"Academic Matters" is a journal of higher education published by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA). The Winter 2006 issue contains several articles on a subject that's dear to my heart—the role of new technolgy in university teaching.I'm old enough to remember when television was going to revolutionize university teaching. Back in the 1960's all new lecture theaters were constructed with multiple TV sets dangling from the ceiling. The new technology was going to change lectures forever. No longer would Professors be standing at the front of the lecture room. Instead, they would prepare their lectures in a TV studio and students would watch them on the small screen. Only the best Professors from all over the world would be giving the introductory lectures in biology and physics.
When I arrived at the University of Toronto in 1978 there was a huge TV studio on the main floor of this building. Two years later it was gone. What happened?
Computers were the new technology. By the end of the 1980's we were teaching students how to access remote databases and how to communicate by email. We set up our first course newsgroup in 1989. A few years later (1995) we created class websites and by 2000 everyone was using powerpoint. Today there are entire courses given electronically (e-learning) and podcasts are all the rage in some circles.
Does any of this improve education? I doubt it. There are still Professors who write on the blackboard and don't know the first thing about Dreamweaver (ugh!) or XML. There's no evidence that students in their class are suffering.
This is the issue that's explored in the latest edition of Academic Matters.
But when all is said and done, how much has information and communications technology changed university life? What has been its effect on faculty and students? Has it made a meaningful difference in the quality and quantity of learning that takes place on campuses?Heather Kanuka is a Professor at Athabaska University, a school that has specialized in e-learning. She cautions that there is little empirical data to support the grandiose claims of e-learning [Has e-learning delivered on its promise?]. There's no evidence that it is as effective as standard lectures, and there's no evidence that it is even cost-effective. Peter Sawchuck (University of Toronto) cautions us to keep e-learning in its proper place [Curbing our enthusiasm: the underbelly of educational technology.
There are three other articles. They all express skepticism about the claims of the new technology. None of the articles are written by Luddites who don't know how to use the new technology and that's what make them so interesting.
I'm not an academic, so I won't comment on the usefulness of E-learning as a replacement for conventional university teaching, but I think it is a wonderful thing for "lay education". How else could I "attend" lectures in neuroscience by Richard Sapolsky,
ReplyDeleteor take all those great MIT courses that I missed while I was there because I was too busy getting my degree?
How do you measure the "cost-effectiveness" of something new that was previously impractical to the point of being impossible for most people?
E-learning is just a modern variation on what's been happening on television for thirty years. The most important difference is that e-learning provides rapid two-way communication between students and Professor. This used to take longer by snailmail.
ReplyDeleteThe cost-effectiveness debate doesn't refer to "lay education." It's about whether e-learning is a cheap and effective replacement for standard university lectures.
It's the "effectiveness" part that concerns me most. Are you getting the same kind of educational experience from watching Sapolsky on your monitor that you would get when you attend his lecture and then have coffee with your friends afterward?
Is a university education all about lectures and exams or is there something else going on at a university that can't be replicated in a podcast?
Are you getting the same kind of educational experience from watching Sapolsky on your monitor that you would get when you attend his lecture and then have coffee with your friends afterward?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not. But the chances of me getting to Stanford to attend a lecture by Sapolsky are vanishingly small. Given the vagaries of my work schedule, even taking courses at a local university is out of the question at the present time. I don't for a moment think that watching video lectures gives me a "university education", but it does beat most of what else is on TV (not that there is much challenge to that), and it's the best I can do until I retire and get to go back fulltime.