digitally literate teachers?

With Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), flipped classrooms, e-learning, blended

learning, bring your own device (and many more) becoming increasingly common in

education, expectations are placed on teachers to use technology in their classrooms.

Furthermore, teachers are expected to support their students to use technology for their

learning and also for employability (ETF Professional Standards, 2014; JISC, 2011). Whilst

there are debates around the pedagogical value of specific technologies, technology itself is

not only not going away, but is constantly evolving at a fast pace evidenced by the existence

of Gartner’s (2015) annual Hype Cycle for Education. The need for teachers to be digitally

literate is therefore evident but what does this actually mean in 2016?

According to JISC (2014) digital literacies are:

“those capabilities which fit an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society.

Digital literacy looks beyond functional IT skills to describe a richer set of digital behaviours,

practices and identities. What it means to be digitally literate changes over time and across

contexts, so digital literacies are essentially a set of academic and professional situated

practices supported by diverse and changing technologies.”

Jisc, 2014

The complex and fluid nature of digital literacy is seen in both JISC’s (2014) ‘seven elements

of digital literacy’ and Beetham and Sharpe’s (2010) digital literacy development framework.

However, this latter model, like many others, focuses on the needs of the student though

surely digital literacy of staff and educators should be considered too. As Wheeler (2015)

states “all teachers need digital literacies” (p.172), indicating their skills to be critical in

ensuring they can lead and support students in responding to complex and changing

technology. Like students, teachers bring with them a wide range of digital literacies

according to their experiences and context as JISC (2011) acknowledge in their proposal

that ‘students’ technology skills are shared…including with academic staff” (p.4) to promote

digital literacy. This affords similarities to Freire’s (1972) notion of dialogue between

educator and students bringing with it equality of identity thus resonating with Teaching for a

Social Purpose (Mycroft, 2013), the pedagogy of the teacher education programme of this

study.

Traditional technology training for teachers has, according to White (2015), focused on

functional IT skills such as using interactive white boards, VLEs etc. He considers this “‘one

size fits all’ approach to IT training…[to be] no longer possible as expectations of IT training

are so diverse and person-specific” (p.17). This supports the findings of FAB: Unfolding the

Arms Project (Longden, Monaghan & Mycroft, 2015) where participants reported such IT

training to not meet their needs. White (2015) suggests distinguishing between ‘functional IT

skills’ and ‘digital literacy skills’ with the latter being “the knowledge, skills, abilities,

confidence and competence required to develop our usage of digital technologies” (p.18),

reporting both to have equal importance. But with the fast moving pace of technology how do

we know what these skills and abilities etc. are? As Wheeler (2015) points out, “the answer

may be changing just about every other month, as new devices, tools and services appear”

(p.166). With this in mind, is being digitally resilient the answer to being digitally literate? To

have the confidence to keep on ploughing through and trying new tech as it emerges?

FAB Model of Digital Resilience (see Fig 1.)

White (2015) suggests a framework based on creativity and critical thinking will enable

teachers to become digitally resilient and therefore literate. This echoes the thoughts of

Price (2013) who, in his book ‘Open’ considers the most powerful learning experiences to

blend “thinking and doing… [involving] challenge, risk and learning from failures” (p.157). It is

this trial and error approach, supported by what he describes as a ‘study group’ that will

ultimately result in a growth in confidence. The FAB Model of Digital Resilience reflects

Price’s (2013) thinking providing a practical means to support individuals to grow in

confidence in using tech. Where White (2015), however, differentiates between functional IT

and digital literacy the model embraces both, viewing developing digital resilience as a

process which individuals progress through at their own pace starting with First Principles.

First Principles is about understanding the basics of a piece of tech: the terminology, how to

actually access and use it. The tech itself could be anything: using word, email, PowerPoint,

online repositories, social media platforms, apps, VLEs, the list is endless. It is at this stage

that as individuals we may allow the ‘imposter’ (Brookfield, 1995) in, preventing us from

believing that we can do it. The next stage is Purpose – if you do not have a pedagogical

purpose for using a piece of tech then what is the motivation for using it? This purpose,

should be explained to students, who in the context of the study were in-service trainee

teachers, though ultimately the individual themselves will decide whether the ‘tech’ has a

purpose for them. This is key as without purpose there is no motivation to progress through

the remaining stages of the model to digital resilience. In support of this, the first stage of

Salmon (2011) five stage model for the design of online learning is ‘Access and Motivation’.

She emphases the crucial role of the ‘e-moderator’ at this stage, which if applied to the FAB

Model of Digital Resilience, would be tutors and ‘digital nurses’.

‘Digital Nurses’ encompass the Support stage of the model and are defined as tutors

providing bespoke, non-patronising support to individuals and groups at a time that it is

needed in a manner that challenges untrue limiting assumptions (Kline, 2009) and so banish

the ‘imposter’ in us. This is in stark contrast to White’s (2015) observation of ‘one size fits all

IT training’.

Fluency is about mastery. It is about recognising digital literacy in all that we do and having

the opportunity to ‘practice’ in a way that is purposeful and meaningful for the individual. It is

here that connections can be made with ‘transliteracy’ which Wheeler (2015) defines as

“being literate across a number of platforms” (p.175) in which he includes ‘non-tech’

platforms such as written text, face-to-face communications etc. Progressing through the

FAB Model of Digital Resilience, increasing their digital resilience will, according to Longden,

Monaghan & Mycroft (2015) support teachers in making sound pedagogical decisions

regarding using technology based on the needs of their students.

Methodology

This action research study was undertaken during the 2015/16 academic year at Northern

College which is an Adult & Community Residential College in Barnsley, South Yorkshire.

The participants were all students on an in-service CertEd/PGCE course who teach (paid or

voluntary) in the adult and community education sector, the diversity of which is reflected in

the diverse range of their ages and backgrounds. The college offers onsite residential

accommodation meaning that students are physically together for approximately two days

every month. The delivery model can be described as blended learning with the social media

platform of Yammer enabling tutors and students to stay connected with each other through

asynchronous and synchronous dialogue. The success of this platform within the teacher

education programme was evidenced in the Social Media Spaces Project (Mycroft, 2014).

In addition to Yammer, students need to engage with and navigate several different ‘tech’

platforms some of which are mandatory for completing the course. As a teacher education

team we were therefore keen to support students to develop their digital resilience to support

both their own studies and their teaching practice. We wanted to try out the FAB Model of

Digital Resilience (Longden, Monaghan & Mycroft, 2015) which would mean doing things

differently.

So, at the start of the study ‘Digital Nurses’ (colloquial term for tutors providing bespoke

online and/or face to face support in a manner which does not patronise with individuals and

groups) were describing ‘tech’ processes and platforms (‘First Principles’) and explaining

why (‘Purpose’). ‘Support’ had begun, particularly via Yammer (the first platform we

encourage ‘Fluency’ in).

We planned further intervention in the form of unplanned rhizomatic ‘tech’ sessions. We use

the metaphor of the rhizome to represent the pop up nature of the session with the content

being determined by what was needed by the individuals present at the time supporting both

‘purpose’ and ‘support’ stages of the model.

Whilst we wanted to know whether our interventions would be successful in terms of

increasing student teacher digital resilience, we wanted to go deeper, to understand more

about why it may or may not work. We therefore chose to locate this study within the

interpretivist paradigm analysing data both qualitatively and quantitatively. Furthermore,

participant voice was sought not least because the ‘Teaching for Social Purpose’ (Mycroft,

2013), the essence of the teacher education programme, values and promotes equality of

thinking.

Participants were asked to contribute to a Critical Incident Questionnaire (Brookfield, 1995)

in which the questions were tailored towards using ‘tech’ in their practice, be that their

teaching practice or their own studies (see Appendix 1). Brookfield (1995) considers that to

be a truly reflective practitioner, you need to look through the lenses of your autobiography,

students, colleagues and theorists. The Critical Incident Questionnaire, he claims, “is the one

that has most helped me see my practice through students' eyes” thus suggesting it enables

practitioners to uncover their “own shortcomings and blind spots as teachers”. We

considered such an approach to question design as conducive to action research when

considering Kemmis’ (2010) view that action research should shed light on to what is hidden

in our practice in order to discover what needs to be done differently.

Further data was obtained from student reflections and, tutor and researcher observations.

This triangulation of data was considered important as it would enable understanding of “a

phenomenon more fully than is possible using either qualitative or quantitative methods

alone” (Mills & Butroyd, 2014, p.77). Furthermore, looking through the lenses of our

colleagues (Brookfield, 1995), by sharing both my methodology and findings with those who

were familiar with the setting of the study, critical friendship was encouraged. This enabled

us to address a weakness of action research, namely the lack of peer view, and in doing so

tested the validity of knowledge claims (McNiff & Whitehead, 2011).

Ethics

This action research study was undertaken in line with the BERA (2011) guidelines which

identified number of ethical issues. Being course co-tutors created a role duality, which

Holian & Coghlan (2013) identify as the researcher having “an ongoing work role and power

relationships as well as the action research role” (p.414). Whilst this dual role couldn’t be

changed, the sensitivity it presented was acknowledged with participants. To minimise any

bias this could create, in addition to also addressing the ethical issue of confidentiality,

participants remained anonymous to the researchers. Participants were informed that their

involvement was voluntary and consent could be withdrawn at any time.

Data and analysis

The findings are drawn from the analysis of Critical Incident Questionnaire’s (CIQs)

completed by 18 participants, student reflections and tutor/researcher observations.

The CIQ responses were analysed in line with the FAB Model of Digital Resilience (see Fig

1.) by categorising them into one the stages of the model, namely: first principles, purpose,

support, and fluency (see Fig.2).

What point f

elt most

engaged from te

ch?

What point f

elt most

distance

d from te

ch?

What felt m

ost affirm

ing or helpful a

bout tech

?

What has p

uzzled or c

onfused yo

u about tech

?

What has s

urprised yo

u most

about tech

?0

20406080

Critcial Incident Questionnaire responses according to stages of FAB: Model of Digital Resilience

First Principles Purpose Support Fluency

Critcial Incident Questionnaire question

% o

f res

pons

es

Fig 2.

‘Purpose’ was found to be the most prevalent stage with 33.33% of all responses being

attributed to it. This is compared to 18.28% for First Principles, 13.98% for Support and

17.20% for ‘Fluency’. Whilst it must be acknowledged that all participants had ‘purpose’ for

engaging with tech as it was a requirement of their course, the range of responses for the

questions ‘At what point have you felt most engaged with tech and why?’ and ‘What have

you felt most affirming or helpful about tech and tech why?’ showed that ‘purpose’ is person

specific. Responses included:

Organisation of stuff”

“YouTube video clips – helpful writing assignments as a visual learner”

“Using referencing sites – I had never referenced anything before, it made life much

easier”

“Using the ipdp at the same time as my tutor and being able to chat through it”

“Lovely to talk to everyone on there (sense of community)”

Furthermore, the data supported White’s (2015) view that a ‘one size fits all’ IT training is not

fit for purpose, with the bespoke digital nursing for the ‘first principles’ and ‘support’ stages of

FAB Model of Digital Resilience being valued by participants, as well as supporting the

growth of their digital resilience. An example can be found in Ms P’s reflection below:

Evidence of digital resilience was threaded throughout the data examples of which include

the CIQ responses:

“Once I have found out how to do things I feel quite empowered”

“When I felt comfortable with navigating my way through Yammer and could find

relevant resources. I didn’t need help anymore”

“When finally managed to master the process it boosted my confidence”

The common theme in the above responses was achievement, and when the CIQ data was

analysed according to ‘achievement’ (see Fig 3.) it was found that 72.22% of responses to

the question ‘At what point have you felt most engaged with tech and why? related to this

and 33.33% to the question ‘What have you felt most affirming or helpful about tech and

why?’

Ms P:

I noticed that one of the requirements to study this course was that a student must have basic ICT skills, a requirement I chose to ignore.

In the beginning, I was informed that I would not lose any work, but that work can be stored in a cloud. “A cloud, what cloud? I couldn’t see any clouds!” But with the support I have been encouraged to explore and now I have a much better understanding of where my work is and I don’t have to re-write it.

Fig 3.

It appeared that achievements, no matter how small, motivated participants to practice

‘fluency’ leading to growth of their digital resilience, as is seen in Mr T’s reflection below.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Critical Incident Questionnaire responses

AchievementNavigating platformsActive languageNot knowing what to do

Mr T reflection:

This has been a momentous occasion for me with digital resilience, quite surprised at myself given I was dreading the thought of it.

My first thought was “help, I can’t do this”. After playing around, the next thought was “how?” My mind started taking me back to when I first started recording the Top 20 on a Sunday teatime with the radio and my Decca tape recorder and a mike!! Adding my DJ voice over the top of Kid Jenson, Peter Powell or Mike Reid.

I figured all the technical stuff out myself by playing around, so my thought process hasn’t really changed in this ever changing world of technology.

The feelings of dread started to lift when I realised I had a whole spectrum of support.

During the study, we began to teach the FAB: Model of digital resilience to students to

provide the rationale for our digital pedagogy. What we found was that this led to students

having the vocabulary to article their needs and to identify which stage of the model they

were at with a specific piece of ‘tech’. By doing this we not only gave them permission to be

at the First Principles stage but said that it was OK to be there and with this came a

willingness to find out what tech would work for them (purpose) as a response to the CIQ

question ‘What puzzled or confused you most about tech and why?” showed: “Lots of

different apps/sites to get head around and which ones work for me”. However, other

responses (28.57%) to the same questions indicated that the sheer number of tech platforms

to navigate around on the course was an barrier: “the multiple types of IT processes that are

essential to the blended learning course i.e. padlet, yammer, ipdp, summon”

Teaching the model, led to two unexpected outcomes, firstly that students themselves began

successfully applying the model to their own teaching practice. As Mrs F said about one of

her students in a reflective journal, “It was great to see her confidence growing already”.

Secondly, we observed students beginning to ‘digitally nurse’ each other both in person (e.g.

in class or the ‘rhizomatic pop-up ‘tech’ sessions) and online. As one CIQ participant wrote

“online community on Yammer – always there to answer questions – support”. The word

‘community’ came up time and time again in the data which is not surprising given that the

Community of Praxis grounded in the values of Teaching for a Social Purpose (Mycroft,

2013, Mycroft & Weatherby, 2015) is at the heart of the Teacher Education programme in

this study.

Principles

We did, however, find that for a small number of participants, a dependency on 1:1 digital

nursing developed which hindered them progressing to the ‘fluency’ stage of the model.

This, together with tutor observations led to the interventions evolving throughout the study.

For example, passive, defeatist language was observed from students saying things like

“Yammer won’t let me in”, “the site’s not working”. In order to promote self-efficacy, tutors

therefore began suggesting that they reframe their language to use more active phrases such as “I can’t get in at the moment”, “I can’t figure out how to get onto the site”. As already

noted, participant’s sense of achievements in using tech impacted on fluency and

subsequently the development of their digital resilience. However, when analysing the

number of CIQ responses which included active language (see Fig.3) the significance of

which becomes evident in that 72.22% of those responses to “At what point have you felt

most engaged with tech and why?” included active language as opposed to passive. For

example:

“When uploading info on the ipdp and it worked!”

“When I have got the passwords right and get on”.

The latter example also supports the success of a further intervention following digital nurse

observations that the majority of access issues were to do with passwords and using

different devices. Following this, tutors began advising students to ‘go the long way round’.

That is don’t save passwords or shortcuts to platforms on your device, instead access them

from the beginning with the url and your password every time. The idea being that each time

this is done, it will remind you have to do it as well as strengthen confidence that you can do

it yourself. That way, if a different or new device has to be used, you will know how to

access the platform or processes. Thus tutors were acting as ‘e-moderators’ supporting

Salmon’s (2011) first stage of ‘access and motivation’. Furthermore, what appeared to work

best for students was when they used their own devices and so they were encouraged to

bring their own devices to class.

The text highlighted in bold, are what we named the principles of the FAB: Model of Digital

Resilience. We found that in practising these principles as you go through the model, you

are challenging untrue limiting assumptions (Kline, 2009) about using tech (the fourth

principle) enabling you to keep on going. It is these untrue limiting assumptions that

Longden, Monaghan & Mycroft (2015) in the ‘Unfolding the Arms’ Project (2015) found to be

the biggest barrier to for educators when using tech.

Key Findings

As teacher educators, following the FAB model of digital resilience supported the

development of our student’s digital resilience. Our own digital resilience grew too. Digital

resilience is an evolving concept and the model provides a process in which to journey

through its evolution. Furthermore, as individuals you enter the model at the stage that is

right for you according to the technology that you are faced with. Each time you enter the

model you are building your own digital resilience. Whilst the stages of the model are

consistent, what actually happens in each of the stages can be different for all thus allowing

the journey to be differentiated and personal and that is why it works.

We identified four principles underpinning the model which you practice as you journey

through it:

Use active language

Go the long way round

Use your own device

Challenge untrue limiting assumptions

In following the FAB Model of Digital Resilience we established a Digital Strategy for the

Teacher Education Programmes which included:

Explicitly teaching the FAB Model of Digital Resilience, to provide a framework and

vocabulary for students to articulate their needs

Rationing ‘Digital Nurse’ 1:1 sessions, to limit dependency

Running regular rhizomatic ‘pop-up’ sessions, on and off-line, in negotiation with

students

These findings will be shared with participants, the teacher education team and the Digital

Strategy group at Northern College. To widen dissemination further, the report will be also

be published on the TeachNorthern WordPress site with links to it posted on Yammer and

other social media platforms.

Recommendations

Whilst this small scale action research study took place in the context of in-service lifelong

learning teacher training, given that the FAB Model of Digital Resilience is differentiated, it is

suggested that it is replicable for all trainee teacher programmes. Indeed, it would be

interesting to conduct a similar study on a larger scale, drawing on a sample of students

from different teacher education programmes which follow and explicitly teach the model.

To support implementation of the model, in addition to developing a digital strategy

influenced by the findings of this study, it is recommended that teacher educators:

Avoid being a digital magpie, using lots of different ‘tech’ in a programme then

dispersing with it later. Instead, test it yourself and ensure pedagogy comes first.

Limit introducing new technologies half-way through a course

Introduce a pre-course ‘hackfest’ for digital exploration

Develop a bank of instructional videos on a dedicated YouTube channel

Apply the model to different areas of work e.g. academic writing.

References

Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R. (2010). Understanding Students' uses of Technology for Learning: Towards Creative Appropriation. In R. Sharpe, H. Beetham, & S. De Freitas (Eds.) Rethinking Learning for a Digital Age: How learners are shaping their own experiences (pp. 85-99). London: Taylor & Francis.

Bennett, L. Iredale, A. Reynolds, C (2010). Teaching with Technology. In Avis, J., Fisher, R., & Thompson, R. (Eds.) Teaching in Lifelong Learning. A Guide to Theory and Practice (pp. 143-153). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

BERA. (2011). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research 2011. Retrieved from https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2011.

Brookfield, S.D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Education & Training Foundation. (2014). Professional Standards for Teachers and Trainers - England. Retrieved from http://www.et-foundation.co.uk/supporting/support-practitioners/professional-standards/.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Hammonsworth: Penguin.

Gartner. (2015). Hype Cycle for Education 2015. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/doc/3090218/hype-cycle-education-.

Holian, R., & Coghlan, D. (2013). Ethical issues and role duality in insider action research: Challenges for action research degree programmes. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 26(5), 399-415. doi:10.1007/s11213-012-9256-6

JISC. (2011). Supporting Learners in a Digital Age. London, England: JISC. Retrieved from http://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20140616145622/http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/briefingpaper/2011/JISC_SLIDA_FINAL_web.pdf

JISC. (2014). Developing Digital Literacies. Retrieved from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/full-guide/developing-digital-literacies.

Kemmis, S. (2010). What is to be done? The place of action research. Educational Action

Research, 18 (4), 417-427. doi: 10.1080/09650792.2010.524745.

Kline, N. (2009). More Time to Think. Great Britain: Fisher King Publishing.

Longden, A., Monaghan, T., & Mycroft, L. (2015). Unfolding the Arms: The FAB Project. Retrieved from https://teachnorthern.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/fab-report-june-20151.pdf.

Mills, G.E. & Butroyd, R. (2014). Action Research. A Guide for the Teacher Researcher.

Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Mycroft, L. (2013, About TeachDifferent - Social Purpose Education [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://teachnorthern.wordpress.com/about-us/about-teachdifferent/.

Mycroft, L. (2014). Social Purpose Spaces. Retrieved from https://practitionerledactionresearch2014.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/the-northern-college-report_web.pdf.

Mycroft, L. & Weatherby, J. (2015). Designing Learning Delivery. In L. Ashmore & D. Robinson (Eds.) Learning, Teaching and Development: Strategies for Action. London: Sage.

Price, D. (2013). Open: How we'll live work and learn in the future. Great Britain: Crux Publishing Ltd.

Salmon, G. (2011). E-moder@ting. The Key to Teaching and Learning Online (3rd ed.).

Oxon: Routledge.

Wheeler, S. (2015). Learning with 'e's. Educational theory and practice in the digital age.

Wales: Crown House.

White, J. (2015). Digital Literacy Skills for FE teachers. London: Sage

Appendix 1

Critical Incident Questionnaire Questions

1. At what point have you felt most engaged with tech and why?

2. At what point have you felt most distanced from tech and why?

3. What have you felt most affirming or helpful about tech and why?

4. What had puzzled or confused you most about tech and why?

5. What has surprised you most about tech and why?