Search News


Browse Archives

News

Can You Hear Me Now?

August 19, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

As a professor, how do you get dropout-prone college students to stay in school? Give them your cell phone number. How do you get professors to promptly field text messages, calls and e-mails from students? Buy them smartphones and pay for the service plan.

That is the logic Georgia Gwinnett College employed when it decided to offer its more than 300 full- and part-time faculty members cell phones and encouraged them to respond to any calls or texts from students within 24 hours.

Under the program, professors are offered a state-of-the-art smartphone and a Sprint data plan that includes the most sophisticated wireless Internet coverage. It is part of a several-tier effort by Georgia Gwinnett — a public, four-year, noncompetitive-admissions college founded in 2005 — to defy the historically low retention rates typical of colleges that set such a modest bar for admission (Georgia Gwinnett admits any Georgia high school graduate).

And so far, they say, it is working. The retention rate for returning sophomores at Georgia Gwinnett stands at 75 percent. That is about double the average rate for noncompetitive-admissions colleges in Georgia, according to Tom Mundie, dean of the school of science and technology at Georgia Gwinnett, and on par with many public institutions that have competitive admissions. In engagement surveys, Mundie says, students have reported “feeling that faculty care about and are accessible to them.”

These plaudits and retention numbers are not driven solely by invitations to call or text professors and expect a reasonably swift response, Mundie says. Other aspects of the college’s retention effort probably contribute as well, including small class sizes and a mentoring program that arranges for professors to advise students on academic, career, and personal matters. But professors and administrators at the college seem to believe there is a substantial correlation between the cell phone program and the young institution’s impressive retention numbers -- enough that the college, which has grown its student body and faculty by leaps and bounds since its founding five years ago, is preparing to spend $350,000 on faculty cell phones and data plans this year.

That works out to about $1,000 per faculty member — a significant investment, and one Lonnie D. Harvel, Georgia Gwinnett’s vice president for instructional technology, is hesitant to divulge, given the eagerness of Georgia legislators to find anything to cut. Georgia Gwinnett sprung for some pretty sophisticated gadgets: for full-time professors, it offers Motorola Evo smartphones with Google’s Android operating system and 4G coverage. For part-time professors, it offers Sprint’s HTC Snap smartphone, which is lighter-weight but still retails for several hundred dollars. The college offers the professors regular upgrades. Professors can make the college-funded phone their only phone, and there is no ban on using it for nonwork purposes (Georgia Gwinnett's deal with Sprint allows additional activity on the network without added costs). If the professors do not want the phones, the college offers to pay the bill on their existing cell phones as long as they put the contact number on their syllabuses.

Harvel says that if state legislators try to frame publicly funded Georgia Gwinnett’s cell phone giveaway as wasteful, he’s “ready to fight that battle.” He says the college has observed a bump in faculty productivity as a result of the phones equivalent to “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in labor. For example, Georgia Gwinnett faculty are not required to hold office hours — the idea being that a big bulk of outside-of-class communication with students can be handled via the mobile devices, allowing faculty to deploy their energies on other things. Also, the desktop phone bills are down and inter-faculty communication is up, Harvel says. “A cost analysis demonstrates that the program saves more money than it costs,” Harvel says (though he adds that the benefits are “only valid if the institution is intent on expending resources on student engagement”).

A Burden on Professors?

So the cell phone program appears to be a boon for student engagement, but is it a threat to faculty sanity? Does giving students such access and pledging a prompt response invite a deluge of text messages — sometimes at odd hours, sometimes inane or easily answerable elsewhere — that might leave professors feeling held hostage by the technology?

Apparently not, according to a handful of professors contacted at random by Inside Higher Ed.

“I’ve never known a professor to keep business hours, anyway,” says Brigitte Clifton, an English professor. “…Yes, I've talked a student through a research assignment on my cell in the grocery store while contemplating a bag of beans, but several folks in the aisle around me were doing the same thing in their own lines of work.”

Tee Barron, an associate professor of mathematics, says she sometimes gets texts from students asking questions that they could easily have answered by consulting a classmate or the syllabus, but that can be corrected with a benign rebuke. “I’ll sometimes text back, ‘Hahaha by the time it took me to e-mail or text me you could have found this out yourself and now you’re going to have to anyway,' ” Barron says. “I think after the first couple times the [students] who are high-maintenance and try that — they start getting it.” She said she is contacted "daily" by students via her phone, but has hardly been overwhelmed.

The key is defining boundaries at the outset, they say. While professors say the college encourages a 24-hour response time, they say it is a guideline more than an enforced rule, and that they have the autonomy to lay out expectations — and limitations — to students on a class-by-class basis. The idea is not so much to turn professors into a 24/7 support service as much as to establish a connection with students that ventures, to a reasonable extent, into the world of real-time, person-to-person interchange.

“Even those students with perhaps unreasonable expectations for communications will learn that the professor is not at their immediate disposal, but that we are readily available for questions outside of class,” says Clifton. “In my real-world experience, bosses have much more rigid expectations of access and response outside of office hours.”

Engagement, after all, is a two-way street, says Mundie, the technology and sciences dean; faculty are expected to be responsive to the needs of students, just as students are expected to be responsive to the expectations of their professors.

And if a student skips a few class sessions, he says, “They might even get a call on their cell phone.”

For the latest technology news from Inside Higher Ed, follow IHEtech on Twitter.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Can You Hear Me Now?

  • Can You Hear Me Know?
  • Posted by Dr. David Walter Aguado , Assistant Prof. Spanish & ESOL at VALDOSTA STATE UNIVERSITY on August 19, 2010 at 6:30am EDT
  • I love technology and I use it my classroom pretty much every day. But, this phone thing is simply ridiculous! We could also take the students to our homes, feed them, clothe them, make sure they're warm!
    I remember sitting through a film 15 times in a theater -trying to learn the dialogue- when I was trying to learn English in Cuba in the late 60s -without the benefits of any type of technology at all. Was it hard? You bet! Was it possible? You bet your life it was! Here I am!
    How many more bells and whistles are we going to provide our students with in our zeal to teach them?
    Only those truly committed to learn will do so. Our history is full of examples of people who learned, who succeeeded -against insurmountable odds.
    This constant "cuddling" is not productive. We are creating a nation of emotionally dependent individuals.
    In my 30 years plus as an educator, I have seen little empirical evidence that the overabundance of technology actually translates into language proficiency.
    Gwinnett is trying to be popular with the students. We shall see how that goes...

  • Posted by Anon on August 19, 2010 at 8:45am EDT
  • This institution also has no tenure system. I wonder how many faculty members feel pressured into taking the phones and being at the beck and call of their students. On thing that the psychologist at my institution tells us is to create clear boundaries between faculty and students--don't create a false sense of friendship or personal support. This phone thing can't be good for this and any number of other reasons.

  • tax implications
  • Posted by Curious , president at southwestern michigan college on August 19, 2010 at 9:15am EDT
  • I am curious. We have been advised that providing phones to our employees who need them, and allowing them to use these phones for personal use, runs afoul of the IRS. For this reason, at our institution we have moved to providing taxable stipends to those employees who need phones. It is more cumbersome, but I was led to believe that it was the only way to proceed legally. Has this institution considered the tax liability issues of providing a benefit that is not reported for taxing purposes?

  • Posted by ADD on August 19, 2010 at 9:45am EDT
  • I don't need a smart phones to respond to students within 24 hours. Email or a message on my office phone (during the week) will get a prompt response. Maybe that isn't the preferred way for some students to communicate, but I refuse to give out my cell phone (or home) number to them. They need to learn a little independence, not call or text whenever they encounter the slightest difficulty.

  • And we wonder why college is so expensive!
  • Posted by Jeanne Phoenix Laurel , Assoc Prof & Chair English at Niagara University on August 19, 2010 at 11:00am EDT
  • Okay; I'm not sold on the plan myself (I fear for my sanity with 24/7 accessibility). But college culture lead by our administrators is asking us to do more, more, more, MORE for our students, well beyond the TEACHING we did a scant decade ago. I have to market, recruit, retain, engage, raise self-esteem, motivate, uplift, assess, counsel, advise, track down, find jobs for, court alumni... Call me a toothpaste tube, and squeeze me at both ends, plus stomp on my middle.

    There's also a thread running through various academic publications and public forums (NY Times, eg) complaining about high cost of college. Students & helicopter parents have been led to expect this kind of hand-holding. It's how most of us small-ish liberal arts colleges think we're going to survive in the future.

    This is part of what's driving up the costs--not rock walls, spas or gourmet dining experiences. Because when my toothpaste escapes the tube, not only am I going to be a burned out wreck, but the logical answer to my failure will be for administrators to hire specialists in hand-holding, engaging, etc.

  • Great Idea, Great Results
  • Posted by Phil on August 19, 2010 at 11:15am EDT
  • Obviously this doesn't work for the majority of full-time elitist faculty at selective colleges, but for this college and the commitment of the faculty, it is working, and benefiting the students, which - newsflash - this is all about.

  • Posted by rebuke this on August 19, 2010 at 12:30pm EDT
  • "Tee Barron, an associate professor of mathematics, says she sometimes gets texts from students asking questions that they could easily have answered by consulting a classmate or the syllabus, but that can be corrected with a benign rebuke. “I’ll sometimes text back, ‘Hahaha by the time it took me to e-mail or text me you could have found this out yourself and now you’re going to have to anyway,' ” Barron says. “I think after the first couple times the [students] who are high-maintenance and try that — they start getting it.” She said she is contacted "daily" by students via her phone, but has hardly been overwhelmed."

    That's a very sad example. I got the same thing when I was in grad school in computer science: get one of your classmates to help, we are just here to do our research. As the only woman in an all male and mostly foreign national class I had no "friends" to fall back on in the class. With sex and country in the way a person would have to be the most outgoing person in the world to make friends in a class like that, and I wasn't. No value to giving the prof some hyper expensive perk and then letting them "rebuke" students! That's the faculty attitude that makes outsourcing to canned content look like a great idea. It doesn't do value added communications but it also doesn't need hugely expensive perks.

  • Faculty cell phones and student engagement
  • Posted by Dr. Kenneth W. Johnson , Associate Professor of Anthropology at Georgia Gwinnett College on August 19, 2010 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Try it, you'll like it!

  • Excuse me?
  • Posted by Prof. Mac , Professor/English on August 19, 2010 at 12:30pm EDT
  • As someone who does not teach at a selective, elitist college, Phil, you need to listen up. Programs such as the one described are potentially damaging, to say the very least. While they might work in the short term, they hurt the students. Look at any survey of industry executive/HR people, etc. and they all say the same thing. College graduages, overall, are irresponsible, unprofessional, and not prepared for the so-called "real world." Providing them with coddling like this only perpetuates the situation.

    I teach in a college very similar to the one described. If our administration suggested something on this order, I can guarantee that the faculty would quit en masse.

    If administrators truly want us to "engage" with our students, they need to cut class sizes and, in the case of community colleges, course loads, so that we can truly spend the appropriate time with our students rather than feel like we are herding cats. What needs to change is the overall philosophy of education, not the types of toys used.

  • This is communication, not coddling
  • Posted by Michael on August 19, 2010 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Most of the comments here are so illustrative of the disconnect between faculty and students.

    I have given my cell phone number to all of my students for seven years as a professor. And in my experience, the BEST students communicate with me via phone or text, regularly. My students do extensive amounts of work in the field where I cannot be with them. I encourage them to call me with questions or when situations arise where they need my expertise -- which is EXACTLY what professionals in my field expect. Unfortunately, faculty think if a student does not already know it all, then there is something wrong with them. Faculty, you are there to teach them. If they are asking questions, that's not a sign of a bad student. It's a sign of one who wants to learn.

    Dr. Aguado seems to think if a student uses a phone to communicate with a professor, they are exhibiting an unwillingness to learn. Actually, if they call or text you, it is because they want to learn. This is not coddling, it is instruction.

    What faculty need to realize is, most people don't communicate via lecture, or even phone. Most communication happens via facebook and text. The students are actually exhibiting skills they need to survive in the world where they will work, not the one you worked in back in grad school.

    If ADD can get back in 24 hours to a student via other means, that's great. Just know that your students text 100 times more than they use the phone or email. It's not their goto medium. That's not wrong, it's the world they are growing up in.

    And Prof Mac, you fail to convince me of the case that more communication outside of class time equals a lack of responsibility, professionalism, or preparedness. I have to convince my students it is OK to call me. Most want to, but can't believe that an authority figure would deign to try to instruct them, or counsel them. Maybe if we started doing our job better, our students would learn how to ask questions at the right time, in the right way, and how to be responsible, professional, and prepared.

    Get used to it faculty, the 21st century will not be the one in which you were born, went to school, to worked. It is the one in which our students will work. You may have to change a little of how you communicate. You can still teach your expertise, but at least be open to students who want to learn. By all means, set some boundaries on your time. But show your students that like them, you can learn a new thing or two.

  • Cell Phone Program Benefits Faculty
  • Posted by Kristina Watkins Mormino , Asst. Prof. of French at Georgia Gwinnett College on August 19, 2010 at 3:15pm EDT
  • For those who are skeptical, please let me clarify a few things:

    Each faculty member at GGC has a technology covenant with students (included on the syllabus). In this covenant, we really can define what usage we commit to, and what we consider off-limits. I do not feel pressured to use technologies that are beyond my comfort level or to be at the students' beck and call. If they call my GGC cell phone, I don't have to pick up, if it's not convenient for me right then. When they leave a message, I get back with them within one business day. So a student calling will not reach me at 2:00 some Saturday night. That student can leave a message and can be sure to hear back from me by Monday afternoon. Also, I keep a personal cell phone that I pay for myself. If I'm in off-duty mode, I turn off the GGC cell phone. The only inconvenience to me is that I carry two cell phones. Students are not privy to my private cell number.

    Do students deluge me with pleas for hand-holding? Absolutely not! By contrast, my husband, who is not an academic, gets calls and texts on his cell phone from work all the time and at all hours. Since his company has not provided him with a cell phone, this is sometimes at our household's expense. We are certainly not giving the students inaccurate expectations of the "real world" by modeling that they, in their professional lives, may be expected to work from a cell phone outside of their offices.

    And this program BENEFITS FACULTY. I don't have to waste ten hours a week sitting in an office hoping that a student or two will actually show up. If a student needs to meet, s/he e-mails or calls me for an appointment. If one of us is running late, we can call each other. If I don't have to be on campus on a given day, I can telecommute without a student, book rep, or colleague ever seeing my home number on their caller i.d. (In case you didn't know, Atlanta traffic and air quality are nothing to joke about, so telecommuting is important!) If I have an emergency and urgently need to contact a whole class or someone on campus, I can do so easily. Having a GGC cell phone is liberating, not onerous.

    Look. We're an open-access school. It's unethical to accept students with varying levels of college readiness and not attempt to actually educate all of them. We're not trying to be "popular" with students. We're trying to be welcoming to them and supportive of them. I'm not going to apologize for that. This is one way that students can communicate questions and concerns or even information that enriches the whole community without taking too much of their professors' time.

    -KWM

    p.s. Concerning the criticism that Tee Barron should answer all of her students' questions, let's be clear. She rebukes her students for asking questions that are answered in the materials she has already provided them and gone over with them. Anyone who knows her would take her tone as playful, but her message as straightforward. If a student legitimately needs help, I know from experience that she spares nothing to see that the student gets it. She is one of the most dedicated educators you'll ever meet, but she makes her students rise to expectations.

  • Great Idea
  • Posted by David , Professor of Chemistry on August 19, 2010 at 3:15pm EDT
  • This is a great idea if the objective is solely seat time, as is increasingly the case in the eyes of many an administration. When it comes to education, however, who is fooling who? This kind of codependency catering to the lowest of human tendencies on the part of both students and their teachers is what any administration concerned about student individuation and responsibility for student learning would best shun like the plague were they truly concerned about either their students or their students' education.

    This has little to do with a "burden on professors" but rather on the infantilization and crippling of the student, a use of technology to foster a mentality of helplessness among an entire student population. It appears the administration has discovered a method to effectively deceive their students and fleece them at the same time. One can predict such a practice will spread like wildfire. Employers be warned.

  • Posted by Eveningsun on August 19, 2010 at 3:30pm EDT
  • @ Michael: Of course faculty should change (and in fact they have changed) the way they communicate. But that hardly means that said change should follow the Gwinnett College model. Doctors and lawyers and other professionals have also changed the ways they communicate with their patients and clients, but they nonetheless continue to very strictly control the mode and timing of that communication. Faculty can and should continue to exercise similar control.

    You write that "I encourage [students] to call me with questions or when situations arise where they need my expertise -- which is EXACTLY what professionals in my field expect." Well, obviously your field is not medicine or law.

  • Kudos to forward-thinking organizations!
  • Posted by Dr. Sarah Elaine Eaton , Faculty and Research Associate at University of Calgary, Canada on August 19, 2010 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Michael, I second your thoughts. I have been teaching since 1994 and I began giving my home phone number out to students in 1995. Not my cell phone number (I didn't have a cell at the time) - my home phone number. I'm in the phone book anyway, so they could have looked me up, if they'd been so inclined.

    When I got a cell phone number, I gave them that number, too.

    In 15 years of teaching, my experience has been overwhelmingly positive. How many students call me? Very few. Are they the whiners with an entitlement complex? Absolutely not. In my experience, those who use the phone are engaged learners who want to reach out.

    Instead of coddling students, I used it as a tool to insist that they become responsible learners. They have absolutely no excuses - zero - when it comes to accessing information about the course or the course material.

    And no, this does not put us on call 24/7. Telephones, like computers, have off switches.

    Being connected to your superiors, colleagues and others in a professional situation using a mobile device is what the 21st century is all about. If my institution wanted to give me an iPhone to stay in touch with my students, I'd be tickled pink.

    Bravo, I say, to traditional institutions with a modern approach to learning!

  • Georgia Gwinnett and Student Success
  • Posted by Michael Poliakoff , Policy Director at American Council of Trustees and Alumni on August 19, 2010 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Whether or not the cell phone proves an effective instrument of student retention, George Gwinnett deserves praise for its dedication to academic advancement and student success. It has also committed itself to a strong core curriculum, including two courses in English composition, serious college-level mathematics, two semesters of natural science with laboratory work, and a U.S. History and Government requirement. It thus earned a “B” rating in the recent WhatWillTheyLearn.com ratings of 714 colleges and universities, gaining a much higher grade for its general education than many schools with far more wealth and resources.

  • The old world order is dying
  • Posted by Brent on August 20, 2010 at 12:45am EDT
  • I don't even know where to start with the nay-sayers here.
    I think the real problem is the amazing lack of foresight. I hate to tell those of you who "have been educators for XX years", but that's not a positive trait in this debate. What it shows me is that you're intellectually stuck in a 9-5 society. The world is changing, and if you're not willing to change with it, you will quickly become obsolete. Universities and colleges are quickly losing their grip on the monopoly on information. Technology is a game-changer in ways you don't seem to grasp.
    The national white collar work scene is 24/7. Blackberrys buzz and chirp at all hours of the night. We work on presentations until 5pm only to pass it to our office in Beijing which picks it up and works on it until we come back to work the next day. Managers expect full access and full buy-in from their employees. Don't you think that the college environment should mirror the workplace? To prepare the student for "real life"? I know that students work 24/7; are their professors exempt?
    If you believe yourself worthy of shaping the next generation of America's white collar workforce, then it is imperative that you understand how they think/work/live. Technology is the way they communicate. Period. If you want to huff and pout and force them to meet you during inefficiently implemented office hours, that's your prerogative. But do not lambast a forward-thinking institution which believes that higher education should be about meeting the student on a plane on which he or she can best learn.
    Today's young workforce is redefining a host of previously untouchable concepts like the link between formal education and fulfilling work and the educational elite's stranglehold on information. If you want to remain relevant, you must be willing to meet today's student where he or she is.
    I find it ironic how innovative universities are in their research programs, yet they refuse to incorporate that modern thinking into their view of the higher education construct. Colleges like GGC exist for the student. They do not have to walk the tightrope of research vs. students, so their sole purpose is preparing the student for his or her next phase of life. Technology and a 24/7 workplace are a huge portion of that.
    And you don't want to get me started on tenure. Professors have a great racket going there. The context in which it was brought up pertained to non-tenured professors feeling "pressure". Pressure to do what? Perform at their best? Meet the needs of the students? Please enlighten me why being a college professor should be the world's only profession immune from pressure to perform. Tenure might have a defensible purpose in the McCarthy era, but its usefulness has long passed. Professors are protected by wrongful termination laws the same way the rest of us are.
    So bravo, GGC! Someone has to take the first step toward innovation and carry the banner for students' interests. I'm saddened by those who oppose it.
    These truths I speak are the future. I say lead, follow, or get out of the way.

  • Works for me
  • Posted by Lesley Smith , Associate Professor at New Century College, George Mason University on August 20, 2010 at 11:15am EDT
  • I've given students my cell 'phone number for for a few years now, and I've almost always been impressed by the professionalism my students show in contacting me. The majority of the queries I receive are about specific nuances of assignments. I would much rather exchange texts with a student to clarify a particular approach, or suggest a helpful reading for that approach, while the student is working on his or her response than provide suggestions on how the response might be strengthened after the student has completed a major piece of work.

  • Posted by Tech convert on August 20, 2010 at 12:15pm EDT
  • The flow of the responses provides insights into the larger debate about technology and teaching. The highly critical first responses are highly critical, citing the imminent fall of higher education. Then we read the more reasoned and informed responses. I wonder if Guternberg had the same response from the campuses of his day?

  • Posted by 312ells , prof on August 20, 2010 at 4:45pm EDT
  • Tech convert: Guternberg? What were you converted from?

  • Posted by David , Professor of Chemistry on August 20, 2010 at 7:45pm EDT
  • So, now that there is 'new and improved' technology, new prostheses to plug into our heads to facilitate the worst of behaviors in students, codependent behaviors counterproductive to expectations that would pull people up from their prior state of knowledge, we are to implement this stuff? Just because CNN alights on anything 'new and noteworthy' is neither adequate nor sufficient reason that the university do so with regard to electronic devices.

    If the student didn't listen and take notes when instructions were given in the first place it is likely because she/he was fiddling around with a "portable electronic device" and didn't pay attention in the first place. So now they deserve OUR attention? Now the professor is to be at their beck and call and repeat him/herself by a personal phonecall back to the student? What makes us think the student will "get the message" the second time other than the fact it is has been "personally" delivered, one-on-one at the student's convenience? What is running the show here? It doesn't have to be power although it certainly is when the professoriate is run ragged by the lowest of the unlearned. It would better be ascent to authority, the authority of knowledge that the professoriate represents and is not to confuse himself/herself with. Can you say narcissism? Anyone who thinks letting laziness and low level human behaviors call the shots and set the tenor for "the way we think about the classroom" might seriously question whether they belong in the profession of educating students for their futures or that of civilization.

    And what about the student who wants to check on the assignment because "I wasn't sure what you wanted?" Perhaps the professor purposefully built ambiguity into the assignment in order to get the student to exercise his/her own judgment, and to move education off the "do exactly what you are told and nothing more" mode? Similar to students who want to ask questions during exams because "I don't know what you are asking" nor would they since they didn't prepare themselves to come to the exam knowing in the face of open-ended questions they would be asked. Do you believe faculty are to cater to such obvious and lame excuses for not-knowing? If so I suggest there is a very low educational expectation afoot from the very first in your own classroom, one that the trappings of "new and improved technology" no matter how many 'user friendly options' there are will never be able to address.

    The world is changing? Good grief. At least read Ecclesiastes: "There is nothing new under the sun." New gadgetry notwithstanding that is. People can be just as narcissistic as they were centuries ago, just as needy, just as lazy, just as anti-authoritarian. They can be just as willfully ignorant, resistant to wanting to learn, willing to be coddled, and seeking the maximum rewards with the lowest possible effort, wanting nothing to do with anything that looks like a formal system of knowledge. Faculty can be just as condescending to the lowest levels of behavior in their students--minimum expectations--by giving attention to the worst of these counterproductive behaviors. Equipping and being 'fully' equipped with "just in time" "just for me" technology has, in fact, become the most egregious method of hiding from ourselves and our students the insidious and crippling effect on their education that such attention to the lowest common denominator of behaviors has.

    However, people can be just as aspiring, idealistic, desiring for knowledge and learning, passionate for becoming as they are sheer lazy. Which side of the coin are we going to cater to?

    Discussions like these ultimately reduce themselves to the bedrock of "Generations have learned without gadgets." To which the response is "They learned in spite of the LACK of such gadgets. Just think what they could have done WITH them." To which many of us respond: "we will believe it when we see it." Because students are addicted to gadgets we are to promote their use? A reality check on the dangers of addiction is in order here.

    I find the argument that "today's students are different and learn differently" to be sheer speculation. Not expecting them to learn in a traditional manner they never shall, and we shall never know whether they could have or not. And outfitting them with technological prostheses remains undemonstrated over the longer term when it comes to whether they will be competitive with previous productive generations of college graduates. In short, the argument that students are now "different" smacks of nothing but condescension and a veiled pity for them as being lost with their salvation being the bric-a-brac of technical devices that we--saviors of the lost, self-appointed do-gooders, that is to say, insecure--are to wire into their heads, clutter their attention and divert them from what learning could mean--were we the professoriate and their administrations not so desperate and pseudo innovation-prone for misguided ends that are overly-biased toward gadgets rather than education that goes far beyond the individual student and reaches into the future.

  • Mirror?
  • Posted by David , Professor of Chemistry on August 20, 2010 at 7:45pm EDT
  • "Don't you think that the college environment should mirror the workplace?"

    to Brent: Merely because the workplace is going to hell, no, I don't think the college environment should in any way mirror it.

  • Millennials are awesome
  • Posted by Brent on August 22, 2010 at 3:30pm EDT
  • David, you have highlighted exactly that which I find to be higher education’s worst trait. Your ivory tower must be cold in the winter, yes? Your PhD does not give you the corner on the information market, nor does it knight you decider of workplace trends and future success requirements. As recently as 20 years ago it did, but the internet has turned the paradigm on its head. Young people ARE learning differently, thinking differently, and working differently. If you’re not willing to change your teaching style, then you fall further out of favor with students and perpetuate your ilk’s nosedive into self aggrandizing anonymity.

     

    What’s the difference between gracing the “lowest of the unlearned” with one-on-one time during office hours as opposed to talking to them on the phone? You want all communication to be on your terms instead of theirs to bolster your “professoriate’s” ego.

     

    There is something ironic about using a 2000 year old text to refute an argument that the world is changing. The internet has changed everything…

     

    I think part of the reason stuck-in-the-mud college professors are so down on generation Y, is that the internet and the early accomplishments of many of its ranks have been the first wide-ranging assault on the supremacy of the higher education construct. Ask Mark Zuckerberg how important higher education is to success… or for that matter Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, etc. If you discount the trend, you’re guaranteeing yourself a front row seat to your own triviality.

     

    This comment list is an admittedly small sample size, but it’s interesting to me that those who are against the idea presented have not tried it. Not one person with experience has commented negatively. College professors are supposed to be full-time experimenters… try it one semester and see what happens. You can always revert back to not caring about your students later.

  • I've read through the argument, and I agree with both sides
  • Posted by John R. , Director and Adjunct Professor on August 24, 2010 at 11:30am EDT
  • I like the notion of using technology to make student-instructor communication more efficient. I can remember spending many hours on my college campus, walking to my professor’s office, hoping to find someone there, rather than a locked door. Besides, my students have been able to reach me by email for at least decade, and I usually answer within 24 hours; I can’t find any harm in letting them use a more preferred mode of communication, especially if the university is going to pick up the tab. I don’t see this as the demise of a generation, or view it as mere coddling to a group of students who are often in dire need of a rude awakening.
    That said, I can see how this might be abused as well, and how some professors might be rightly cynical. It IS frustrating when students act like it’s no big deal to miss class, when they fail to follow simple instructions, when they routinely turn in shoddy work, or when they unwittingly reveal their desire to obtain a diploma rather than an education. I once had a student call me “pompous and arrogant” for telling him where to find the final exam schedule on the university’s website, rather than help him make his spring break travel plans by looking it up myself (while I was at work at another job). I had another student miss our first five classes (out of 20 for the term), and then have the audacity to ask me if he had “missed anything” yet; this same student also showed up 35 minutes late for the midterm exam, strutting in with a broad smile as if nothing was awry. Fortunately, the bulk of my students have been far more responsible than this.
    As an educator, I try to be as approachable as possible. This is very rewarding work when I’m dealing with bright, ambitious students who are eager to learn; it can be almost maddening when students only want to know what’s going to be on the test, so they can get their 3 or 4 credits and move along. I suspect many proponents of this idea have had much experience dealing with the former, and many of the opponents have had more than their fair share of dealing with the latter. I wouldn’t mind sharing my phone number – with the right group of students.

  • Posted by Laura on August 24, 2010 at 8:15pm EDT
  • Students can text their questions to their profs email and can now get their email on their phones, so there shouldn't even be a difference.