This is how the first part of the subject Information and Communication Technologies of the Bachelor's Degree in Communication began, coordinated by the professor and doctor in Communication, Francisco Albarello.
An interactive educational activity that, in Albarello's words, "took place in a very respectful and at the same time, fun environment. I think that is the goal that has been achieved."
What did the trial process consist of?
The trial of smartphone It is a simulation exercise where we question the role of the smartphone in society.
The idea is to apply the theoretical concepts we covered in the Information and Communication Technology course. The first unit is linked to the different perspectives on technology: apocalyptic or technophobic, integrated or technophilic, the neutral perspective, and the one we propose in this course, which is a relational, critical perspective. Post-technocratic We called her.
So, the goal is to put these concepts into practice in a game where students take on different roles. There are those who are defense attorneys for the smartphone such as technology, which presents witnesses in its favor. There are the prosecutors who accuse the smartphone There is also the group of people involved in the trial, who, after listening to the arguments and witnesses from both sides, deliver a verdict. Finally, there is a fourth group: the public attending the trial, who, in addition to participating as spectators, produce content for social media, reporting live on what is happening during the proceedings.
Because it's a simulation game, it's highly valued by the students. They take a test—because it's the midterm for the course—and have fun and are entertained. They thank me for that, telling me, "The midterm was great. I loved it, I enjoyed it."
During the activity, as the teacher, I act as a judge, trying to organize the discussions, the questions, correct any misunderstandings, and address any objections raised. The most interesting thing is the effect it has: the students apply the authors' concepts to real-life situations. That's what I'm aiming for. Instead of giving an exam where they recite from memory what the authors say about a topic, it's an activity where those concepts emerge in a simulated, interactive, game-like context. These ideas appear in dialogue.
The repercussions were very positive, both for the students' experience and on social media. As I mentioned, one group was responsible for producing diverse and complementary content for Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok.
For example, on Instagram, they posted images with parodic captions, playing on irony. On Twitter, they shared memes, playing with the unfolding situations. And on TikTok, they uploaded videos of the witnesses, lawyers… There was a lot of interaction from people outside the trial. The goal is also to ensure the trial doesn't just stay within the courtroom, but also circulates on social media.
This is the third time I've used this resource. Initially, a few years ago, it was an exercise, a practical assignment. Then, during the pandemic, it took the form of a midterm exam. And, in this case, it had the characteristics of an in-person exam. It generated a climate of discussion, debate, and at times, even arguments, typical of face-to-face interaction.
In fact, we created a smartphone on a giant scale, to create that feeling of closeness and presence.
A very interesting debate arose between the witnesses being questioned by the opposing lawyers and those who were tweeting and taking photos of the students… The objections they raised against each other, the banter, and the teasing were excellent. For example, the prosecutors presented a picture showing the defense lawyers using their cell phones. In other words, they really played with the dynamics of a traditional classroom setting.
The negative stance was the most prevalent in the prosecution's case, with arguments heavily based on the authors' statements, because it's a technology that generates a lot of discussion. Even among these 20- and 21-year-olds who are intensive users. So, the most common positions were negative or apocalyptic.
On the other hand, the defense attorneys proposed a neutral stance, saying, "Well, the problem isn't really the cell phone itself, but how we use it." They then sought to discredit the prosecution's witnesses by suggesting it was an isolated incident involving an individual who had become addicted to technology. Or, in the case of someone who ran over another person because they were looking at their cell phone, the defense's argument was: "Well, these are isolated cases of the misuse of technology, but the problem isn't the technology itself, but rather how it's used."
What we try to do in this course is to reach a more balanced third position that acknowledges both the positive and negative aspects, which occur simultaneously. And to view the cell phone as a tool that is not neutral.
