Some college instructors have made a conscious decision to completely forgo the use of technology in their classes. No, they aren't Luddites or Old School (well, maybe some are). They merely think teaching works better the old fashioned way, and that their students are more engaged without technical support or, as they might put it, distractions.
Obviously this won't work at all with online or distance instruction, but for face-to-face classes (especially small ones) the trend may be interesting.
A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education by Jeffrey R. Young profiles a few of these rather odd faculty specimens—some of whom get a little defensive when accused of being dinosaurs. These teachers argue, among other things, that the latest instructional device quickly becomes another flavor of the month. Many veteran instructors can recall TV sets in all classrooms, not to mention slide projectors, tape recorders and such. All have been trashed in favor of something else, based on a promise of advanced pedagogy.
Here are a couple of passages from Mr. Young:
Mark James, a visiting lecturer at the University of West Florida, declared his summer course in English literature technology-free—he skipped the PowerPoint slides and YouTube videos he usually shows, and he asked students to silence their cellphones and close their laptops.
Banishing the gear improved the course, he argues. "The students seemed more involved in the discussion than when I allowed them to go online," he told me as the summer term wound down. "They were more attentive, and we were able to go into a little more depth."
Mr. James is not antitechnology—he said he had some success in his composition courses using an online system that's sold with textbooks. But he is frustrated by professors and administrators who believe that injecting the latest technology into the classroom naturally improves teaching. That belief was highlighted in my College 2.0 column last month, in which some professors likened colleagues who don't teach with tech to doctors who ignore improvements in medicine.
And:
So who's right? Fans of both old and new teaching approaches say they that have the students' interests at heart. Perhaps a better question is why there is a digital divide at all when it comes to teaching.
Some commenters have argued that tech enthusiasts lack research to prove that their methods work. In fact, reams of research have been produced, much of the results showing gains over those old-school methods. Some of the work is cited in a recent government report on the future of teaching, the "National Education Technology Plan 2010.". Teaching experiments seem to deserve more attention than a flip dismissal.
Yet professors who worry about a move toward assembly-line education should be at the table as well, checking for oversteps. As one commenter on my last column put it: "Problem is, higher education in this country has rapidly taken on many of the qualities of business corporations, with instructors being expected to serve a student clientele in whatever way that is convenient for that clientele. Coming along as a student, I learnt a great deal from some 'boring' professors."
Both old and new approaches will probably have to live together on campus for many years to come. So why not get to know each other a bit better?
Comments