Oh, look, more snark disguised as analysis

And guess what? It's in the Chronicle! (No! Surely not!)

So what have we here? Another incredibly insightful commentary on technology and education. (I can't wait to see Geeky Mom's take on this, although she may well ignore it, as it's not really worth that much attention.) We have an associate professor who admits he's "doing pretty much the same things in class [he] was doing 20 years ago" (despite the fact that today's students are not the same as those from 20 years ago), who enquires among his colleagues about this new technology thing. And when they tell him about some of the ways in which he might use technology in his classroom, he proceeds to snark about each option and dismiss it without engaging in any serious consideration of the topic.

To wit:

I can create a course that's more user-friendly and appealing to today's students by incorporating more Web-based elements. That could be as simple as placing my syllabi, lecture notes, and other course materials on my Web site -- which would mean that I first have to get a Web site.

Um, yes...which implies that the effort involved in getting a web site today is analogous to what, scaling Mount Everest? Has he never heard of Blackboard or WebCT?

Or, even better:

To make my "Web content" more dynamic and original, I can record my classroom lectures and link the audio to my site in the form of "podcasts," which students can then download into their MP-3 players and listen to while jogging or playing video games. Why any student would actually want to do that is beyond me, especially when it seems they would rather shove bamboo shoots under their fingernails than listen to the live version. But my more wired colleagues assure me this is the wave of the future (podcasting, that is, not bamboo shoots).

What's particularly disturbing about this column is that much of his dismissal of educational technology seems to be inspired by a deep contempt for his students, as evidenced in the above comment about students' willingness to listen to live lectures. This is consistent throughout the column; for instance, he notes, "Colleagues...tell me students will say things in a chat room they would never say in class. Given what students do say in class, I'm not sure that's a good thing, but hey, I'm willing to experiment."

So, what we have is a professor who seems dismissive of his students' abilities or interest in the material, and who uses that to justify ignoring possible uses of technology in the classroom. Nice.

Now, I'm not claiming that technology will transform every classroom for the better, especially when one is using technology just for the sake of using technology. Moreover, I am firmly convinced that one can be a spectacular teacher and teach classes in which a great deal of learning takes place with nothing but (as the cliche goes) a blackboard and a piece of chalk (or, for the Hopkins-ites, a log). And under most circumstances I'm going to plug face-to-face teaching over something that's purely online. But that hardly seems to be a reason for dismissing technology's potential altogether. I think there's an old saying about babies and bathwater...

Finally, someone might read this and describe my tone as rather snarky, which seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. But hey, I'm a blogger, and it seems that bloggers "can say anything they want, apparently without repercussion. In academe alone, we have right-wing kooks, left-wing kooks, anarchists, and openly unapologetic jihadists, each with his or her own blog." I wonder which category I fall into?

Comments

[Rebecca]

Clearly, you're an unapologetic jihadist. :)

But to the point: I agree this guy is snarky. I'm also sceptical of technology for technology's sake, but I've been thinking I can use it more effectively in my own courses, so I'll be attending all of Rice's technology training courses in August (I was so dissertation-frenzied last August that I didn't get to it).

I do Facebook with my students, and I find that helps, so why wouldn't other forms of technological interaction?

[Prisca]

I think you are right on about this guy's contempt for his students. How can it be that NOTHING would change in 20 years. He's got contempt for students AND pedagogy. Just the sort of colleague we all know and love.

[history prof]

There is a difference between creating a personal website and maintaining class websites on Blackboard. Personal sites might include a photo or 2, a vita, a list of courses taught, links etc. Class sites pretty much feature specific course content. 40% of my load right now is Internet so I maintain 2 online sites. Plus through Blackboard, my on-campus classes have sites with links, discussion board, gradebook etc. Because I do all this stuff online every semester I feel no need whatsoever to have a personal web page. The college has kind of been pushing everyone to have a page but to me it kind of IS like "scaling Mt. Everest" I don't know how to use DREAMWEAVER or any of the other software and I don't feel like maintaining it, updating it etc. I do not have time!!! Maybe I'm a luddite but I can kind of understand Mr. Snark's attitude about a personal page.

[mimi]

Weird. I just read that article before clicking over here.

The article offended me for different reasons than you mention (though I appreciate your comments about his contempt for students: you're right of course). I work in new media (English professor) and his premise that moving from MASH references to the 21st century is like pimping an old car suggests that, oh, 30 years of research into instructional technology and pedagogy are nothing but surface-level interventions in teaching. They're not. And powerpoint and web pages are not always appropriate. But to just tack them onto a course (pandering) while dismissing their intellectual import (hypocrisy) is the worst kind of irresponsibility: he just doesn't seem to care about the teaching at all, eh?

[New Kid on the Hallway]

history prof - you're right, of course, about a personal web page being redundant in light of Blackboard etc. (I used to have one, and it made me very cutting edge because I built it! myself!, but now I don't, because it serves no purpose given the availability of course management systems, and what I *can* build, which was great for 1998, would look pretty sad today). I think I meant that if the point is putting course material on the web, that's not exactly difficult these days (and in fact, I'd be surprised if he was advised specifically to do this with a web page, as opposed to just doing it somehow, and he assumed that meant he had to have a web page). I kind of elided a few points there.

I can see having a personal web page if it's part of your department's web page and they're going to set it up and maintain it for you - it's nice to have a presence out there that people can access who aren't enrolled in your courses. But I don't think it's necessary pedagogically and I'm not going to put a lot of time into it these days!

mimi - yes, you're absolutely right! thirty years of research into these subjects are just window dressing. :-P

[af]

I use Blackboard, which is great, but am quite sympathetic to the comment he made about the actual use of a computer in the classroom, and how that's somehow come to be the thing that administrators can point to as *the* spectacular advance in instruction. For example, I think the jury's still out on whether PowerPoint is, in the long run, a good or bad thing (at least in humanities courses like mine) but there's an increasing expectation of students for things like that.

I adjuncted at an old inner-city college, absolutely falling apart, which of course paid their adjuncts (of which they had dozens) next to nothing - but they had Smart Boards and all the latest computer technology. It annoys me that this is where schools spend their money.

[Ancrene Wiseass]

Grrrr.

Okay, yes, snark all over the place. Snark at his students. Snark at the colleagues who are more techologically savvy (and more pedagogically innovative). Snark at bloggers for saying things he'd never say out loud.

Sounds an awful lot like somebody's misplaced his blackboard pointer to me. Also like someone who's resentfully defensive about his inability to fully engage with his teaching, his students, or his colleagues--much less with technology.

And, y'know what? I know I'm a blogger, but I'm perfectly willing to say that out loud --and in person--if he likes.

[Anastasia]

does incorporating technology *have* to mean a personal page and/or duplicating course content in an online formate (e.g. posting mp3s of the same lecture you gave live..?) What about web-based assignments (go online and find three recent archaeological discoveries)? or assignments that require students to contribute something to a discourse online maybe?

the promise of technology is the potential to do things you simply couldn't do before. I, for one, do use the computer during class. Example: in the course of discussion, a student refers to a painting by Caravaggio. While the discussion continues, I pull up google images and locate a jpeg of the thing and we all look at it together and discuss. Unless I had some kind of art historical atlas on hand, that wouldn't be possible.

another case in point involves a presentation I did on the suburban cemetery movement. I used Pere Lachaise as an exemplary case. The cemetery has a web site with 360 degree images of different areas and an interactive map. I did my whole presentation from the site. I wouldn't have known about the site, though, if I hadn't been web-surfing.

I guess maybe I think the only really reliable way to use technology to connect with students is to actually care about technology and involve yourself in it. otherwise, it's just....a lame website. A lame powerpoint presentation. it's just lame.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Anastasia - exactly! I'm not big on putting my course notes online (though I think for certain disciplines it's probably helpful, and there are ways to do it that don't make it a substitute for coming to class), but "using technology" doesn't mean "you HAVE to have a web page, you HAVE to duplicate what happens in class on the web, you HAVE to do this and this and this."

af, I personally do think that Powerpoint is a good thing in the classroom, even a humanities classroom, and use it virtually (heh!) every day: for my current course, I put the daily quiz on a slide and then I don't have to print out/xerox copies (okay, they write on a piece of paper and hand it in, so it's not necessarily saving that many trees, but I find it easier than having to make sure I get up in time to get to the xerox machine). But mostly I use it to project images - I think the Pere Lachaise example sounds great (I know that wasn't on PPT, but the same principle of using technology to visualize things). If I weren't using PPT, I'd show far fewer images, and I think that they *do* add a lot to my teaching (not just "here's a picture of Chaucer," though I'll do that kind of thing occasionally, but "here's a medieval image of a knight. What does it emphasize? What values does it portray? How does it do that?" - stuff like that). Similarly, it can be a great way to focus people on specific passages for analysis - from the reading, sure, but especially if I want to bring in something not in their reading.

Now, PPT isn't the only way to do these things by any means - you can use slides, an overhead projector, xerox things and hand them out. Nor does one have to do the things that I use PPT to do to be an effective teacher. So I'm never going to say anyone HAS to use PPT - but for me, it improves my teaching and makes doing so easier.

(There ARE a LOT of bad uses of PPT out there - particularly putting lots of text on a slide and proceeding to READ IT ALOUD! - but that's not a problem with PPT, but with the instructor. I mean, haven't we all had that professor who essentially comes to class and reads the textbook to the students? That's not good teaching either. Same issues, just different technology.)

I don't think I would enjoy teaching with students each sitting in front of a computer, partly because I'd worry they'd surf/IM, but also because of what I teach. If I were teaching comp and doing a lot of in-class writing, I bet computers would be great, because I wouldn't have to read their handwriting! and I think a lot of students today are so used to composing on the computer that they get completely stymied when asked to write by hand (maybe that could be seen as a problem, but I don't see my role as trying to buck the tide of all the changes students have undergone in the last 20 years - I'd rather figure out what will work with the students I actually have). And I'm sure there are other good uses of computer labs - say, for instance, you have students do "virtual" labs, using 3-D visualization on the computer of something (a cell, an organism, whatever), especially if you can't easily do such a thing in real life.

I do agree that technology isn't a panacea, and that administrations can focus too much on adding technology and not on fixing other necessary things (paying adjuncts more! fixing windows!) - and I don't think saying, "Look, we have X number of fancy smart rooms!" says anything about how well a school is educating its students, and that unfortunately often happens.

But again, these aren't problems with technology per se - they're problems with administrators. I feel confident that if such technology didn't exist, administrators would find other ways to display fucked-up priorities ("look, we built an even bigger and better football stadium!" "our students all perform at x level and above on standardized tests!" etc.).

Anyway, I think the thing with technology is take what works for you and reject what doesn't - and that's definitely not going to be the same things for everyone. But I do NOT see that as what the Chronicle columnist was saying!

[BlondebutBright]

I used to think I agreed with the tone of articles like these - until I realized I am completely addicted to Powerpoint - both in my own classes and any other talk that I attend. How can anyone conceive of speaking without such exciting visual aids?!? Plus, it takes eyes off you, which is nice on a nervous day.

[wwwmama]

Great post and comments. I think technology is a medium like any other that can be used well or not. Rather than be snarky about it, I'd prefer someone to just admit they don't want to bother or aren't up to the challenge of using it well.

[Bill Tozier]

In the old days, we used to have conversations in class, and professors would be able to engage in face-to-face dialog with every student, and exams were open-ended collaborative explorations of scholarly insight and self-discovery. We all did our homework with pencils and paper, and when students talked with one another it was to compare confessions of admiration for their shepherds, the faculty who were their proxy fathers, clerics and mentors all rolled into one.

And then we got whiteboards and those damned stinking markers, and it all went to hell.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Hee hee hee hee hee!

[Sven DiMilo]

oh, those markers don't *sniffff* stink...

wait, what?

[Amy]

"and it seems that bloggers 'can say anything they want, apparently without repercussion.'"

Not exactly... speaking from experience, they can fire you for it.

(I realize this was not the point of the post... but I couldn't resist.)

[Ancarett]

I love your ripping through on this column! Sounds like this guy is expecting to coast for the next however many years on tired routines and snide complaints about how no one else lives up to his high standards.

*sigh* It's not that technology is a cure-all, people! It's a tool that you might find useful to improve your teaching! If it were up to people like this cranky columnist, we'd all still be holding off from adopting that crazy chalk and blackboard.

[Laura]

I really want to write about this, but I might get myself in trouble. :) I spent most of today dealing with this guy in real life. I think you and your commenters have done a bang-up job of taking him to task, but I may have more to say after a good night's sleep.

[Older]

Oh Powerpoint, pphht! You know what Tufte says about Powerpoint.

But I really am flabbergasted that the ol' perfesser seems to think it would be a bad idea if his students could take advantage of available time (as, while jogging) to review the course material (as, by iPod). Such a bad idea that he wouldn't want to make it easy for them by posting files.

[Older]

Oh Powerpoint, pphht! You know what Tufte says about Powerpoint.

But I really am flabbergasted that the ol' perfesser seems to think it would be a bad idea if his students could take advantage of available time (as, while jogging) to review the course material (as, by iPod). Such a bad idea that he wouldn't want to make it easy for them by posting files.

[jw]

Personal sites still serve a purpose. Blackboard sites tend to be walled gardens, hidden from the Internet due to login requirements, which limits their accessibility. My university requires a login for Blackboard, as do most, and there's nothing I can do about that, but my course pages can be found in the first few entries on google and thus are used by students around the world. I think we should take MIT's OpenCourseware project as a model instead of Blackboard's walled garden approach.

The second reason to avoid Blackboard is their use of software patent lawsuits to suppress competition, by asserting a monopoly over courseware. To see how absurd their claims are, read this page for a short discussion of Blackboard patent 6,988,138. The patent covers an obvious combination of networking and instruction that was created many times before Blackboard. This one is as absurd as the patent on shipping goods bought online that was used to sue Yahoo a couple of years ago.

[Kevin Levin]

Interesting post and you may be correct regarding this professors motivation. I am only going on your excerpts as I have no interest in reading anything more, but it seems to me that a great deal of insecurity and fear resides just below the surface. The strategy seems to be to acknowledge the ways in which technology can be used, but then to blame it on his students as a reason why not to proceed. I sort of feel sorry for him.

[SoE]

"In the old days, we used to have conversations in class, and professors would be able to engage in face-to-face dialog with every student, and exams were open-ended collaborative explorations of scholarly insight and self-discovery."

The advent of the internet made all professors somehow unable to communicate with their students? Those suddenly started to stop talking? In my experience the professors who use the internet (for example to send out weekly assignments and last weeks' solutions) are those who are always there for the students and answer every question. The others, their back to the class whilst scribbling down their very own speech, didn't even in the stone ages interact with curious students.

Or maybe I just missed the irony...

[Keri]

Great post! I've been thinking a lot about these issues (the technology, not the snark!) lately. I've used WebCT (similar to Blackboard) for years now, but am thinking about bring in either blogging or a facebook group for one of my classes this year. Anyone have any experiences with using these sorts of tools with students?

[af]

The Chronicle forum has a discussion thread for this article, and someone mentions this post: you are famous!

I do see that showing images in the classroom can be great - I certainly love using maps in class, and bring in things (sacred texts, pictures of old Roman coins, etc.) to pass around from time to time. I'm also a total handout nut, especially with interesting quotes; I like for students to be able to read these while we're talking about them, maybe even make a note on them.

But I'm also on the side of the mock "in the old days" advocate: I think it's good for students *sometimes* just to sit and listen to someone talk, whether it's me or their classmates, without having an image or background music or whatever to go with it. This is *one* way you can get to the point of developing your own opinion about something. (And this goes along with the idea that *sometimes* they are going to have to sit and read a book or article for a while - something some of them avoid like the plague.) Sure, students learn in a variety of ways, and we should think about all those ways and experiment with them, but the "sitting still and listening/reading" model is not one I'm ready to throw out entirely.

[TM]

Allow me to be the veritable pin to puncture the balloon that is this thread's technology-embracing backslapping:

First off, Why is contempt for your students bad? Many of them feel it for you. Really, they do. After you're done wasting lots of time planning out all those fancy-schmancy tech-heavy course materials that many of them just glaze over and pretend don't exist [cuz, well, it only took a couple minutes for you to plan, right?], they'll just be IMing their friends about last night's party instead of looking at that brilliant display of your nouveau-riche pedagogy.

Also, while it appears clear many of the commenters here are pro-technology, you are naive if you think that ALL of your students are proficient with any technology more complicated than a pencil. Here's a clue: some of them can't even use word processing programs let alone figure out the deep esoteric mysteries of Blackboard. And podcsats! Great Googley-Moogley!

The snark you read in Jenkins' article is derived from the very premise that boring = tech-lite, which in turn is derived from engaging = tech-heavy. These are false binaries I believe many of you are failing to consider, most likely because you have internalized them to buttress your own self-selected pedagogical methods. There are options. Sorry if that discordant note grates against the sensibilities of the Technology_Is_Power choir.

Appropriate use of available technology is excellent for all parties if and only if all parties have equal access, proficiency, and intent to use them.

Using the classroom computer to show pictures and slides is good. Putting all your notes into PowerPoint and then posting those notes online after class so that all those precious little angels you all "teach" can ignore class discussion and lecture because they know you'll spoon-feed them "knowledge" after-the-fact is not-so-good, especially if all it really does is inspire intellectual laziness [which quite frankly is all I've ever seen it do with undergraduates].

Lastly, tech-heavy classes require a great deal of up-front investment of time and energy. If the class is an online learning option, then that time is worthwhile. But if all this time and energy is being used to generate online content, then why even show up to class? You're ignoring all the research [which is older and more credible] that points to the necessity of in-person engagement in education.

Just some things to consider as you rip apart the cadavers of the wise old crones and grumpy old men you hope to replace.