Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

iCranky

February 22, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

I’m feeling a bit cranky.My colleagues and I have just received word that our next professional development day will focus on ways we need to technologize our teaching methods so that we can better facilitate the success of the newest new generation, commonly known as “Millennials.”This latest alien invasion of first-year students, we are told, are teenage battery packs “with wires running through their veins” plugged into video games, MySpace and iPods.Therefore, we better get our collective act together and at the very least hybridize the delivery of knowledge so that we can help them make the grade in the global marketplace.

I’m no Luddite. In fact, I spend a good deal of my day reading news online, communicating with family, friends, colleagues and students, banking, writing, listening to music, checking job lists, updating my queue in Netflix, and so on. This morning, I received some garage-band mp3s from my daughter who is studying in Italy, and yesterday my brother in Houston sent me a funny wmv. I opened it last night just and showed it to my wife just after I had looked up a recipe for kale on www.marthastewart.com. Sometime today, I’ll be updating my CV html and ftping it to my academic domain. I regularly put course materials on Blackboard, and I’ve taught an online course in contemporary American poetry using the rich resources of video easily available on the Web.

So one of the reasons I’m cranky today is because most faculty development workshops I’ve attended assume no knowledge and experience on the part of those being lectured to about the latest advances in technology, learning style, and interconnectivity.

Nobody asks us what we already know and do. Nobody wants to know what the personality of our learning is. Nobody really wants to hear what we have to say. We’re stuffed into row after row of folding chairs facing the PowerPoint torture of illegible pie charts, tables, and data we need to remember so that we’ll be better prepped to perform in the learning community breakout sessions just after the chicken wraps at lunch.

Another reason I’m cranky today is that I detest these facile characterizations of our students. At some point, I expect the next newest generation to be labeled “USBs” or “ScanDisks” or “Intels” or “iLearners.” These names and framing metaphors, of course, support all sorts of false notions of knowledge and learning and teaching and success and most frightening: humanity.

And I’m cranky because this attempt to equate pedagogy with technology confuses ends with means. “Student engagement” has become the latest assessment buzzphrase, and thus, the newest once-and-for-all measure of and purpose for learning. In other words, any desire to understand the value of learning to individual students is replaced with the desire to promote the most efficient and engaging mode of learning by as many students as possible. And faculty better get in line to be online.

Techno-teaching and ilearning are also best because that’s what our students expect from us. They are the current experts on learning, they know how they best prefer to learn, and we should deliver unto them what they want in the way they want it. Thus I’m cranky because in between the government money pouring into institutional assessment and the tuition pouring in from 18 year old students, faculty members get shortchanged.

Finally, I’m cranky because I have to confront all of this professional development ruckus to claim my own professional authority, to say that I am smart enough to keep track of my own discipline and the latest pedagogical advancements without having to be lectured to two or three times a year about what college students need.

What our students need is not more of what they come in the door with. They don’t need more of the same in the same way they got it before. They need to be confronted with people who talk about ideas that matter. They need to become people who can confront and talk to other people about ideas that matter. They need to sit in a room of people and learn about humanity.

Also, not more Facebook, but more faces in books, extended periods of silent and sustained reading and writing, developing intellectual stamina and the ability to ask questions that don’t lead to easy answers or a quick and final Wikisearch.

Laurence Musgrove is an associate professor of English and foreign languages at Saint Xavier University, in Chicago.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on iCranky

  • Thanks for Sharing!
  • Posted by Brian , Asst Prof at Large Midwest U on February 22, 2007 at 7:00am EST
  • I have nothing inteligent to add, except to say that I found myself nodding in agreement throughout this piece.

    This is going to be my new motto:
    "not more Facebook, but more faces in books"

  • Posted by David on February 22, 2007 at 8:16am EST
  • Spot on. My sentiments exactly.

  • Posted by Dr. Mary E Harder at Edison College on February 22, 2007 at 8:20am EST
  • Thank you. What a wonderful way to start my morning. I thought I was alone in this: Let's read a book world!

  • iCranky (2)
  • Posted by Steve , Adjunct prof at Online institution on February 22, 2007 at 8:20am EST
  • Hear, hear!

    I am sick and tired of education wrapping itself in the latest fad. Lately I've been wondering how mainstream media became so proficient at telling us what is important with their flashy graphics, evocative music, and breathy delivery -- they're borrowing it from education.

    Instead of putting in some effort to evaluate (remember that?) which methods and approaches actually work, education for too long has been embracing technology like a true geek -- if its new, it must be better.

    Like the author, I make wide use of a variety of technological advances. Heck, I earned my doctorate and currently teach in online programs. Still, I am left wondering how I survived my own education when no one seemed to give a whit about how *I* felt about its delivery. My teachers didn't tie themselves up in knots trotting out "new and improved" lessons upon the advent of each and every wave of technology.

    Should we be aware of and informed by changes/advances in technology? Absolutely.

    Should pedagogy be driven by those advances?
    Nope.

    Logging off.

  • And "time on task?"
  • Posted by B.D. on February 22, 2007 at 8:35am EST
  • Hear, hear. As a practicing professional and clinical academic, the lack of intellectual focus from students below the top 10% is appalling -- and a little frightening.

    To them, time-on-task is like work -- four-letter words. Yes, socialization can be part of the educational process -- if you read and outline the material beforehand!

    And if one more student calls Mommy and Daddy after class, I'm giving up.

    Where is Larry when we need him?

  • Hear, hear...mostly
  • Posted by SRK , Attorney on February 22, 2007 at 9:10am EST
  • I agree with most of what Professor Musgrove has to say; however, I think he has made two mistaken assumptions. One is that these workshops are intended for him. I doubt that that is the case--he seems like a fantastic, engaging professor, but many college (and law school) professors are not, and while I agree that technology itself may not be the answer, professional development workshops may spur these lower-performing professors to greater heights. Second, I disagree with his sentiments about students being able to articulate their own learning preferences; many students are very aware of the ways in which they best absorb and integrate material, and the best professors are more attentive to student learning needs than their own pedagogical preferences. No one method works with all students.

  • you could be cranky...
  • Posted by Alan at C.O.W. on February 22, 2007 at 9:10am EST
  • ...or you can stand up and ask the administration to prove to you why you need to learn more technology. Make them tell you why your teachings methods are wrong (I doubt they are). Teaching has been one of those professions that stands up to change very well and doesn't flex towards to societal wants very easily. Teaching methods are the same now as they were hundreds of years ago. There is nothing wrong with chalk and slate.

    I am a young alum in charge of working with students and other young alumni and as much as I appreciate the fact that I can have near-instant communication with people via cellphones, Facebook, and MySpace, I still make my students do things the old fashion way in many instances. Technology is great, but unless students can plug their brains into an outlet of knowledge, the teaching system really doesn't need to upgrade.

  • Posted by Laura , Instructional Technologist at Bryn Mawr College on February 22, 2007 at 9:26am EST
  • I can understand where Mr. Musgrove is coming from; however, I think he's being a little facile in his characterizations of IT staff. Yes, sometimes we sound like a Madison Avenue ad firm when we "market" workshops or development opportunities. Honestly, sometimes you have to in order to get 3 people to show up. And, I think it's a shame if all faculty are treated as if they know nothing about technology. But I don't think most of us equate technology with pedagogy. Pedagogy is a whole separate issue that may or may not be able to be facilitated or enhanced by technology. Students may indeed expect delivery of material via the web, mobile phones and iPods, but that doesn't mean that we give up on teaching them how to engage with that material academically. That can be done face-to-face in a classroom setting or with blogs, wikis, discussion forums or video conferencing. Using computer mediated forms of communication is still a way of "confronting people about ideas that matter." The medium may change the nature of the teaching and learning process, but it doesn't change the basic tenets, and I don't think anyone in IT wants to have students who are not critical of the electronic world they live in. I would argue that yes, it is always good to engage with books and other "old media" but a good dose of new media may help students view it with an appropriate amount of intellectual thought.

    In the end, I think most people in positions like mine, who have studied technology and education, want to have ongoing discussions with faculty. They don't want to lecture them. They want to engage with them in a topic that's important and hear their ideas as well as share their own. I believe you may have judged us somewhat unfairly.

  • Crank up instead of cranky whining
  • Posted by Will Hochman , Associate Professor of English & Technology Coordinator at SCSU on February 22, 2007 at 9:45am EST
  • Professor Musgrove is way off base in this editorial. I've trained hundreds of English teachers to teach with computers in their classes and always start with what we know--pedagogy. Instead of whinining about weak faculty development, folks like Musgrove have to understand that pedagogy comes before technology, but in the 21st Century, only idiots can afford to ignore how technology affects learning. Understanding new communication technologies, new research standards, and new students is an ongoing process facilitated by technology when its used professional by good college teachers.

    Clever phrases like faces in books to play of facebook may ring the bells of 20th century teachers too stupid or lazy to update their knowledge, but it really displays an either or attitude toward books and screens that is neither helpful nor true.

    I'm not out to trash Musgrove, just his inane crankiness. It sounds like Musgrove's technolitercy is more advanced than many of my colleagues...and that's the real point. It's not about using new gadgets so much as getting an aging profesoriate to learn about new learning tools.

    Myspace is all about learning spaces--on and offline.

    Will Hochman

  • Here, Here? ... There, There ... From A Nerd In Wonderland
  • Posted by RWH on February 22, 2007 at 9:51am EST
  • I may not have it all down pat, but it strikes me that there are four uses of technology for us teachers. First, there is the technology we use to post handouts and communicate with students ... and I make extensive use of that.

    It’s probably just I, but I have noticed that my students are less inclined to use office hours than they were in the past, but their eagerness to communicate with me on-line more than makes up for it. I especially like that because I have hard-and-fast ground rules for our e-mail communication and it tends to be “all business.”

    Then there are the behind-the-scenes logistics ... maintaining a class schedule, keeping track of student work, keeping track of numerical grades, using some sort of algorithm to “aggregate all grades and convert the aggregation into a final letter grade, sending individual grade reports (with a personalized note) to students, etc. I have become adept at using Microsoft Excel and can’t imagine that I’ll ever need anything else.

    Since I teach mathematics, statistics, and their applications in business and the social sciences, I make extensive use of canned packages like MatLab, Maple, SPSS, ManagementScientist, and the like. That is important to me, but I try to use it judiciously and use it as little as possible in class. In this day and age, I think those programs are indispensable, not necessarily for conceptual learning but in preparation for what my students will encounter when they move on to the workplace.

    Finally, there are all of those “presentation” materials – PowerPoint, for example, is ubiquitous – that, since I don’t make presentations, are of no use to me at all. I think it should be obvious that, for the most part, I’m a “high-tech kind of guy, but when I walk into a classroom, I’m decidedly low tech. Give me a first-rate overhead projector, five Sharpies of different colors, and several dozen blank transparencies ... and turn me loose. I don’t object too vociferously, but I hate to see my students (1) open their laptops and (2) take notes in class.

    I love the insult, “His knowledge of the subject is PowerPoint deep,” and I am in complete agreement with Ed Tufte that “PowerPoint is evil”

    (see http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html).

    I will explain why, in the classroom, I am decidedly low tech by including a blurb from my syllabus for an Introduction to Operations Research course; to wit ...

    “Let me give you my take on the use of mathematics and statistics to solve ‘real-world’ problems. In a very real sense, I believe if Professor A is teaching OR 203, then Professor B should define the homework assignments and Professor A should be completely unaware of what they are. Then, in class, when a student asks, “Can you help me with Problem X?”, that should be the first time Professor A even sees the problem. To assign a problem and then actually work (or otherwise think about) it before the student asks for help is just ‘chicken.’

    Here’s why. How many times have you taken a mathematics course, didn’t know how to work a problem, and then asked the teacher about it in class. Subsequently, slap, bang, whiz the problem is worked by the teacher right before your eyes. And what is your response?

    ‘Oh yea, I see that ... now.’

    ‘That was so simple, I must be pretty stupid not to have seen it myself.’

    ‘Wow, my instructor is really brilliant!’

    ‘Mathematics is not all that difficult ... but I just don’t have an aptitude for it.’

    And what will you have learned about mathematics by witnessing a slick solution to the problem? Hardly anything. Mathematics is about struggling through when you only have a vague notion of what you should be doing. I’ll go even further. The first step in the solution of a problem in which a knowledge of mathematics will come into play is reformulating a written statement of the problem into the language of mathematics. When you have done that, you will have completed more than 50% of the solution. Any instructor who does that for you is doing you a great disservice.

    By the way, none of the four responses above is accurate. Typically, your teacher is not a brilliant person who has a special aptitude for solving mathematics problems ... one that you will never have yourself. The fact of the matter is that, over the years, your teacher will have seen and worked so many problems like the ones that baffle you that he just appears to be brilliant. Take my word for it, he is merely a mortal ... as you are. Furthermore, any instructor who, time after time, gives you slick solutions to problems is doing you a great disservice ... that’s not the way the solution of real-world problems unfolds.”

    So that’s it my friends ... slick presentations may be great for enlightening the board of directors, but the pursuit of knowledge rarely unfolds in such an orderly manner. The classroom should be an environment in which we share knowledge and ideas ... and pose and answer questions ... and send our minds on adventures they are likely to have otherwise ... and if technology helps, so be it. Somehow or other, I think student learning would be greatly improved if we all came to class completely nude and with no additional baggage ... but of course I’ll need my overhead projector.

  • Techno-foul
  • Posted by William Snyder at Saint Vincent College on February 22, 2007 at 9:56am EST
  • Lawrence Musgrove, my favorite contributor here, always has insightful observations. The irony implied in this piece underlies a misguided administrative approach to faculty. We are not monolithic, but at different levels of "engagement" with technology. Yet we faculty are treated in the same way, because administrations perceive a "problem" present in some of the faculty, but do not have the wherewithal to identify or approach persons who "aren't with the program." It's easier for administrators to throw a net over everyone with the hope of catching a few "luddites." Those of us already using technology in creative and reponsible ways are thus bound to be "cranky," because we could be teaching the very material that the consultant is projecting onto the screen. Or at least be using the time to load stuff onto "YouTube."

  • How can a field not exposed to modern trends survive?
  • Posted by CTS at Uganda Studies on February 22, 2007 at 10:50am EST
  • As much as I appreciate and even commiserate with the 'cranky' emotion required to adapt to these new millenials, I am also very aware that higher education is an instution susceptible to marketing trends. Haven't we learned enough by watching the for-profit universities take off (and make millions) by simply appealing to the consumer? I am not suggesting that American universities neglect and circumvent our historical Paris/Oxford roots where a guild of masters determine curriculum. However, we must also realize that students are creatures of habit (as are faculty) and will migrate to preferences. If success for faculty is measured by how well their students learn, then we must teach to their learning pathways - which, unfortunately, requires that we give up some our own outdated methods of preference. I mean, do we really believe the common laws of economics do not apply to world of education?

  • Those who can teach...
  • Posted by feudi pandola on February 22, 2007 at 11:06am EST
  • Huzzahs for Mr. Musgrove! As one reader wrote, I don't think Mr. Musgrove is the sort of teacher who needs his "techno-skills" honed. Teaching is the profession that has the greatest single influence on people for the rest of their lives.

    I'm more worried about sites like "rate my professor" where one of the new criteria recently added was "HOTNESS". What sexual attractiveness has to do with teaching skills is beyond me and only illustrates how shallow our society is getting.

  • classroom technology
  • Posted by pete , professor of biology at north country community college on February 22, 2007 at 11:36am EST
  • When technology is useful and easy to use, people will use it without being hammered on the head about it. No one had to be bribed and cajoled into using cars and telephones. And no one ever kept a roomful of people waiting while they hunted for the right chalk to connect to the blackboard.

  • Why go?
  • Posted by Math Prof on February 22, 2007 at 1:06pm EST
  • Laurence,

    Why I earth do you go to these “professional development days”? I'd never go to such a thing. I can read instructions and I do read about new learning approaches. Does someone make you go? Don't you have tenure there? My university just brought in a “motivational speaker” to tell us to have a positive attitude toward our students. I already do, so I didn't go.

    Are faculty somehow forced to go to these things? If so, couldn't you bring a book to read or some papers to grade?

  • Posted by Paula , Professor at Eastern Research 1 on February 22, 2007 at 2:30pm EST
  • Love the more faces in books! One of the most unexamined and unsupported assumptions in contemporary academic and business culture is the "millennial generation" and the idea that this group is 'born digital" or, at least, "raised digital." There is not one shred of evidence, not one survey, nothing to support these ideas. Yet, institutions make any number of decisions about technology in the classroom based on this perception. I am constantly astonished at the degree to which my students are digitally illiterate and technologically clueless. By the same token, there is an equally unexamined perception that faculty are mossbacked techno-peasants who don't know CSS from RSS. Again, this perception is wholly evidence-free.

  • Read The Assignment Math Prof
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on February 22, 2007 at 2:30pm EST
  • Okay Math Prof, I know you mean well, but I can tell you haven’t read “The End,” the thirteenth and final book in The Series of Unfortunate Events. For, if you had, you would understand that it is not an authoritarian ogre like Count Olaf who has required the faculty of Saint Xavier University to attend these unnecessary workshops.

    I’m quite certain that when Ishmael announced the program he was very careful to say, “I won’t force you” ... but cut me some slack, we all know what that means.

  • Balance
  • Posted by ndsmith on February 23, 2007 at 4:30am EST
  • Look, it's all well and good for Musgrove to rant about lame IT seminars or any other seminars he wishes. But first of all, he should not take it as a personal affront to his competencies if the seminar doesn't meet his personal needs and competency levels. Second, the frustration with what may seem to be a campaign to incorporate technology in the classroom has to be balanced with an understanding of the real utility of that technology and the need to have the conversation about how to properly incorporate technology *with* pedagogy.

    To my mind the sometimes contributor to this online magazine, Ira Socol, is doing a really nice job of compiling some essential teaching resources on the web at his blog:
    http://speedchange.blogspot.com/

  • Posted by Mid-West Prof on February 23, 2007 at 9:51pm EST
  • I admire Mr. Musgrove's ability to be so techno-savvy. My own pet peeve with the admonition to learn more technology to reach my students is that with all my other responsibilities, I don't have time to learn it or time to play with it and figure out what it can do for my teaching. That needs to figure into the equation.

  • Posted by Puplet , If only... on February 24, 2007 at 9:20am EST
  • A few years ago, now, the US Army developed a combat-based video game, designed to teach new recruits about the basics of military strategy. Realising there was a bit of money to be made in it too, they quickly turned it into an XBox game called Full Spectrum Warrior:

    http://www.fullspectrumwarrior.co.uk

    The game continues to be what is, in my mind, the most outstanding example of technology-based teaching in the world. I only played the game once when it first came out, but I can still remember all the basic rules of combat that the game was designed to teach. A particularly harrowing module on 'Suppression Fire and Grenade Deployment' stuck in brain particularly.

    The thing is, though, the US Army paid millions for technology that would be useful in their classrooms to be designed and produced.

    I imagine that many of you non-Luddites would change your views if you were asked to "technologize" (stupid word!) your courses - and then given $100m to do so...

    Thinking bigger than Facebook, then, here are some of the new technologies I'd use if I was given the budget:

    1.) Complete digital facsimiles of the twenty most influential 19th century periodicals and newspapers, that were also searchable.

    2.) State-of-the-art scanning technologies (together with permissions) with which to recreate, for students, the experience of scholarly archival work.

    3.) Travel. Modern passenger planes allow us to visit and begin to appreciate the locales in which the literary texts we study are set.

    4.) Live satellite links / live internet video streaming to major conferences - to see and interact with the latest ideas in scholarship.

    5.) A theatre-space, with the latest lighting and sound equipment, in which students ex could explore the dramatic element of the plays they studied. There should also be a cupboard full of filming equipment for students preferring a more cinematic approach.

    6.) 24-hour video conferencing network for students (especially distance-learners) to explore ideas amongst themselves after-hours.

    7.) And books? Every university student ought to have full access to a copyright library. Otherwise, what we say when we ask them to be original is 'Be as original as you can, given the limitations our university's library. Disregard any information that's available in books that we don't happen to have a copy of.'

  • iCranky
  • Posted by Linda Kvamme , Director, Learning Communities & Faculty development at Lehigh Carbon Community College on February 26, 2007 at 9:10am EST
  • Ouch! As a faculty developer, I know what it is like to offer interesting sessions that no one attends. I ask someone to spend their time preping for the session--without pay--and only 2-3 devoted lifelong learners show up. That's really frustrating. But, I know that our faculty is overworked and tired and skeptical of new trends in education. I just wish I could get some tenured faculty members to stop, think about what they are saying before they speak and inspire their students. Sorry, I'm feeling alittle cranky myself this Monday morning.

  • "The times they are a changin'"
  • Posted by Linda Cupick , Professor of Legal Assisting at Daytona Beach Community College on February 26, 2007 at 6:15pm EST
  • It is not so much about what college students need. Unfortunately, it is about the bottom line. The bottom line is that students want online classes, students want what they are used to. They are used to computers. Students are going to take what they want. At our college online classes fill up first. The goal is to give students what they want while STILL giving students what they need.

    Hopefully having a thorough grasp of our own discipline is not the problem. But sometimes dealing with the technology that is necessary to enroll and retain our students in order for us to keep our careers (and eat tomorrow) may take more effort on our part. It may mean lots of technological professional development!

    I teach business and I want my students to be able to intelligently discuss ideas that matter. Many of them can IM as quickly as I can talk. We need to develop our classes to allow them to learn the skills we want them to learn but learn by the means that they are comfortable with. These two concepts are not incompatible. "The times they are a changin'"

  • Posted by Hal Meeks , We Don't Get IT at North Carolina State University on March 8, 2007 at 8:00am EST
  • Hello Kids,

    This is an old, old discussion. Really. I have seen these arguments for at least 10 years now, but I am sure we can go back further and see complaints about benign things like showing movies in class.

    I have to make this brief, because there is so much I could say about this.

    Is technology mis-applied in education? Of course! But it is also misapplied in our everyday life, so why are you surprised?

    Look: One more time. Technology in education is about scaling. Really. It about doing more with less. Courseware systems emphasize repeatability, scalability. Faculty at some point can become interchangeable for certain types of interactions. It is about efficiency. We can use projection technology to show to a large group what we could write on a piece of paper for a group of 10 students.

    So. The wrong questions get asked because the wrong assumptions are being made. Education. is. expensive. In time, in money, in resources, etc. We just can't get ourselves around that.

    We are only using 1/16th of what the connectivity, digital media, fluid creation, multimodal experiences, group collaboration etc. that can be afforded by this technology. It is still 1970 and Ted Nelson has just come out with Dream Machines/Computer Lib (go back and read it). There are a lot of promises yet not filled.

    Education will change as things around it change. This has nothing to do with NetGen etc. These are BS terms that are designed to sell books. They deny the flow of history, the constant remediation caused by changes in social environments, economics and last but not least, technology and the access to technology.