Today's Students and Technology - USM Forum -- Message Board

Frank Glamser · Status: Offline

Today's Students and Technology

Jameela Lares · Status: Offline

Hi, Frank. I note that there have been 100 views of your posting though no replies. I imagine that everyone is nodding their heads and thinking, Yep.

Technology is a toolbox, not the Promised Land, and teachers have survived every technological innovation for 2500 years. I understand that when study films first came out, they were hailed as a potential teacher replacement. Uh . . . no. Technology can only deliver the course material; it cannot replace the teacher. It might have gotten the horse to the water faster, but it has had no effect whatever in getting the water down his throat. (Those of you who are sure you could provide a better analogy, please do!)

In the meantime, whoever is deciding university expenditures needs to think of increasing the library budget. It's difficult to have a gold mine with no ore.

Jameela

Bookie · Status: Offline

My main concern is that we are spending money in a way that it will be useful. Will the students utilize the podcasting of lectures once they are available? Has anyone asked them?

If they are eager to have this service, then I think we should provide it. We should also check the logs to see how much they are being used, or not used. I hope that such a service would prove useful. It will not be useful for everyone, but some students in some majors may see a huge benefit.

But you have to prove it. You have to show that the effort is worth it. And, if you offer the service, you have to advertise it enough for everyone to have a chance to use it.

It think podcasting of lectures is a great idea IF the students take advantage of it and if the lectures are such that a not a lot of information is lost in the translation.

Invictus · Status: Offline

Jameela Lares wrote:

Technology is a toolbox, not the Promised Land, and teachers have survived every technological innovation for 2500 years.

I might add that far too many (if not most) of us were thrown in the classroom with very little training about how to use the stuff in that toolbox. Some were lucky, some improvised, some just grabbed the same old rocks their ancestors used to teach flint-chipping (one of the first vo-ed courses, I understand) & for the ones who were good at teaching it didn't much matter.

I don't think I'm any more effective with Powerpoints & computer projectors & interactive media than my father was with an overhead projector or my grandmother was with slate & chalk (or my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandpa was with clay tablets & styli). I don't think I'm any less effective, either.

A good teacher with technology is still a good teacher. A good teacher without technology is still a good teacher. A poor teacher is a poor teacher regardless of the gizmos s/he may employ... Some folks who are good teachers with technology are lousy without it & some who are poor teachers with technology are great without it. Have I missed any of the possible permutations?

But Frank raises a point that very little is done to assess the effectiveness of technology-mediated teaching/learning. My bet is that, like virtually every other comparison we might make in educational research, there is no statistically significant difference.