A commentary article in this week’s Chronicle raises some interesting questions about the level of technology use on campus compared to how much colleges have invested in smart classrooms, course management systems, and more.
“Time after time, when I visit a campus, read an article, or talk to colleagues, I’m surprised at how low the adoption rates of technology really are,” writes Judith Tabron, who is director of faculty computing services at Hofstra University. “The trouble is that it’s going to take a long time for academe to figure out what to do with all the technology it already has — and we need time and money to do that.”
Of course, there’s pressure to adopt even newer classroom technologies, such as Web 2.0 tools. The author urges professors, academic departments, and IT staff members to do more to encourage training and experimentation in using technology in the classroom.
“Colleges may feel that they can’t afford to provide any space and time for improving teaching,” says Ms. Tabron. “They may blame faculty members, students, or even society for a lack of innovation in education — and those charges may well be fair. But colleges unwilling to plant the seeds for change shouldn’t be surprised that they grow nothing.”
12 Responses to Colleges Bought Classroom Technology, but Are Enough Professors Using It?
11186108 - May 17, 2012 at 8:59 am
I ain’t a gonna comment!
huff0104 - May 17, 2012 at 9:24 am
The term “color commentator” for the sidekick of the radio play-by-play sports announcer probably dates back to Dizzy Dean for his colorful comments on the air in the late 1930′s. Dean was criticized for the use of ain’t (part of his Arkansas farmboy persona) and he famously replied, “Them that ain’t sayin’ ain’t, ain’t eatin.’”
studentteacher - May 17, 2012 at 10:02 am
Ain’t is alive and well in many neighborhoods I have conversations in, where many haven’t been on planes and fewer have been to symphonies. Ain’t in those conversations has a bit more of “won’t” in it, without saying so to those who don’t know the “code” or to your moms who can’t catch you on being willful in language–the most she can call you is uneducated :) It also often signals a bit of transgression or “more to the story”: if I hear “she not home,” she’s just out, but if I hear “she ain’t home,” there’s usually something larger going on.
In other communities, I never hear it anymore, and among my students I notice a lot fewer “whatevers” too. I am working on a theory that that kind of tiny spoken resistance movement/moment is no longer necessary, nor is the gesture “talk to the hand”: the talking/texting hand sends the same “I ain’t talking to you” message to present company.
dank48 - May 17, 2012 at 10:12 am
What surprises me is that “ain’t” ain’t come to be widely used and accepted as the contraction for the first-person negative of “to be.” “Isn’t” and “aren’t” need some help; teaching ESL, I noted that students frequently (and logically) would try “amn’t,” which simply ain’t good English.
My uses of “ain’t” in the preceding are of course gratuitous; “hasn’t” and “isn’t” do just fine. And heaven knows there’s no good reason to object to informal and jocular usages of the word, e.g. “ain’t misbehavin’,” “ain’t necessarily so,” “ain’t it the truth,” and so forth.
Of course attempts to change natural language, e.g. creation of synthetic gender-neutral pronouns, are doomed, unless one works with the materials to hand. Third-person singular “they” is and for centuries has been used, despite the lamentations of self-appointed grammar police, and it beats the daylights out of “s/he” for naturalness. “I’m not” works fine in many cases, but sometimes “I ain’t” could serve as well or better.
danb65 - May 17, 2012 at 11:15 am
“Ain’t” going out of style? next thing you know, We won’t be able to use the word “Irregardless” in presentations and papers.
On a purely academic note, I seem to recall the the classic American novels, “Tom Sawyer” and “Huck Finn” both utilized the incorrect contraction “ain’t” on several occasions. I’ll admit, it has been decades since I have been forced to endure both novels, (and don’t get me started on the Musical Movie from the 1970′s) but I do believe this is a correct memory.
(Now is the time for all you Contempory American Lit. faculty to chime in :=)
Antsy Kuhnwisse - May 17, 2012 at 12:42 pm
I’m not one of those faculty, but your attitude seems rather prudish to me. Does informal (“incorrect”) English really prevent you from enjoying great writing? or do you just not like novels in general? What a pity.
I’m with you on the stupid movie version, though.
jffoster - May 17, 2012 at 1:02 pm
I ain’t “Lit Faculty”. But I am Linguistics faculty, wondering how you have determined what’s “incorrect” and what ain’t.
magyar - May 17, 2012 at 4:51 pm
I noted that students frequently (and logically) would try “amn’t,” which simply ain’t good English.
I know a number of native English speakers (all English rather than American) who use “amn’t” in speech. A Google books search throws up quite a few examples in dialogue, too.
katisumas - May 18, 2012 at 12:12 am
The word “ain’t” was perfectly acceptable in English until close to the beginning of the Victorian era. You know when they also decided that double negatives had no place in English even though all Indo-European languages used and still use them.
So they replaced the aesthetically satisfying “ain’t” with the ugly “aren’t”. Not surprising coming from people who put little skirts on piano legs to avoid the sexual frenzy such naked legs would unavoidably trigger….
katisumas - May 18, 2012 at 12:13 am
Please don’t blame this idiocy on mothers!
studentteacher - May 18, 2012 at 8:20 am
There was no blame there at all…idiocy?! Just anecdotally relating what I’ve seen and what my students have related– among this cohort most speech happens between “moms” (singular: my moms) and children because the dads aren’t in the home.
dank48 - May 18, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Well, well. I’ve never heard it myself, to the best of my recollection. It was so regularly occurring–and the textbooks we used certainly didn’t sanction it–that I assumed it was a logical and understandable but erroneous construction. One more instance of mistaken self-confidence.
Many thanks for the correction.