The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

When freshmen arrived at Duke University this year, each of them got a brand-new iPod, the pocket-size music player. Duke wasn't the only college giving out new gadgets. Students at other institutions got tablet PC's, personal digital assistants, cellphones, and other electronic tools. College officials say that they are looking for "the next level of laptops," and many think that the next must-have gadget for education will be a hand-held device. At the same time, colleges stand to get a public-relations boost from buying into new technology. Are the purchases of gadgets driven by educational reasons, or are they marketing ploys -- or both? Do colleges compete in offering the next must-have gizmos for their students? What is the best way to evaluate and purchase useful electronic devices? Read more...

It strikes me that the Duke iPod giveaway is pretty much a gimmick. If press reports are accurate, little thought went into how these devices could be used in order to further educational goals and they will be used more for entertainment... infotainment at best. On the other hand, it's a relatively inexpensive (for Duke at any rate) national PR effort. They could have spent the same amount of money for Freshman pizza parties and not gotten anywhere near the attention this effort has garnered...

I think the effort at other places to deploy Tablet PCs and even Blackberries deserves more serious attention (even though these efforts also have good PR value) and hopefully will result in some serious instructional benefits... these are not primarily "entertainment" devices but are platforms that can provide students with the means to accomplish some serious instructional goals and if properly utilized provide student with a valuable "hands on" experience that will benefit them post university... however, their value will also be determined by how they are employed in instructional efforts and how their capabilities can be employed (is the campus wireless?)... if they are not used in novel ways (virtual teams, distance ed, educational blogging, etc.), if they are not used in efforts to stretch the boundaries of the traditional classroom, to push students and faculty into trying new things, or if they just sit in a backpack, then their value will be diminished... so much depends on the efforts to integrate these devices into the overall educational experience.

This is just a line fed to naive parents who think "gee, they are using iPods---my Suzy is going to get a really, really good education if she goes there!!!"

The fact of the matter is most faculty have absolutely no interest in incorporating these toys into their lectures. Besides, in the overwhelming number of courses these toys cannot be used. Would someone please explain to me how you use some hand-held device to teach differential equations or sculpture?

I put offering these toys as the same hype where universities tell gullible parents "send Suzy to our school. We will have her doing RESEARCH starting in her very first quarter here!!!". This is a flat out lie. Undergraduates are incapable of doing any meaningful research because they don't know anything. (And please, spare me those stories that "our undergrads are doing research". That also is a lie. Sorry, but having Suzy going to the library to copy an article, or running 25 computer programs, or plotting data isn't research---it's go-fer work and you know it. Put another way, if virtually anybody can do what Suzy is doing, then it ain't research...)

Universities should get back to the business of educating people. These pathetic attempts to attract new students is a waste of time, resources, and is down right annoying.

At the risk of sounding old-fashioned, I feel there are more useful ways of supplementing students' educational experience than stuffing their pockets with miniature jukeboxes. I realize that technology is much different now than when I first entered college in 1993 - in those days I was still composing my papers at a monochrome monitor, and the Internet was a brave new world - but aren't we rushing things just a bit? Upon returning to school last summer, after a seven-year absence, I was amazed to see how my campus had changed. Now, students stride singly from one class to another, with hardly a glance at anyone around them. Heads are all bent down to read a text message, or gazing off in the distance while chattering at some disembodied voice, through a cell phone that probably cost as much as a semester's worth of textbooks. Whatever happened to conversing with actual people? Whatever happened to writing entire words, in order to form entire sentences? Maybe our university adminstrators should pay a little more attention to the ABCs, before handing out mp3s... JM2C *wink*

Just because the schools have figured out how to use the technology in a braod curriculum-based manner does not meant that the investment in the devices is by its very nature, bad.

iPods are capable of much more than playing back music, and have been used widely by scientists as ways to transfer and hold data on a potable drive, the human genome project has used them in their research. Think of the ways it could be used in a language class; to listen to conversations of native speakers, as an interactive tool, etc. As a music professor, I can tell you that the iPod would be an invaluable tool in my classes for the sake of music alone. It would be nice to have the entire semester's worth of music already loaded onto an iPod for the students' use.

Like I said earlier, just because the universities purchasing this technology haven't found a way to incorporate a campus-wide use for them doesn't mean that the profs won't. Personally, I believe most of the problem with misuse or lack of use is due to a technology gap that exists between students and professors, but that is really another topic.

Granted much of this is about marketing, but if you are at a private (tuition-driven) institution like mine then keeping enrollment up is probably a good thing:) However the thesis that this technology cannot be used in most courses is myopic. Science and Engineering have been using technology to enhance education for years. Art and Architecture can also benefit from the use of technology. It is much more cost effective (and much less time consuming) to do a 3D model of a structure on a laptop prior to building it (yes even sculpture may benefit in this case). Technology is a tool. As with any tool it is the USE that determines whether or not it is beneficial.

I am currently at a school of pharmacy. It may seem (on the surface at least) that technology has very little place in the classrooms of my institution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Computers are used to teach a wide variety of classes such as calculus (actually any course that requires 3D spatial manipulation, such as inorganic chemistry, can make good use of technology and is only limited by the creativity/skill of the instructor), medicinal chemistry, writing, physiology, anatomy, biology, physics, etc. In fact the profession of pharmacy is becoming more reliant on technology in order to reduce medication and dosage errors (a big plus if you ask me). So the tool in question (lets say a laptop, pda, or tablet pc) can be used in the majority of courses to enhance student-learning if the instructor approaches technology with an open and creative mind. I do agree that not all courses can utilize technology effectively, but the majority can if the instructors of those courses have both creative and academic freedom and are not simply responding to administrative pressures to do so.

The real issue isn't the ability to use such technologies in instructional situations, it is about trendiness. For an institution to attach itself to trend technology for media and promotional purposes is one thing, but when using it in education and research, the real measures are in the infrastructures put in place at the time of technology introduction and the measure of such implementations in the future when the technology isn't fashionable anymore.

The notion that the use of computers enhances student learning is one that I'm skeptical about. I find that my students are so reliant on the computer that they can't think without one--that, to me, is not learning. I've gone so far as to ban the internet as a research source because I'm getting papers that are basically internet-generated. We're producing automatons, not thinkers. The more we provide students with electronic gadgets and the like, the less they are students and the more they are robots.

Yet another example of people somehow confusing the Internet with an education.

Toys at enrollment time, pizza and coke at evaluation time. So what else is new? Students show up in class everywhere now expecting to get paid off, in one way or another - it's the perq's of getting a "higher education." That, and dumbed-down courses and easy A's. Students are hardly expected to do anything now in class, compared to what they had to do just ten years ago, and that wasn't nearly as much as they had to do ten years before that. Want to really turn them off? Give them a quiz on the simplest things they're supposed to know.

Just keep treating students like clients and even the "name" colleges will be selling degrees over the internet - "hassle free, no down payment, come as you are, bring the kids, win a prize and get a free lunch too!"

Sorry Dayton, but you obviously are making stuff up. Engineering departments are NOT "using technology for years to enhance education". (Besides, you aren't even in an engineering school. So how do you know???)

Yes engineering schools use technology, but it is in laboratories and not in lectures. Some classes use multimedia resources but that is not what the Chronicle's article is talking about. I am unaware of any engineering professor who is using iPods or PDAs or even laptops in class. (Professors sometimes use a laptop for a powerpoint presentation they are giving, but they don't require the students to use them during the lecture.) I also asked my colleagues if they knew of any engineering professor at any institution who was using these toys in the lecture. Nope. Not a one.

It is annoying and down right deceptional when people like Dayton spit out "facts" to get their point across. Dayton, I'll make you a deal. You don't talk about what engineering schools do and I won't speak about what goes on in pharmacy schools. Okay?

Dr. McGill

Look at the following url...

http://frontweb.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/vuse_web/transit/
index.asp

Well!

We should all have the analytical clarity to see this situation for what it really is: yet another ploy by left-wing liberals to turn education into an ice cream social! These kids will play with their toys and then discard them when they see that another new and neater toy is being offered by another bleeding heart institution, and then they'll cry like the spoiled brats the left-wing has raised them to be. Then they'll balme their teacheers for not teaching them. Well, I hope all of you bleeding heart liberals are happy. This is YOUR fault. Spare the rod, spoil the child! We shouldn't fire these pappy profs who want to indulge this liberalized behavior--we should LYNCH them!

Okay so let's not focus on the issue and instead focus on perception and politics shall we?

Not me. I'm sticking to the issues. I received my Ph.D. in Neuroscience (Syracuse University has an engineering program, look it up), my BS is in chemistry (again some familiarity with chemical engineering programs) and I personally know of several engineering programs (chemical, mechanical, bioengineering, etc.) that use 3D graphics and computer modeling for educational purposes. That's technology folks. During the mid 1990's when I attended graduate school technology was used by many in neuroscience for a variety of purposes (granted this was a graduate program). The idea that technology cannot be used to enhance a lecture is flat-out wrong. Too many so-called teachers are teaching by rote memorization. You sit a student in a chair, give him 50 minutes worth of audio and maybe a visual or two to go along with it and VOILA we have educated critical thinkers :)) Technology provides a tool whereby more active learning may take place in a classroom or lab setting. For those of you married to the old lecture format where the instructor drones on for 50 minutes and provides copious notes (and a few cases of writer's cramp) may I remind you that the lecture method of instruction was developed during the middle ages prior to the invention of the printing press. Since we currently have an overabundance of printed information from a variety of sources maybe we should spend less time lecturing and more time teaching students how to think, eh? With all of the information currently available maybe now is a good time to teach them how to tell good sources from bad sources (side note: not ALL internet sources are bad, but too many are... how about teaching your students how to tell the difference).

From what I see the only so-called "fact" that I spewed forth was that science and engineering schools have been using technology for years. Maybe I should have said Science and Engineering PROGRAMS instead of schools. The fact remains science and engineering programs have been using technology for years (Yes mostly in labs, but is that not an educational setting).

Again technology is a tool. The use of the tool is what is important, not the tool itself. As a little lesson in darwinian evolution, think about the "discovery" of fire. Fire is a tool also. Those that used fire well eventually evolved into us. I wonder what happened to those that refused to use Fire???

P.S. I'm a moderate republican :) (although I still fail to see how this relates to the topic under discussion)

Again, I think it all depends on what role the technology plays in the true education of students. Call me a traditionalist, but if this or any technology helps to further limit to face-to-face interactions of students with students and students with instructors then you can keep you i-pods and blackberries. I actually own both, but when I think about nature and scope of epistemology, I am fearful that this love affair with tecnological novelties can only encourage more distance in terms of intellectual intimacy among our students.

Parker Palmer notes that "We share an American cultural bias that every problem we face has a technical "fix," if only we can find it. That bias is fostered by armies of experts who make a living "fixing" things. But at its source, the bias is created by our penchant for evading the human challenges of selfhood and community by seeking refuge in the safer, technical dimension of things." Given this I am fearful that with the growing zeal for these techno goodies we will only help decrease our capacity for cummunity in the classroom and in other facets of the academy.

I don't know if I am oversimplifying the very complex landscapes of pedagogy and epistemology, but I get excited about the idea of students and teacher involved in a face-to-face conversation filled with good questions, ambiguity, compassion, and community. I don't think the i-pods and blackberries of the world can give me what it is I feel when I am engaged in that exchange.

B. Reed concludes, along the sentiments of many otheranti-gadget-giveaway posters:

"I get excited about the idea of students and teacher involved in a face-to-face conversation filled with good questions, ambiguity, compassion, and community. I don't think the i-pods and blackberries of the world can give me what it is I feel when I am engaged in that exchange."

Question: Was that EVER the intent of the gadget-giveaways? Is that EVER the intent of ANYONE who purchases a laptop/ipod/blackberry--for it to take the place of student-teacher interaction (e.g., "Gee, I think this gadget will go a long way in helping me distance myself from my professor")? I lecture in a small upper division humanities class at UC Berkeley(approx. 30 students) and the few students who bring their laptops with them to class aren't playing games. They're taking notes because they can type almost as fast as they write longhand because they've been familiar with the keyboard since second grade. Their typing is not a distraction to other students, who are used to seeing their peers use various technologies to take notes--including cassette recorders and video recorders in their cell phones! They are actively engaged in lecture. They often ask questions during lecture. They even come to my office hour. I ask them questions and they help me with my own computer glitches. I love it. I wish the adminisitration had given ME an i-pod.

http://cit.duke.edu/about/ipod_faculty_projects.do

Fundamentals of Digital Signal Processing (ECE 180)
Because topics in this class can be mathematical and abstract, Prof. Lisa Huettel is introducing a hands-on laboratory to provide real applications for theoretical concepts presented in class. Students will use the iPod to record environmental sounds and collect pulse rate data during physical activity. These recordings will be brought to the laboratory to be visualized, manipulated, and analyzed. Using the iPod as recording/storage devices will both provide a real-world component to the course, and will also facilitate data transfer and student collaboration. This should both motivate the students to study the material – due to their recognition of the applications of their studies – and encourage creativity by allowing students to select, sample, and process signals that match their particular interests.

While this is an interesting discussion, it's missing a key point: the iPod giveaway at Duke is about Napster and the law. One of the biggest problems facing universities, today, is the illegal swaping of music files by undergraduates. To date, there has not been a good solution. By "giving away" MP3 players, Duke establishes a new, legal file swapping standard on campus, thereby lessening the likelihood that students will attract copywrite infringement lawsuits by swapping music files illegally. it's very clever because it transforms a felony into a part of campus culture. And who knows where it will lead? The fact is, we don't know how the iPod might serve the classroom. For example, when email was first introduced, it was used primarily by students to send personal notes and to waste time that should have been sent writing papers. Now, email is the heart and soul of academic communication, an integral and useful part of teaching, research and administration. Soon, AIM--with it's unique ability to foster social interaction--will take the place of email. Sure, students spend too much time staring at laptops and plugged into music players. But education is a social process afterall, and the more social these technologies become, the more teaching stands to benefit from them. As a professor, I am very excited to see what creative new practices will emerge from this most iPod-ed of learning communities.

Hey, I'm a Left Wing Liberal-- and I HATE technology...

Golly Molly, another plot by those nasty left wing academics. I'll save you the hassle of posting more messages. We understand your argument. Everything bad in higher education, or better yet, everything bad in the entire universe is the fault of commie pinko unreconstructed radicals from the dreaded 60s. And since you are proposing to murder these folks, let's go one step further. Let's extend the Patriot Act. Anyone who votes for a Democratic candidate will be identified and promptly shipped to Iraq to hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

Seriously, folks, the notion that giveaways like this are somehow leftist is absurd. In fact, this sort of giveaway is an example of the increasingly corporate mentality in higher education in the U.S. It's just marketing. Is this bad? I don't know. My own university's applicant pool has been increasing significantly for years. Our enrollment is increasing. Our incoming students' test scores are increasing. Our endowment is increasing. Our tuition is increasing. Much of this is a result of good marketing and sound business practices. Is giving new students gadgets an effective marketing tool? I don't know. Maybe someone can do some research (oh yeah, those pesky facts again) to determine how students with choices make decisions about where to enroll in college. Of course lots of that research already exists if anyone here cares to look at it.

Dayton really doesn't have the foggiest idea of what goes on in engineering schools. Let me tell him why iPods and other gadets will never---yes, I said never---be used.

Engineering lectures use math symbols and formulas. In electrical engineering courses you have to draw schematics.

You can't do that on iPods. And even on laptops its way, way too slow to be useful during a lecture.

Stick with the pharmacy classes Dayton. You're out of your league when you start to talk about what goes on in engineering classes.

Computational Methods in Engineering (EGR 53)
In this required course for first-year engineering students, a key component of the hands-on laboratory experience is a data acquisition system, with which students are able to take and analyze measurements. Dr. Michael Gustafson will have the students use iPod devices as signal generators for the laboratory and investigate the effects of audio file compression. The course will also incorporate a discussion of digital music players from the four viewpoints represented by Duke's school of engineering - biomedical, civil and environmental, electrical and computer, and mechanical and materials science. According to Dr. Gustafson, "The addition of an iPod gives me a great, common engineering marvel to explore while simultaneously teaching students computational methods as well as opening their eyes to some of the possible fields of study within engineering."

Off topic again, eh? Well let's try this. I guess the discussion was supposed to involve answering questions brought up by the original article such as:

"Are the purchases of gadgets driven by educational reasons, or are they marketing ploys -- or both? Do colleges compete in offering the next must-have gizmos for their students? What is the best way to evaluate and purchase useful electronic devices?"

Heres a sample of some of the responses: (Paraphrasing of course)

(1) It's a left wing conspiracy and we should lynch the profs!

(2) We don't use this in engineering so don't mention engineering.

(3) You are making stuff up.

I'm at a loss as to how these relate to the above mentioned questions (or the other issues raised by the article in question).

Anway I guess it all started when I wrote this statement:
"Science and Engineering have been using technology to enhance education for years." Apparently engineers are loathe to be lumped together with scientists (After reading your responses based mostly on anecdotal evidence I'm loathe to be lumped in with you too). Apparently the statement was too general, so I'll stick to what I'm personally familiar with. Since I'm a scientist (not a pharmacist) I'll edit the offensive statement to say "Science, chemical engineering and bioengineering have been using technology to enhance education for years". Thus the electrical engineers of the world may now focus on the discussion topic. And I didn't make anything up. I actually earned a BS in chemistry and two of my closest friends are chemical engineers. I actually earned a Ph.D. in Neuroscience and have done work with Chemical and Bio-engineers. For those who believe that chemistry and biology education cannot benefit from technology:

http://dragon.klte.hu/~gundat/rajzprogramok/dprog.html

Many more available programs exist for a variety of teaching activities either in lecture, lab or at home.

Now back to the central issues. My arguments have been that these technologies are for both marketing and for education (depending upon its use). Someone else brought up the idea of infrastructure development (good point). So I guess, since no one has effectively attacked either the marketing or the educational arguments, I win. You luddites really need to work on your critical thinking and analytical skills. This is too easy.

Dear Dayton,

"Critical thinking and analytical skills." Whatever are you thinking? I can only deduce that you haven't followed many of these colloquy discussions. The norm here is unsupported assertions, tangents, invective, loony theorizing, and a total disregard for facts. (I could get into the misspellings and grammatical errors, but that would be petty, wouldn't it?) Actually, I have hypothesized before that many of these messages are made up for satirical entertainment value. Kind of a "Gulliver's Travels" of the academic world. Some of the messages are incomprehensible but it's fun to try to decipher them. Some are so moronic that it's hard to imagine that an educated human being actually wrote them. In fact, I've stolen a page from the intelligent design folks. I don't understand how an intelligent person could sincerely write some of this stuff, therefore it must be made up:) My all time favorite is my friend Molly. I often scan the list of posters to see if she's written something. Then before I read her message I try to figure out how she is going to trash liberal academics in the context of the discussion. I have to confess I couldn't figure it out for this discussion. Anyway, I hope this gives you a better idea of how to participate here. I have just attacked people, made illogical arguments, and said nothing meaningful about the topic.

Thanks for the heads up. You are correct in that this is my second foray into the chronicle's online discussion universe. The first occurred two years ago or so and was actually pretty good. I guess I expected a scholarly discussion of the issues done in a collegial manner. My bad:))

Anyway it's been a learning experience. I'm probably going to refrain from posting anymore unless someone actually formulates a logical argument concerning the current state of education and technology "handouts" (although I suspect that the cost of such handouts is factored in to any tuition increases and is not a true "gimme").

I did forget to mention one insightful poster for mentioning the legal ramifications of file sharing as one of Duke's possible motives. Good point, I never thought of that.

I will leave the discussion of engineering and scientific needs to those more directly involved in the disciplines. However, the issue of iPods and notebooks is, at least on the surface, an easier issue to address. If folks do not see a use or educational need for iPods then do not adopt their use. Or, see what happens at Duke and then decide. As for notebook computers it is a matter of campus direction and planning. Our campus is completing a second year of infrastructure work to have a secure wireless campus-wide network including dorms. Additionally, every three years faculty member receives a new computer, and they are encouraged to opt for a notebook. We provide training for notebook use as well as instructional design assistance for curriculum delivery adjustments. We are also converting classrooms in order to utilize wireless connectivity for projection devices. After 2 years of planning we may be ready next year to consider going to a notebook concept for entering students. This means we have the infrastructure, faculty training, and faculty involvement to actually affect the way classes are taught prior to providing notebook computers to students.

The issue, to me, is not one of hype or proper educational value but one that requires due consideration affected by a need for preparation, study, and developing a reasoned vision for a particular campus. As our distance learning opportunities grow so do changes in our on and off-campus instructional delivery. It appears to be evolving naturally and is being embraced by our faculty. Implemented with a view toward changing the way we teach before delivering notebooks to our students, we plan to move toward a more technology savvy faculty, student body, and overall learning environment over a 3-4 year period of time. Doing so may have us appear to be behind or slow to respond to technology issues. However, we see our approach as one that is financially manageable and instructionally sound.

We are not a rich campus but with careful planning and a phased approach to the integration of technology, our students will remain prepared and technologically competitive. We will still have several regular computer labs in engineering, communications, and other areas. However, we will be adding more mobile computer labs instead of taking existing classroom space for what was an ever growing thirst for more and more computer labs. I guess I do not really see the situation as a problem.

It would have been even better if Duke had also given faculty and T.A.s iPods. They're wonderful assets for teaching and learning. I use mine fairly often, and I'll list some of the ways I use it in teaching, and some that Duke could take advantage of. Remember that the iPod not only plays and records audio files, it's also a FireWire/USB hard drive, with some ability to display text, and function as a calendar and alarm clock.

1. Backup--I have a portable easy to connect and fast way of backing up everything, including the class web site, I user for a class. Students could easily do this too. It's fairly easy to store addresses, for instances, or class rosters as files that display on the iPod screen.
2. File transfer--you can use the iPod to carry data to place on a server, whether it's a handout, a QuickTime movie, an MP3 file, a homework assignment, or a Powerpoint (if you really must use Powerpoint) presentation.
3. Music and audio or video files to use as "authentic" language materials, for language classes. In my case I have examples of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Beowulf, Chaucer, Middle English lyrics, and other poetry being read aloud. I also have short audio excerpts and QuickTime excerpts, some of them annotated with captions, for comparing and discussing Shakespeare performances. I can easily connect the iPod to a Mac or Windows computer and the iPod is perceived as an external hard drive. All I have to do is carry the iPod and a Firewire cable in my pocket. I've even played audio files through a video monitor using a standard stereo RCA to mini jack cable, connected to the iPod's headphone jack.
4. Create slide shows using digital images (on the Mac this is easily done with iPhoto and iMovie, but there are good programs for Windows users too). The iPod is much easier to connect to a built-in digital projection system with it's own computer, or you can connect it to any computer that has FireWire or even, especially on Windows, USB. You can even make your slides available for students on their iPods. Why not include brief comments, either as textual annotations or record the audio?
5. Distribute handouts, syllabi, Powerpoint, html, .pdf files and even e-books on the iPod or available in easily downloaded archives from the web so that students have the entire class materials in a portable storage device. This is particularly effective if you have materials either in compressed archives or pre-loaded.
6. Allow students to record lectures for later review. They can concentrate on understanding during the lecture, and take notes later.
7. The uses in musicology, composition and music history classes are pretty obvious. But think about pre-loading annotated files, either as QuickTime or as web pages, as guides to annotating and understanding the music.
8. Take advantage of the many free tools for reading text files on an iPod.
9. Use the Solitaire game to explain the statistics behind the game.
10. Distribute calendars using the "iCalendar" standard, supported by Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/) and by Apple's iCal.

There are lots and lots of other uses, but these are some that occur off the top of my head. And no, I'm not paid any extra for teaching with digital technology, but neither am I paid less for using the overhead projector or the blackboard. Frankly, as a T.A. I'm likely lucky to be paid at all, in the current economic climate. Use the technology that works for you and your students, and it's OK if you and they enjoy it.

Far better that creative faculty receive these gadgets than students. Many of us had opportunities to hone our writing skills before cyber-surfing, chatrooms, and virtual reality made written composition impractical and irrelevant. Most of my students use their iPods, mpeg players, etc., for one purpose only (at least they're usually polite enough to remove their ear buds when I enter the classroom).

Even for musical purposes, this is a potentially devilish device. It encourages "parting out," or piecemealing, separate tracks of music into a kind of pastiche, or postmodern junkyard, of miscellaneous "iTunes." One example (apart from symphonic movements): The "concept" albums that Sinatra and Nelson Riddle constructed so carefully to insure a consistent, developing theme if not an organic whole. If I ever had any doubts that New Criticism had run its course, the iPod has removed them.

SC

Sam Chell wrote:

<blockquote>
Even for musical purposes, this is a potentially devilish device. It encourages "parting out," or piecemealing, separate tracks of music into a kind of pastiche, or postmodern junkyard, of miscellaneous "iTunes."
</blockquote>

Almost any technology (including writing, witness Plato) has potential negative "demonic" aspects. The demon has already been in work in this particular instance, beginning with the first programmable audio CD players. Concern about the iPod violating artistic integrity, a completely valid issue, though perhaps less than timely, ignores the recording industry's long habit of producing "compilations"--which tend to sell extremely well. The "anthology," audio or textual, is neither new nor the fault of digital technology.

Moreover, as with most "vices" there's an opposing "virtue." No longer does one have to wait for the second CD to hear all of Handel's <cite>Messiah</cite>--the tracks may be played straight through, and in sequence. One can even decrease the pause between tracks, should one wish, or increase it.

Lisa Spangenberg wrote: "One can even decrease the pause between tracks, should one wish, or increase it."

Not only that but you can eliminate it by choosing "dissolves" or "cross fades" that insure there's never the tiniest music-less instant. Sinatra slides seamlessly into Seal's musical territory. And I hear you about the recording companies raiding and re-raiding the archives to produce more compilations and anthologies. In fact, I own "The Best of Art Tatum," "The Definitive Art Tatum," and the "Ultimate Art Tatum"--none of which contains the performance I want. Guess I'd have to agree with you after all: the choice may as well be the consumer's, whose personal assortment at least doesn't produce all the hype and misrepresentation. SC

Since it is not being questioned academically the academic interest or reasons is in kine.There is no doubt that the element of the sellers interest to exchange the products for the necessary capital or ,money to keep the business in continuity is made viable.Why not--there is always competition in every free relationship and schools is one.One remembers that the PR marks the incentives it creates on students to encourage greater participation.
The best way is simply to value the purpose,the impacts it instills in the academic growth of the students but let not the sellers interest override the academic interest instead they can be reconciled with greater reliance on academic interest than otherwise.
From,
Ben.N.Nweke,
31 odejobi street,
Agege,Lagos.

I do not condone iPods as part of the learning process for which students pay thousands of dollars. A university education means ideas, skills, vocation. How does a hard drive loaded with music fit in?

With this enrollment, a toy surprise