Yesterday morning, I had the opportunity to attend an ITS Strategic Planning/ Brainstorming Session, which was led by TLT's Senior Director, John Harwood. In a nutshell, the session was designed to encourage the discussion of some of the challenges facing us as Penn State's central technology unit, and how best to begin finding answers to some of the major questions that are, or will begin haunting educational institutions like ours in the coming years.
Because of the diverse nature of the parties in attendance, the dialogue weaved in and out of various different areas, from practical technology implementation concerns, to adoption, assessment, and a whole lot of other good topics. But at its core, the discussion always hovered around technology and education. Not all that surprising, given what we do =)
At one point, a member of the audience spoke up about how 65% of faculty still want overheard projectors in their classrooms. John mentioned that Windows XP would eventually be phased out in favor of Vista. Those crazy digital native kids with their TV and their cell phones - what can be done to help reach them? And of course, how can we facilitate a more consistent educational message across 20 campuses and the web. At some point amidst the sharing of these, and many other ideas, the monkey who turns my brain crank stood up and fired off a giant flare of a question.
Who are we, as educational technology professionals, working for - students or teachers? Or if you prefer the Austin Powers version, who does number 2 work for? Smashing baby, yeah!
I raised the question in the meeting, and John responded that he had been asked a similar question recently by a trustee, who noted that the student and the instructor seem to be going in two, very different directions.
In most cases, I think the role of educational support groups such as ours is to aid the people doing the teaching. The thought being that by combing the subject mater knowledge of instructor with the pedagogical (you have no idea how much I hate that word) expertise of someone like an instructional designer, the student is reached de-facto. I'm sure thats a gross oversimplification, but its effective enough in practice.
Or at least I thought it was, up until I heard that "65% of faculty want overhead projectors" line.
Now before I go any further, its important that I state the obvious. Penn State has a truly world class faculty, and I never cease to be amazed by the forward thinking ideas some of them have on how to improve the quality of education. But having said that - the overhead projector thing bothers me. I find myself unable to balance those quaint little 1970s relics on one hand, with an overarching desire to create immersive, collaborative and increasingly web based, asynchronous learning opportunities to appeal to a new generation of student on the other (buzzword bingo hurray!). Something just doesnt seem to add up.
I whole heartedly admit, its not necessarily a one or another situation. As I've said in regards to EduGaming, the key with any instructional tool is to find a middle ground that leverages its strengths, while complimenting the weaknesses of other tools. You want to find a way to deliver a message that your students find interesting, effective, and ultimately memorable. Sometimes there is no replacement for some good old fashioned Sage on the Stage lecture. And as Allan and Elizabeth rightly pointed out in the meeting, even seemingly archaic technologies like overhead projects can have their place.
My problem lies in the fact that 65% is a big percentage (I am, of course, using this 65% number rather liberally without knowing the context with which the data was gathered but thats my prerogative as an opinionated pretend writer). A lot higher than I would expect if we are, indeed, looking for ways to deliver more engaging content to our students. And I'm sure that there are a whole slew of reasons why that 65% was 65% - some more pragmatic than others. But I wonder how many opportunities are being wasted away in an endless stream of transparencies. Or power points. Or frantically scribbled, hand written notes. Yes they work. But do they work as well as something more immersive could? Do they engage students as successfully? Do they entice the new breed of learner the way we want them too? I can't imagine they do - and its a little unnerving to know that resources need to go toward supporting what might be an overabundance of throwback technology.
And thus I return to the question that is the crux of this post. When push comes to shove, who are we working for? Earlier, I mentioned that John had discussed how eventually Windows XP would be phased out in favor of Vista. I'm sure you thought it was nonsensical babble - but I found it to be an interesting parallel. XP can be phased out. And yet the chalkboard cannot be replaced universally by the white board. Or better yet a digital white board. Why?
So how does one answer such an enormous question? One doesnt. Instead, one comes up with a delicious cop-out, kiss-ass answer and lavishly flings praise on the efforts of one's employer. Hows that =)
In all seriousness, I don't have anything even approaching an entire answer, but I think that at least part of it might lie in initiatives like Blogs@Penn State and the Digital Commons. That probably sounds like a shameless plug, but its not, because both services cater to both the instructor and the student. From the instructor perspective, both are services that are easy to work with, and open doors toward new, more engaging instructional activities, and with the support to back them up. From the student perspective, these are services that can not only enrich what might otherwise be bland educational projects, but they encourage them to become digital content creators and contribute their voice to the thriving Web 2.0 world. Both services transcend a single subject, or class, or project. In all honesty, both transcend formal education and the walls of the classroom itself, and I think that is where the power lies.
So perhaps thats part of the answer to the question "who do we work for". Both for faculty and students, or maybe its neither. Maybe we work instead to find tools that either group can use, for both formal and informal education, or perhaps not for education at all. Maybe our job isnt to have all the answers, but rather to find tools that empower both instructor and student to come up with their own.
Woe is me, still there are so many loose ends in all of this. How do you continue to encourage instructors to experiment with new technologies? How much disruptive technology can you incorporate before you've gone too far, and lost the benefits of tried and true methods? Yikes. But then I didnt really go into this post thinking I'd be able to answer it all. Not yet anyway ;-)
I'm not sure where this is profound, obvious, or just straight up nonsense. But either way I think it might have changed the way I think about what I do, or at least filled my head with a whole lot of things to think about. Regardless, I've gone and overstimulated myself again. Time to lie down under my desk and have nightmares about overhead projectors attacking me.
Images from webdesign.org and salestores.com
Because of the diverse nature of the parties in attendance, the dialogue weaved in and out of various different areas, from practical technology implementation concerns, to adoption, assessment, and a whole lot of other good topics. But at its core, the discussion always hovered around technology and education. Not all that surprising, given what we do =)
At one point, a member of the audience spoke up about how 65% of faculty still want overheard projectors in their classrooms. John mentioned that Windows XP would eventually be phased out in favor of Vista. Those crazy digital native kids with their TV and their cell phones - what can be done to help reach them? And of course, how can we facilitate a more consistent educational message across 20 campuses and the web. At some point amidst the sharing of these, and many other ideas, the monkey who turns my brain crank stood up and fired off a giant flare of a question.
Who are we, as educational technology professionals, working for - students or teachers? Or if you prefer the Austin Powers version, who does number 2 work for? Smashing baby, yeah!I raised the question in the meeting, and John responded that he had been asked a similar question recently by a trustee, who noted that the student and the instructor seem to be going in two, very different directions.
In most cases, I think the role of educational support groups such as ours is to aid the people doing the teaching. The thought being that by combing the subject mater knowledge of instructor with the pedagogical (you have no idea how much I hate that word) expertise of someone like an instructional designer, the student is reached de-facto. I'm sure thats a gross oversimplification, but its effective enough in practice.
Or at least I thought it was, up until I heard that "65% of faculty want overhead projectors" line.
Now before I go any further, its important that I state the obvious. Penn State has a truly world class faculty, and I never cease to be amazed by the forward thinking ideas some of them have on how to improve the quality of education. But having said that - the overhead projector thing bothers me. I find myself unable to balance those quaint little 1970s relics on one hand, with an overarching desire to create immersive, collaborative and increasingly web based, asynchronous learning opportunities to appeal to a new generation of student on the other (buzzword bingo hurray!). Something just doesnt seem to add up.
I whole heartedly admit, its not necessarily a one or another situation. As I've said in regards to EduGaming, the key with any instructional tool is to find a middle ground that leverages its strengths, while complimenting the weaknesses of other tools. You want to find a way to deliver a message that your students find interesting, effective, and ultimately memorable. Sometimes there is no replacement for some good old fashioned Sage on the Stage lecture. And as Allan and Elizabeth rightly pointed out in the meeting, even seemingly archaic technologies like overhead projects can have their place.
My problem lies in the fact that 65% is a big percentage (I am, of course, using this 65% number rather liberally without knowing the context with which the data was gathered but thats my prerogative as an opinionated pretend writer). A lot higher than I would expect if we are, indeed, looking for ways to deliver more engaging content to our students. And I'm sure that there are a whole slew of reasons why that 65% was 65% - some more pragmatic than others. But I wonder how many opportunities are being wasted away in an endless stream of transparencies. Or power points. Or frantically scribbled, hand written notes. Yes they work. But do they work as well as something more immersive could? Do they engage students as successfully? Do they entice the new breed of learner the way we want them too? I can't imagine they do - and its a little unnerving to know that resources need to go toward supporting what might be an overabundance of throwback technology.And thus I return to the question that is the crux of this post. When push comes to shove, who are we working for? Earlier, I mentioned that John had discussed how eventually Windows XP would be phased out in favor of Vista. I'm sure you thought it was nonsensical babble - but I found it to be an interesting parallel. XP can be phased out. And yet the chalkboard cannot be replaced universally by the white board. Or better yet a digital white board. Why?
So how does one answer such an enormous question? One doesnt. Instead, one comes up with a delicious cop-out, kiss-ass answer and lavishly flings praise on the efforts of one's employer. Hows that =)
In all seriousness, I don't have anything even approaching an entire answer, but I think that at least part of it might lie in initiatives like Blogs@Penn State and the Digital Commons. That probably sounds like a shameless plug, but its not, because both services cater to both the instructor and the student. From the instructor perspective, both are services that are easy to work with, and open doors toward new, more engaging instructional activities, and with the support to back them up. From the student perspective, these are services that can not only enrich what might otherwise be bland educational projects, but they encourage them to become digital content creators and contribute their voice to the thriving Web 2.0 world. Both services transcend a single subject, or class, or project. In all honesty, both transcend formal education and the walls of the classroom itself, and I think that is where the power lies.
So perhaps thats part of the answer to the question "who do we work for". Both for faculty and students, or maybe its neither. Maybe we work instead to find tools that either group can use, for both formal and informal education, or perhaps not for education at all. Maybe our job isnt to have all the answers, but rather to find tools that empower both instructor and student to come up with their own.
Woe is me, still there are so many loose ends in all of this. How do you continue to encourage instructors to experiment with new technologies? How much disruptive technology can you incorporate before you've gone too far, and lost the benefits of tried and true methods? Yikes. But then I didnt really go into this post thinking I'd be able to answer it all. Not yet anyway ;-)
I'm not sure where this is profound, obvious, or just straight up nonsense. But either way I think it might have changed the way I think about what I do, or at least filled my head with a whole lot of things to think about. Regardless, I've gone and overstimulated myself again. Time to lie down under my desk and have nightmares about overhead projectors attacking me.
Images from webdesign.org and salestores.com
I think the reason we do have 65% projector use is that projectors fulfill some function newer technology hasn't surpassed yet.
Blackboards/projectors allow you to draw or write ad hoc notes very quickly (no login, no booting of Omnigraffle, no fiddling with weird tools).
If something with these features comes along (e.g. ubiquitous tablet computers), I think the projector really would be phased out like the typewriter and ditto machine.
I agree--great, thought-provoking post, Chris!
I'm not too shocked by the 65% statistic. Am I jaded? :) I used to work in a K-12 school, and I bet that number would have been even higher there.
I think we work for the faculty and the students by staying with (and hopefully ahead of) the curve on emerging classroom technologies. Somebody has to do it! The adoption rate on these technologies will get higher as the years pass and new faculty come on board. And even better technologies will come along that will be a tough adoption sell...and everything starts all over again.
Your post also reminded me of Michael Wesch's latest video, which I'm sure you have seen, and is worth a link in the context of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o
Great post, Stubbs. I don't have the answer, but I think you are getting as close to it as I have seen -- at the end of the day we are serving two diverse audiences in faculty and students, but we are also serving the art (or science depending on how you look at it) of teaching and learning. If that makes any sense I would further argue that by pushing our focus beyond those people out there (faculty and students) we are creating new opportunities that can be put into place over time. I think part of what we do is to give ourselves the freedom to dream, innovate, and focus on our own research so we can challenge the notion that 65% of faculty still want overhead projectors -- which by the way I find unbelievable! That is a whole other subject, but I can't see over two thirds of our faculty still using them with any sort of frequency -- gross generalization time, but I bet faculty in math and engineering do you overheads for great things. Technology is a tool and as long as it is used appropriately I have no problem with it.
WIth regard to your comment about XP and Vista comparing them to a chalkboard and a smart board is very interesting. I never really put those together like that and while I am not yet ready to jump on this either way, I am going to think about that notion a bit. As a matter of fact I think I will share it with my students tomorrow in my Disruptive Technologies course (it is not too late to add it) and see what they think. I'll be pushing some traffic your way ... I enjoyed this one and look forward to talking about it more with you and others.