Over the next few weeks I am going to discuss the potential benefits of ‘new technologies’ in higher education, and examine the evidence of their utility. Before doing so, I should make it clear that I am not opposed in principle to their use. In fact, I use some of them myself in the classroom and for years have been eliciting student feedback about them. In both cases, I have found little reason to believe that ‘old techniques are dead.’ Any such claims are nonstarters. Instead of such claims, we need concrete, evidence-based examples of how specific curricula can be delivered via these technologies. So far, I see differences in efficiency of delivery, not differences in ‘technique.’ I will comment of calls for ‘networked’ or ‘collaborative’ learning in a later post.
When I began teaching in the early 80s, I used overheads to structure lectures, and videos to illustrate important points (to the extent that useful videos were available then). I’ve received appreciative feedback from students over the years for the clarity of my lectures and the pace of delivery allowing students to take useful notes. Many of my colleagues have used different styles, which are equally effective and preferred by certain types students. This takes us to the issue of the goodness of fit between specific types of teachers and specific types of students, which I will address in a future post.
Several years ago I switched to PowerPoint, but was held up in making the transition because many classrooms at my university were not equipped for it (some still are not). For courses scheduled in my building, I wheeled the department’s projector to the classroom until one day when the receptacle shorted out while I was plugging it in. I did not receive an electrical shock, but the flames blackened my hand. I reverted to overheads for the remainder of that course.
That same year, laptops began showing up in the class and I had no problem with them until the day they overloaded the circuit breaker for the classroom, knocking out power to the projector and VCR/TV. Laptops need to be plugged in to recharge if students are to use them for multiple classes during the day, and most classrooms do not have the circuitry to accommodate them (and it is very expensive to rewire them).
Shortly thereafter, my university got on the Wi-Fi bandwagon, providing access throughout the Social Science building. This has potential benefits, but also provides tempting distractions to students during classes. After being distracted myself by students checking their e-mail or surfing the web, I brought it up in classes and many of the students also complained about the distractions to them caused by laptops, ranging from coloured screens catching their attention to the endless sound of keyboard clicking. In the first class of each course, I now ask potential laptop users to explain to me on an individual basis why they need a laptop to take notes, and to sit in the front row if they really need to use one. This solves the power-failure and distraction problems.
Meanwhile, I now take a Mac laptop to class myself (requiring a 5-minite set-up before each class), which I use to deliver carefully prepared PowerPoint-assisted lectures supported by short video clips that I download mainly from YouTube. There are many excellent 3-4 minute clips available there and on other websites. In my view, these technologies are a great improvement over the old ones, in part in terms of costs (other than the $1500 I paid for the laptop) and convenience in updating lectures. I suspect that I see the benefit of these new technologies more than many of my students, who now take PowerPoint lectures for granted.
As for other technologies like clickers, informal polls among my students are thumbs-down. Those who have used them have generally found them to be expensive ‘attendance takers.’ They have to pay for them, and generally they are only good for one course. I don’t have a use for them, in part because the content of my courses and the nature of the class discussions I encourage do not lend themselves to the ‘multiple-choice’ type of teaching that clickers encourage.
One of my colleagues teaches large numbers of students (in the 100s) in his intro course and has been enthusiastic about using various technologies as they have come to market. However, he has state-of-art classrooms in which to teach and has tech-support staff along with an army of TAs. These conditions are different than those found in virtually all other classrooms, but more power to him if he has the institutional support. I’m told that these ‘megaclasses’ are not cost effective, but rather simplify the coordination involved in teach masses of first-year students.
If someone can tell me how I can realistically and effectively increase the use of ‘new technologies’ in my low-tech classrooms in a cost-effective and student-friendly manner, I’m all ears, but I want specifics, with evidence, not platitudes.