I'll admit to being a bit slow on this, but a couple of weeks ago, the Chronicle of Higher Education ran a short piece in their technology session on taking computers out of the classroom. The provocative title of the article is "When computers leave the classroom, so does boredom," and it was centered around an interview with José A. Bowen the Dean of the Meadows School of the Arts at SMU. In his argument, he weds the age old argument against lecture-based classroom experience with an attack on Powerpoint (or, as we call it here, The PowerPointer) and urges faculty to use classroom time for discussion rather than Powerpoint based lectures.
There is nothing revolutionary, of course, about asking faculty to create a more dynamic environment in the classroom and abandoning the nap-inducing nature of the PowerPointer seems hardly a suggestion worth covering in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Moreover, PowerPointer (and other similar ways to organize and project images from the computer onto the big screen) has nearly revolutionized how we teach image based courses like art and architectural history. In fact, projecting images from a wide range of sources to a class is not at all incompatible with a discussion based classroom experience. Slides, of course, work, but the simplicity of the PowerPointer works better. So there must be something else to this.
It seems to me that this article represents a growing stream of Luddism in faculty approaches to technology. While university faculty will always have as many early adopters of technology as obdurate dissenters, I wonder if there is an economic (sub?)text to some of the more adamant critiques of technology in the classroom. This is not to suggest that Bowen's critique is particularly adamant, nor that he recommends that we storm classrooms and destroy computers and delete Powerpointer software. What I wonder is whether the recent increase in critiques of technology in the classroom are less critiques of the effectiveness of technology (as Bowen notes, Powerpointer is an improvement (in some ways) to the old chalkboard or overhead projectors), and more a critique of the way that technology in the classroom is changing the economic and social structure of university life. Bowen notes, of course, that many of the best research universities are already making lectures from their top professors freely available online (and Berkeley is developing software to make this even easier to do!). There are established models for online course development that require faculty to abandon control of their courses making it possible for non-faculty employees or adjuncts to "teach" the course (at lower pay rates!). Of course, some of this conversation has already been played out over "the Wikipedia". There is a certain vested interest among both content creators (faculty, teachers, et c.) and content providers (i.e. textbook and reference book companies) to undermine the credibility of Wikipedia. And even if some of their arguments are accurate and compelling, it does not remove the underlying economic motivation.
The emergence of an educational open market where technology makes all aspects of faculty material more freely available could well be terrifying to old guard university types whose place in the academy depends on their local monopoly on expertise. Like the followers of Ned Ludd some of them have come awake to the real and potential problems with technology in the classroom and are using these problems to reinforce their own positions. I don't mean necessarily to tar Bowen's with this brush (although he admits some economic motivations for his arguments), but I do think that his article acknowledges one aspect of a Luddite response. Just as Luddites were not opposed to technology per se but the changes to their society brought about by changes in the modes and means of production, university faculty who oppose technology often do so in ways that defends their own economic and social positions.
The scary thing is, of course, that the Luddites failed.
I think I'm a Luddite. I've been banning (as much as I can) computers in the classroom because they are typically used for escaping the classroom (browsing the internet, chatting on-line, updating Facebook). Not sure what to do about it. The smarter our classrooms get, the less necessary is it for the student to be there mentally.
Posted by: Kostis Kourelis | July 30, 2009 at 09:58 AM
Wow...so many statements that I heard all the time when supporting academics using classroom-based technology: "I can't work the touch-panel", "PowerPoint doesn't fit my style", "I have too many things to carry already", etc...
I think this is something that is slowly beginning to change as "traditional" faculty members actually find the correct resource(s) to learn about classroom presentation technology, as well as some who are more innovative pushing the envelope. Ultimately, folks need to remember that the technology can't do anything on its own; the instructor has to make the effort to see the benefit.
I will agree that students having computers in classrooms is annoying, but many take their notes that way...what would be better is a way to lock-out non-instructor laptops from the wireless...but then again, with smartphones, what's the real difference?
As someone who hopes to have a job in the academy in the next 7-10 years, it is disturbing watching the trend of corporatization of higher education, and the unwitting support of many to do this with technology...I think this is gonna be a big "self-police" issue, based on the critical thinking skills we learn...and individual institutions ;)
Great stuff, Bill!
Posted by: Brice Pearce | July 30, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Brice,
Thanks for the comments and the perspective. I totally agree that it's how technology is used not the technology per se, but then again, technology -- like all tools -- is not value neutral. Technologies can and do condition behavior and create economies. While a Luddite position seems extreme (Kostis excluded), there does seem to be the matter of economic self-preservation here. Technology can't actually teach, but it can make change significantly the role of the teacher.
Bill
Posted by: William Caraher | July 30, 2009 at 12:27 PM
I studied with the option to become a secondary ed teacher. I've never been at the classroom helm, but have had enough experience handling groups of young people to recognize the skill necessary to grapple those short attention spans. Sadly, I also recognize that young people can comprise a wide range of years, as we live longer and redefine childhood. Is it just the condescendent snag of being over thirty, or are new college students displaying an increasingly disappointing lack of critical thinking?
There's the idea that a college applicant arrives with studious self-determination, and a professor need merely be the source of knowledge and wisdom as pertinent to his or her field. But if students are coming in less mature and focused, how is the teacher and university at large to mold responsible adults from each year's green learners? Do the faculty and institution hold a reasonable responsibility to do so?
The technology factor only further complicates the issue. As Kostis states, escaping the classroom is the biggest detriment to that window of countless activities. Brice's idea to "lock-out non-instructor laptops from the wireless" can be argued by students using the "the cloud" to create and save their documents. Should the purposefully distracted be allowed to fail? What degree of restriction of freedoms becomes denigrating imposition?
As I work in the university environment and aid patrons in their research, I come across an inconsistent pattern of technological benefit. Some people are delighted with what it can do for them, while others are strictly unwilling to learn. Some come in with a broad grasp of the resources available, and others make me mentally shudder at their inability to formulate even mildly intelligent queries or use the most basic options. I am always glad to help open doors, but it sometimes feels like I'm being asked to do all the thinking for someone.
So, I am concerned. I'm not in a position to affect policies, but I'm glad there places like this blog to instigate and facilitate discussion outside the formal realm. I sincerely wish you teachers the best of luck in the coming school year.
Posted by: BrianB | August 03, 2009 at 10:20 AM