BlogU

  • Technology Mirage

    By Joshua Kim January 11, 2010 8:12 pm EST

    Contrary to our popular image, those of us who work in technology are often skeptical about its potential. We know, from long experience, all the ways that technology can underperform and fail. We understand that those pushing technologies are often out to sell something, a product or an agenda, and it is our role to be skeptical.

    A quick diversion to the world of security technology. Did you see the article this weekend in the L.A. Times about the future of airport security?

    The article talks about emerging security technologies, such as the WeCU "we see you" sensor system designed to pick up non-voluntary signals of malicious intent through the measurement of eye movement, increased heartbeat, changed berating etc. Other technologies undergoing testing include rapid lie detection systems (based on pupil dilation or other physical signals), what Homeland Security is calling Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST).

    These technologies are contrasted with the Israeli model, one that relies on highly trained screeners conducting in-depth screening sessions combined with profiling. The Israeli model has proven successful (El Al is the world's most secure airline), but many are concerned about the high cost in time, logistics and training that this model would impose. Everyone agrees that the Israeli model is the gold standard of security, but the realities of airline timetables, passenger loads, and expense make it impossible to enact this standard throughout our airline security system.

    Airport security is much like education.The gold standard of teaching and learning is an oval table, a professor, and 12 or so students. The reality of our higher education system is that all of our classes cannot look like the seminar I just described. It would be too expensive to make every lecture class a seminar. Therefore, we try to use technology to leverage our existing resources (inputs), in order to make larger lecture classes feel and act more like smaller seminar courses.

    Technology, when combined and motivated by best practices in course design and learning theory, can be very effective in increasing the efficacy (and enjoyment) of courses. Some basic examples include the practice of developing a narrative course structure, including learning outcomes and activities, within a learning management system. Effective course design can also include opportunities for student collaboration and creation, moving the learning experience from passive to active. Frequent, low-stakes assessments (closely tied to learning activities), can reinforce learning. Media can be utilized to reach diverse learning styles. Students can become active participants in creating knowledge through blogs, wikis, and discussion boards. Presentation capture systems can free students from the need to be scribes and encourage active listening for comprehension. All of these tools, when paired with effective pedagogies, can help large classes act and feel more like small classes.

    But as much as our technologies evolve, and as much as our theory and practice grow to underpin the usage of these learning technologies, a lecture class will never be as effective as a seminar. Given the choice, I'd agree to instantly wipe away every learning technology in exchange for all classes being taught around an oval table with 12 participants. We can work towards a gold standard (the seminar), and it is helpful to have this image in mind, but technology will never get us all the way there. That is the technology mirage.

    Same thing in airport security. I'm not against advanced screening and other "malicious intent detection" technologies. I just know that they are no substitute for the Israeli model.

    It is up to those of us who work in learning technology to be the first ones to point to technologies shortcomings and limitations.

    Is the "seminar" also your model of an ideal course? Has anyone done the math about what it would cost to turn every college course into a seminar? (And what would be save on all the learning technologies if we replaced them with oval tables?). Are we doing a good enough job talking about the limitations, as well as the potential, of learning technologies in higher ed?

Go to comments (4) »
Advertisement
On the Job Market Together?

Comments on Technology Mirage

  • Maybe
  • Posted by Steve Greenlaw , Professor of Economics at University of Mary Washington on January 12, 2010 at 8:45am EST

  • While I agree with that a 12 student seminar is a very effective way to teach, it's not true that a seminar is always better than a larger technology-enhanced course. I've seen plenty of seminars that were taught pretty unimaginatively with students who were not engaged in the process. I have also seen some pretty clever uses of technology to bring a seminar-like atmosphere to a much larger class. As just one example, technology can induce shy students to take a more active role in the learning process, when the same student would never say a word in a face-to-face environment.

    None of this really disputes your underlying argument. Fundamentally, it's not the class size that matters, but the design of the learning environment. (Qualification: I've never taught a class with more than 75 students so I can't speak personally to classes larger than that.)

    The money question is how can technology be used systematically to enhance learning in large classes. I know some ad hoc ways it can be done, but they don't fundamentally change the nature of the large lecture course where the underlying ethos is that teaching is about knowledge transmission. I suspect that's where the larger potential gains are to be had.

    P.S. IMHO the best class to teach is a technology-enhanced seminar. ;-)

  • Real teaching...
  • Posted by Dennis Grafflin , Professor of History at Bates College on January 12, 2010 at 8:45am EST

  • I fundamentally agree with Joshua Kim, but "12 students & an oval table" is the "gold standard" only because he can't imagine being taken seriously if he pointed to what every parent knows -- that a 1:3 student(child):teacher(parent) ratio would work a lot better than the 1:2 of the idealized two-parent household, and teaching other people's children really isn't so different. I recall as a graduate student hearing an eminent Harvard professor dismiss working with a group of 12 students as "crowd control, not teaching." Allow me to be the first to repeat (later President) Garfield's famous praise of the 1:1 ratio, "Give me a log hut, with only a simple bench, [Williams College president] Mark Hopkins on one end and I on the other, and you may have all the buildings, apparatus and libraries without him." All arguments for larger ratios are concessions to economic realities, nothing more.

  • took words right our of my mouth
  • Posted by Carter on January 12, 2010 at 12:15pm EST

  • I appreciate that Mr. Greenlaw made my point better than I would have. Bull's eye.

  • Consider the course
  • Posted by Brian Reid at Dartmouth Medical School on January 13, 2010 at 5:00am EST

  • Does thinking that there is a single gold standard may lead you away from the possibility that the "best" learning environment may be drastically different depending on the subject, the instructor, the students, the school? I remember taking a calculus course were the students worked problems at chalkboards in a maze of small rooms through which the instructor and TAs circulated. Lots of learning, and an oval table would have gotten in the way. I taught many chemistry courses where a lot of learning actually happened in the lab. I've seen effective guided-inquiry classes where multiple small tables were good for students working in smaller groups. And (dare I say it?) a good lecture course can be just that - good.

    Technology seems appropriate when it addresses some pedagogical problem: something that is hard to teach (e.g. where visualizations might be used), something that is boring to teach (e.g. online drill for chemical nomenclature), some situation where students are not prepared (e.g. simulations for pre-lab preparation), something that needs to be practiced and reviewed (e.g. video recording presentations). But the needs and the technical solutions may vary drastically between courses.

    I did read the airline security article and thought that, while the Israelis may offer some very good ideas, the section on adapting and varying security measures for different airports was interesting. For education, consider the course and how technology could be used to help in a particular aspect.

Print
© Copyright 2011 Inside Higher Ed