Should Professors Be Required To Teach With Tech? 319
An anonymous reader writes "Are professors who don't update their teaching methods like doctors who fail to keep up with the latest ways to treat disease? Or are professors better off teaching old-school? From the article: 'It is tough to measure how many professors teach with technology or try other techniques the report recommends, such as group activities and hands-on exercises. (Technology isn't the only way to improve teaching, of course, and some argue that it can hinder it.) Though most colleges can point to several cutting-edge teaching experiments on their campuses, a recent national assessment called the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement suggests that old-school instruction remains the norm. Only 13 percent of the professors surveyed said they used blogs in teaching; 12 percent had tried videoconferencing; and 13 percent gave interactive quizzes using 'clickers,' or TV-remotelike devices that let students respond and get feedback instantaneously. The one technology that most teachers use regularly — course-management systems — focuses mostly on housekeeping tasks like handing out assignments or keeping track of student grades.'"
Re:Technology is not the answer (Score:2, Informative)
And to add, the tech just adds more costs. The costs of education are spiraling up - especially college - and adding technology is only accelerate that increase.
The article sounds like they're adding tech for the sake of adding tech.
"Most of those changes are almost impossible to make without technology," he says. "Technology becomes the handmaiden of the change."
I completely disagree with that statement.
When I was an undergrad, microfiche was it. We were taught how to use that. Now everything is digital. So I ended up having to learn that. But didn't change was how to do the research.
The technology is irrelevant.
Re:Writing code with pencil and paper... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Informative)
I teach math at a decent university, and I could teach a semester's worth of material in one class using PowerPoint. Nobody would learn anything, of course. But speaking as a math teacher, it's really easy to go far too fast using things like PowerPoint.
I teach with a lot of the techniques they're talking about (group activities, hands-on exercises), but I really don't want to use presentation software like PowerPoint. I'm willing to bet a lot that a student that has written down a couple of examples from the board is better off than one who has seen the same example projected on a screen.
Finally, the technology the article mentions include blogs, videoconferencing, and "clickers". I've avoided clickers mostly by teaching in small classes, but I can see their use as instant feedback. But blogs? Do my calculus students really want to read a blog I write?
Three words: (Score:3, Informative)
Conflict of Interest.
While I normally would begin this discussion by putting forth a rather common sense argument (simply put: a good teacher is not good because technology makes him good, but rather because he makes technology work for him), I believe that the discussion is a moot point. Here's why:
The director of the Office of Educational Technology (the agency that published the previously cited report) is Karen Cator [ed.gov]. Just read her bio there, and you'll discover that she worked for Apple computer for a decade. Conflict of Interest. The recommendations put forth in this report are invalid, because the director's previous employer stands to gain billions in revenue if the recommendations in this report are implemented nationwide. And what does this director stand to gain by steering billions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of Apple?
High level matrix manipulations? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know where you studied, but I studied basic matrix operations like calculating determinants and inverting matrices in high school in Brazil. More advanced operations, like calculating eigenvalues and eigenvectors, came in my first year in college.
In our modern life technology is very important for learning any subject. Even in social studies you can benefit from tools like search engines. Blogs and discussion groups help you communicate ideas. You cannot have a face to face discussion with someone from the other side of the world, but technology will enrich your life by allowing you to meet different ideas and concepts.
When I come to think of it, there's only one group that wouldn't benefit from the facilities in communications that our modern technology brings us: the religious fanatics.
Re:Writing code with pencil and paper... (Score:3, Informative)
It's quite common in testing situations that you have to write code without the benefit of a computer to validate it before you hand it in. But that's mostly in theory courses, not in classes like Graphics or something where you have to do the projects on a computer.
Academic quarter (Score:3, Informative)
When I went to college lectures, more often than not, the lecturer spent up to a quarter of an hour of the beginning of the lecture trying to hook up his laptop to the auditorium's projector system and getting the PA system to work properly.
And these were classes in Computer Science, mind you ...
So no, tech can even be a hindrance to education.
Re:Tell /.'rs no tech is dangerous (Score:4, Informative)
And as a university student, I take exception to this ;-)
It depends far too much on context to make this sweeping generalization that a student can read 700 pages of material in a week. I'm an engineer, and one of my hardest courses in grad school covered about 200 pages worth of textbook material over 10 weeks. One of my roommates is a controls engineer (and a very smart guy), and he can spend a week studying a single 20 page journal paper. Maybe you're simply referring to *reading* while I'm talking about *understanding*. It is possible to read 700 pages of technical material in a week, but not possible to understand it, unless it is already below your skill level.
There are courses like "Introduction to Psychology" (not to pick on the field, just the teaching methods I've seen) where all you have to do is skim the textbook and regurgitate key facts on a multiple choice test. I might have read about 50 pages a week for that class, probably in an hour or two, but I don't feel like I learned very much. And I don't feel like that's a useful way to teach a class.
700 pages/week might make sense as say an english student, where you need to read lots of novels/stories/etc but aren't writing an in-depth paper on each and every one.
So don't get arrogant and tell GP that he's just taking too many classes, because in many fields 700 pages a week is way, way too much.
Re:High level matrix manipulations? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Technology is only a tool, not a cure (Score:3, Informative)
Many years ago, as a freshman in honors calculus, the professor had a habit of pausing in the middle of a proof, looking across the shining young faces, then settling on me and asking, "Mr. Cain, what comes next?" Often with the stick of chalk offered. Other people got asked as well, but I seemed to be the favorite victim. More than one of the other students asked me why Prof. Lewis hated me. "Mr. Cain, what comes next?" was the subject of occasional panicky nightmares for a decade. At one point some years later, I did get a chance to ask, and Prof. Lewis' response was "There was a mathematician inside, trying to get out, and you needed a bit of prodding."
Powerpoint slides might have saved me that particular bit of stress. But the "mathematician inside" might not have gotten loose, either.
Re: Elaboration? (Score:2, Informative)
PowerPoint leads to reducing complex issues to bulleted points and that is detrimental to the decision making and learning process.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html [nytimes.com]
http://www.afji.com/2009/07/4061641 [afji.com]