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

THE podcast on Implicit Bias

I keep telling myself I need to get back to blogging but, well, it's been a long pandemic... But I guess this is as good an excuse as any to post something: I am Bonni Stachowiak's guest on the latest episode of the Teaching in Higher Ed podcast, talking about implicit bias and how it can impact our teaching.  Doing the interview with Bonni (which was actually recorded a couple months ago) was a lot of fun. Listening to it now, I also realize how far I have come from the instructor I was when I started this blog over a decade ago. I've been away from the blog so long that I should probably spell this out: my current title is Associate Vice President for Faculty and Staff Diversity and I have responsibility for all professional learning and development related to diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as inclusive faculty and staff recruitment, and unit-level diversity planning. But I often say that in a lot of ways, I have no business being in this position - I've ne...

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...

This is about getting through, not re-inventing your course

As someone who has worked hard to build a lot of interactivity into my courses, I have never been interested in teaching fully online courses, in part because I have felt that the level of engaged interaction could never match that of a face-to-face class (not that there aren't some exceptional online courses out there; I just have a strong preference for the in-person connection). But the current situation is not really about building online courses that are 'just as good' as our face-to-face courses; it is about getting through this particular moment without compromising our students' learning too much. So if you are used to a lot of interaction in your F2F class, here are some options for adapting that interaction for a virtual environment: [NOTE: SDSU is a Zoom/mostly Blackboard campus so that's how I've written this but I am pretty sure that other systems have similar functionality] If you use clickers in class to break up what is otherwise mostly lect...