next »

[theritas]

I hope I'm placing this in the right area, I know it says Chronicle articles, but I don't think there's another set spot for all of the others, right?  Sacrificing the higher-ed sacred cow - Washington Post.  Having just read this, I'm interested in what people here think or whether there are specific examples to add or talk about.

[lasquires]

My question: What, specifically, is meant by incorporating technologies? I am no Luddite. I have a self-hosted professional website, use a variety of web platforms in my class, and readily incorporate technology-based assignments, but this writer is unhelpfully vague about what technologies she thinks faculty ought to incorporate, how they ought to be used, and what instructional goals could be better met with technology. As another poster suggested on one of the iPad threads, the question shouldn't be, "How do we incorporate technology into the classroom?" but rather, "What are our pedagogical goals and is there a form of technology that might help us achieve them better?"

Kudos to her for pointing out the role of administrative expenses in driving up the cost of higher ed, but isn't the race to provide the very bleeding edge of new tech to students along with the support services required to maintain instructional technology also playing a huge role there? Technology may reduce labor costs in one area (and I'm disturbed at the implication that we're talking about replacing teachers with computers), but surely those costs show up elsewhere.

[dale1]

lasquires:

There are significant cost trade-offs in replacing labor with technology.  Doing this requires:  enhanced technology expenditures, either on hardware, software, personnel, or a combination of the three.  It requires staff to support students, teaching and learning center staff to assist faculty (many of which are under-appreciated and under-paid adjuncts, TAs, and other contingent faculty), and continuous upgrades in technology.  Not to mention the costs for students in terms of their own (now expected in many institutions) laptops or high-speed home or other internet connections.

So this does not always lower costs; often it simply shifts costs from the institution to the student, or between the institution itself. 

This is a classic "cart before the horse" situation, as you suggest.  We have to begin with our educational ends in mind, and then select the most appropriate, feasible, and cost-effective means.  That takes time, imagination, and resources.  Sadly, we may not have any of these three at most public institutions.

[larryc]

I will give an example of how technology should be influencing education, but is not. The lecture.

Tomorrow, all over the English-speaking world, history professors will stand in front of rows of undergraduates and deliver 50-minute lectures about the causes of the American Civil War. The quality of the lectures will vary considerably. A few will be insipid and boring, a few will be riveting and insightful, most will fall in the competent-but-uninspired range. But countless man hours will be spent delivering almost exactly the same content in the same format. What an incredible inefficiency.

Why? About ten years ago I attended a online learning conference (Syllabus) where one presenter talked about how technology was going to eliminate this duplication. There would be a few stars who would emerge in each discipline. The rest of us would find new roles--beginning with choosing which online lectures to assign, and continuing through selection of additional course materials, leading discussions, determining assignments, and grading assignments. The technology, we were told, would not replace us but would redefine our roles, moving (and this was a phrase I heard a hundred times in that era )from being a sage on the stage to a guide on the side."

It made sense. It still makes sense. But it is not happening. I am not completely sure why not, except that it is the inefficiency and reluctance to change on the part of academics. We are after all one of the last medieval institutions.

[geonerd]

I read the piece.

I saw single-sentence paragraphs, sentences that begin with conjunctions, undeveloped arguments, grandiose and unsupported arguments, but not one single cow. Not one.

I think VDM would snap this up.

[galactic_hedgehog]

About ten years ago I attended a online learning conference (Syllabus) where one presenter talked about how technology was going to eliminate this duplication. There would be a few stars who would emerge in each discipline. The rest of us would find new roles--beginning with choosing which online lectures to assign, and continuing through selection of additional course materials, leading discussions, determining assignments, and grading assignments. The technology, we were told, would not replace us but would redefine our roles, moving (and this was a phrase I heard a hundred times in that era )from being a sage on the stage to a guide on the side."

It made sense. It still makes sense. But it is not happening. I am not completely sure why not, except that it is the inefficiency and reluctance to change on the part of academics. We are after all one of the last medieval institutions.

Isn't that Khan Academy?

[larryc]

Isn't that Khan Academy?

Absolutely. I wonder how many teachers are assigning Khan Academy videos?

I don't think the Khan model has spread beyond his math videos. I know he has a couple of history videos up--they are terrible. I would love to work with some other historians on a set of Khan-style history videos...

[spork]

The article has this paragraph:

"Generally, they are not much trained in teaching, are not rewarded for their teaching accomplishments on the basis of student outcomes, and are in no way incentivized to incorporate new technologies or approaches in their teaching. Such changes are often imposed from above and place new demands on professors’ time without offering obvious benefits."

which is taken, in terms of ideas expressed, from one (or more) of the following:

Academically Adrift
Frank Donoghue's The Last Professors
Mark Taylor's Crisis on Campus

This becomes more evident in subsequent passages. The lack of citations would probably qualify for an F for plagiarism if it came across my desk.

The paragraph starts with "Tenured faculty are an endangered species at American institutions, but they still wield outsized power as a bloc." This contradicts "changes are often imposed from above."

As dale1 and lasquires point out, the editorial's author doesn't seem to understand the role or cost of technology in higher ed. U of Phoenix and other schools have created standard online course packages that are taught by low paid adjuncts. You sign a contract to teach a course for X dollars, you are supplied with the syllabus, assignments, exam questions, and course site. Yes, it's very efficient, at least at the cost of paying instructors vs. student tuition revenue standpoint. But this ignores the back end overhead/operating cost. Also it completely ignores value in terms of the learning students get for their money.

But as someone who teaches online courses on a regular basis, I am dumping the medieval lecture model, even for my traditional undergraduate classes on campus. The lecture model is technologically obsolete and not pedagogically efficient. Students want ease of access. I want them to read outside of the classroom. It's a win-win. I seriously doubt (or at least hope) that the subsequent interaction that occurs between myself and students cannot be replicated by a computer or low paid adjunct.

[theritas]

I really appreciate this feedback.  It should prove helpful in some future discussions I may be encountering on the horizon.  I haven't had to form opinions on this scale of operations to date, but find myself nearing an opportunity to do so in the future.

[scienceprof]

Dale1 and spork,

I hope you will repeat your comments here on the Washington Post site.

[polly_mer]

Synopsis:  I agree with LarryC's main point on the value of eliminating duplication of lecture via electronic means with a different role for instructors, but I disagree with the primary reason for few people attempting to eliminate the duplication.

Main post:

Why? About ten years ago I attended a online learning conference (Syllabus) where one presenter talked about how technology was going to eliminate this duplication. There would be a few stars who would emerge in each discipline. The rest of us would find new roles--beginning with choosing which online lectures to assign, and continuing through selection of additional course materials, leading discussions, determining assignments, and grading assignments. The technology, we were told, would not replace us but would redefine our roles, moving (and this was a phrase I heard a hundred times in that era )from being a sage on the stage to a guide on the side."

It made sense. It still makes sense. But it is not happening. I am not completely sure why not, except that it is the inefficiency and reluctance to change on the part of academics.

Don't be so sure about the reasons.

Most of my classes are workshop-style or inverted classrooms for exactly the reasons you mention: the web has fantastic resources that are better than much of what I can do.  Consequently, my job is to point the students to the resources for the basics outside of class and then do things in class like engage in useful dialog with small groups as they do a useful activity, answer direct questions that need clarification, or give mini-lectures as students discover gaps in their knowledge when they try to apply broad principles to specific problems.

My students hate, hate, hate that style of teaching.  My students don't want to learn science or math, as I'm sure many students don't want to learn history or English.  Instead, my students want an experience that somewhat simulates learning, but that is easy on them, like copying bulletpoints off a blackboard during a lecture.  Any of the teaching styles that require engagement of any type so that students can't fool themselves into thinking they are learning by exerting practically no effort is bad teaching according to many students.

I do a lot of stumping for teaching science via workshop-style classes (students watch a lecture or do guided online practice prior to coming to class and the class itself is all about doing problems/activities while getting guidance on the spot).  During the discussions, workshops, or question period after my talk, the comment I most frequently hear from professors and 7-12 teachers is "I would love to do that, but my evaluations will take a beating.  I can't afford to have that many unhappy students."  Those instructors aren't wrong on either point.  Choosing to do that kind of instruction may mean either getting a group to make that teaching a norm at the institution so that students don't complain as much or being the rouge who takes the hit in evaluations, but has a supportive administration who look at results rather than student evaluations.

While I agree that some people are unwilling to change (my departmental mentor rolls his eyes every time I mention the term "inverted classroom"), other people are somewhat interested in changing, but are afraid of the backlash by students.  Being criticized for merely teaching "boring old topic X" is safe because everyone teaching "boring old topic X" is criticized.  Being criticized for using a different method leaves one open to being labeled the crackpot who should be dismissed in favor of a "real" teacher.

Another possible reason for failing to change is the amount of work involved.  I don't even have to prepare much of a lecture on dozens of topics.  Ten minutes to assemble my bulletpoints in order and I'm ready to lecture for 50 minutes.  With half an hour of work, I've got an entire unit's worth of lectures done.  Something like Newton's three laws of motion don't change semester to semester so after a couple of semesters of revision, I've got all my material in place for my unit on those three laws and can then save most of the prep for something else like writing new tests or experimenting with one new assignment.

In contrast, reviewing online material for a unit on something about which I know a great deal can take me 10 hours as I sort the dreck from the "good, but not for this particular class" and the "yes, that's what these students need".  Even if I get a pretty good set of materials this semester, next semester's prep isn't a mere couple of minutes after I've dug out the binder.  Instead, I again have a couple of hours on this unit as I make sure links aren't broken and check if something that wasn't optimal last time can be readily replaced with something better.

[timurid]

I will give an example of how technology should be influencing education, but is not. The lecture.

Tomorrow, all over the English-speaking world, history professors will stand in front of rows of undergraduates and deliver 50-minute lectures about the causes of the American Civil War. The quality of the lectures will vary considerably. A few will be insipid and boring, a few will be riveting and insightful, most will fall in the competent-but-uninspired range. But countless man hours will be spent delivering almost exactly the same content in the same format. What an incredible inefficiency.

Why? About ten years ago I attended a online learning conference (Syllabus) where one presenter talked about how technology was going to eliminate this duplication. There would be a few stars who would emerge in each discipline. The rest of us would find new roles--beginning with choosing which online lectures to assign, and continuing through selection of additional course materials, leading discussions, determining assignments, and grading assignments. The technology, we were told, would not replace us but would redefine our roles, moving (and this was a phrase I heard a hundred times in that era )from being a sage on the stage to a guide on the side."

It made sense. It still makes sense. But it is not happening. I am not completely sure why not, except that it is the inefficiency and reluctance to change on the part of academics. We are after all one of the last medieval institutions.

tl,dr: Most of us will go back to being TA's/grad students... and we will be paid accordingly.

That would be in line with the trend in many middle class professions, what I've come to think of as "imposter theory." Management has decided that most of the professional credentials awarded are invalid and unnecessary, and that the real important work can be done by the few "true" MA's/PhD's/JD's/MBA's/etc. while the many "imposters" will be relegated to assistant/adjunct/gypsy/permanent apprentice status...

[idspike]

Most of my classes are workshop-style or inverted classrooms for exactly the reasons you mention...

My students hate, hate, hate that style of teaching.  My students don't want to learn science or math, as I'm sure many students don't want to learn history or English.  Instead, my students want an experience that somewhat simulates learning, but that is easy on them, like copying bulletpoints off a blackboard during a lecture.  Any of the teaching styles that require engagement of any type so that students can't fool themselves into thinking they are learning by exerting practically no effort is bad teaching according to many students.

This.  I would add that in my classes, the students who hate non-lecture classes the most are often the "good" ones, because they are the ones who knew best how to work the old system and they don't appreciate having the rules changed.  They can push back hard, and when the "good" students hate your class, people notice that. 

I have a memory, still vivid after ten years, of a multipage screed written by the best student in an advanced STEM class on the general topic of "I expected you professors to actually TEACH me something."  It was stapled to his final project report which demonstrated that he had in fact learned quite a lot.  But in his mind, if we weren't lecturing, we weren't doing anything. 

I know it can be done in a way that the students like it, because I have friends who do it.  It seems like you have to fit it into your own local culture so the students buy into it, and that's the trick. 

[larryc]

tl,dr

You didn't read my post but commented on it anyway? How does that even work?

[timurid]

tl,dr

You didn't read my post but commented on it anyway? How does that even work?

Sorry, that was a joke gone awry.
I should have replied, "the 'tl,dr' version is..."
I did read the whole thing.