Skip to main content

Early adoption

I've always been a semi-early adopter of technology. I'm not a fanatic about it; I'm just sort of fascinated by the internet, by the ability we now have to reach people we never could in the past, and I like playing around with stuff. Back in college, I would 'chat' with friends via the VAX (I think that's what it was called), and in grad school I learned some html so I could create a personal webpage with lots of random stuff on it. I was actually excited when our campus started using Blackboard because it was easier to post my class stuff there than on the webpages I created on my own. And as the number of tech and web-based communication tools has exploded, I've explored a bunch of them, as I've written about here a lot.

But even though I think technology is a wonderful thing, when it comes to teaching, I don't think I use technology just for technology's sake. Rather, I'd say that when I'm faced with a problem, I tend to look to technology as part of the solution. Lisa Lane points out that many faculty are OK with using technology for non-pedagogical problems, like recording grades, and technology is clearly great for simplifying things like distributing course materials. But my interest in using technology for teaching really kicked into high gear when I started teaching the 500-seat class. I certainly can't imagine teaching that class without clickers but once I started using them, I quickly realized the opportunities they create for student engagement so that now, I wouldn't teach a class of any size without them. And that experience has led me to look for other ways that technology can increase interaction both inside and outside the classroom.

Given my own inclinations, I have to admit that I find it a bit odd when I encounter people who seem to be anti-technology. On the one hand, I do understand why some people think Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc. are a waste of time (because goodness knows they can be!), and I certainly understand the frustration many teachers have with their students' texting all the time and all the associated issues that we could blame on the 'net gen' connection to technology. But on the other hand, I can't help but think that people who make those kinds of comments are, well, big fuddy-duddies, particularly since these comments often come from people who don't actually know anything about the technologies they are disparaging. To me, it sounds a lot like the latest version of, "Eh, kids these days!" And when I hear those comments from teachers, I can't help but wonder: do they not understand that at least some of these tools have the potential to help them reach students, to increase student interaction and engagement? Or is it that they don't care about reaching students? Or, to put that more nicely: why is that some people perceive the costs of learning about technology to be so much greater than the benefits?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What are the costs?

I came across an interesting discussion about a 19-year-old intern who was fired from The Gazette in Colorado Springs for plagiarism. There appears to be some controversy over the fact that the editor publicly named the girl in a letter to readers (explaining and apologizing for the plagiarism), with some people saying that doing so was unduly harsh because this incident will now follow her for the rest of her career. I was intrigued by this discussion for two reasons - one, it seems pretty clear to me that this was not a case of ignorance (as I have often encountered with my own students who have no idea how to paraphrase or cite correctly) and two, putting aside the offense itself, I have often struggled with how to handle situations where there are long-term repercussions for a student, repercussions that lead the overall costs to be far higher than might seem warranted for the specific situation. As an example of the latter issue, I have occasionally taught seniors who need to p

What was your high school economics experience like?

As I mentioned in my last post , I am asking my Econ for Teachers students to reflect on their reading by responding to discussion prompts. It occurred to me that it wouldn't be a bad idea for me to share my thoughts on those issues here and see if anyone wants to chime in. For this week, the students were asked to read the California and national content standards , an article by Mark Schug and others about why social science teachers dread teaching economics and how to overcome the dread, an article by William Walstad on the importance of economics for understanding the world around us and making better personal decisions (with some evidence on the dismal state of economic literacy in this country), and another article by Walstad on the status of economic education in high schools (full citations below). The reflection prompt asks the students to then answer the following questions: What was your high school econ experience like? What do you remember most from that class? How do

When is an exam "too hard"?

By now, you may have heard about the biology professor at Louisiana State (Baton Rouge) who was removed from teaching an intro course where "more than 90 percent of the students... were failing or had dropped the class." The majority of the comments on the Inside Higher Ed story about it are supportive of the professor, particularly given that it seems like the administration did not even talk to her about the situation before acting. I tend to fall in the "there's got to be more to the story so I'll reserve judgment" camp but the story definitely struck a nerve with me, partly because I recently spent 30 minutes "debating" with a student about whether the last midterm was "too hard" and the whole conversation was super-frustrating. To give some background: I give three midterms and a cumulative final, plus have clicker points and Aplia assignments that make up about 20% of the final grade. I do not curve individual exams but will cu