@library.edu

Page 1

@library.edu The Newsletter of the Swarthmore College Libraries http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/newsletter/news.html

Vol. 3 no. 2 Spring 2001

Faculty assess pros and cons of instructional technology By Cecelia Buchanan, Tri-College Coordinator of Instructional Technology, with Ushi Tandon

F

aculty from Swarthmore, Haverford and Bryn Mawr Colleges participated in two focus groups last May to survey their attitudes towards instructional technology, to determine its impact on teaching and learning, and to identify ways to improve instructional technology support. One group consisted of faculty who do not ...the wealth of material regularly use a signifiavailable to students has cant amount of instructional technology or who increased dramatically... have just recently begun access to materials on the to use it. The other group was made up of faculty Web enabled some stuwho were experienced dents to “go well beyond users of instructional technology. what is expected in an The experienced users assignment.” saw instructional technology as an educational tool with a broad array of uses ranging from enriching the classroom experience to aiding discussions to providing administrative support. A common (although not universal) reason that members of this group used computer technology was its support of multiple learning styles. Faculty in the other group had a more limited view of and were more skeptical about instructional technology’s ability to enhance the learning experience. They identified a considerable number of barriers and objections to using instructional technology including philosophical issues, time constraints, and a lack of knowledge and technical support. Faculty in both groups raised a number of interesting and as yet unanswered questions: What is the best balance of technology use? When is the use of technology ideal, and when is it problematic? What is best done in class, and what is best done outside of class, either individually or as a group? What are the “pedagogical ends” of instructional technology?

Concerns about time required and students’ use Two main themes emerged from the focus groups. First is the perception that it takes a tremendous amount of time to use information technology effectively in the classroom. Faculty in both groups expressed concern that the time they spent developing instructional technology materials might be better spent working directly with students or doing research. One experienced user voiced a strong warning that all too often faculty try to stretch the possibilities of technology, while neglecting the rich variety of “low-tech” alternatives that might achieve their pedagogical goals in a better or simpler way. On a related note, faculty also mentioned that they need to control the amount of time that students spend on online work. They stressed that assignments should be well-defined and that it should be easy for students to evaluate when they have completed the assignment.

The second and more disturbing theme was that the faculty in both groups felt that students do not use, or do not know how to use, their critical thinking skills when using the Web. Students appear to trust and depend on the Web too much without evaluating the quality of the sources that they use. In addition, students often try to impress faculty with the amount of information they present rather than with their analysis of the information. Plagiarism of material from the Web was mentioned as a problem. However, many faculty felt that it was no worse than in the past and that they could address it by formulating assignments that go beyond information gathering, for example, by asking students to write an essay that poses a question rather than answering one.

More material available, greater access to faculty On the other hand, there seemed little doubt that the wealth of material available to students has increased dramatically. Some faculty mentioned that access to materials on the Web enabled some students to “go well beyond what is expected in an assignment.” Technology also allows students and faculty to do things that simply can’t be done with paper and pencil. For example, one can link concepts with images, show things that simply can’t be drawn by hand, or see the impact of changes to the variables in a problem. Given the wealth of available information, most faculty indicated that their teaching has shifted from conveying information to evaluating, analyzing, and synthesizing it. The use of email between faculty and students has increased students’ access to faculty, but most faculty felt that they had deeper relationships with students they met face-to-face or worked with in the lab. They acknowledged that students who have not been socialized to talk with a professor may find it easier to communicate via email. Faculty mentioned that email gave them additional flexibility in scheduling time to answer students’ questions. However, they added it was easy to get overwhelmed unless they establish clear The voices of the faculty limits on turnaround time for providing of all three campuses feedback. echoed this theme Electronic interaction among students repeatedly...do the pedahas broadened the learning experience gogical benefits of instrucfrom an individual to tional technology justify a group activity. Several faculty the time investment? mentioned that not all students are comfortable with this shift. For example, some students are uncomfortable making their work public, so it is important that they be given the option of keeping their work private. Faculty also mentioned that some students find it difficult to comment on one another’s work or continued on page 2


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.