Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Higher Education Is Stuck in the Middle Ages -- Will Universities Adapt or Die Off in Our Digital World?

By Don Tapscott, Edge. Posted June 17, 2009.


There is a huge clash between the model of learning offered by big universities and the natural way that young people who have grown up digital learn.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Don Tapscott

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

For fifteen years, I've been arguing that the digital revolution will challenge many fundamental aspects of the University. I've not been alone. In 1998, none other than, Peter Drucker predicted that big universities would be "relics" within 30 years.

Flash forward to today and you'd be reasonable to think that we have been quite wrong. University attendance is at an all time high. The percentage of young people enrolling in degree granting institutions rose over 115% from 1969-1970 to 2005-2007, while the percentage of 25- to 29-year-old Americans with a college degree doubled. The competition to get into the greatest universities has never been fiercer. At first blush the university seems to be in greater demand than ever.

Yet there are troubling indicators that the picture is not so rosy. And I'm not just talking about the decimation of university endowments by the current financial meltdown.

Universities are finally losing their monopoly on higher learning, as the web inexorably becomes the dominant infrastructure for knowledge serving both as a container and as a global platform for knowledge exchange between people.

Meanwhile on campus, there is fundamental challenge to the foundational modus operandi of the University -- the model of pedagogy. Specifically, there is a widening gap between the model of learning offered by many big universities and the natural way that young people who have grown up digital best learn.

The old-style lecture, with the professor standing at the podium in front of a large group of students, is still a fixture of university life on many campuses. It's a model that is teacher-focused, one-way, one-size-fits-all and the student is isolated in the learning process. Yet the students, who have grown up in an interactive digital world, learn differently. Schooled on Google and Wikipedia, they want to inquire, not rely on the professor for a detailed roadmap. They want an animated conversation, not a lecture. They want an interactive education, not a broadcast one that might have been perfectly fine for the Industrial Age, or even for boomers. These students are making new demands of universities, and if the universities try to ignore them, they will do so at their peril.

The model of pedagogy, of course, is only one target of criticism directed toward universities.

The Many Challenges to the University

Most resources of large universities are directed towards research, not learning. The universities are not primarily institutes of higher learning, but institutes for science and research. In his book Rethinking Science, Michael Gibbons developed a scathing critique of the current model science as conducted in the university.

Recently the questioning has heated up on other fronts. In the New York Times last month, Mark Taylor, chairman of Columbia University's religion department, whipped up a storm of academic controversy with a provocative OpEd page article called "The End of University as We Know It".

"Graduate education," he began, "is the Detroit of higher learning. Most graduate programs in American universities produce a product for which there is no market (candidates for teaching positions that do not exist) and develop skills for which there is diminishing demand (research in subfields within subfields and publication in journals read by no one other than a few like-minded colleagues), all at a rapidly rising cost (sometimes well over $100,000 in student loans)." The key problem, he noted, began with Kant in his 1798 work, "The Conflict of the Faculties." Kant argued that universities should "handle the entire content of learning by mass production, so to speak, by a division of labor, so that for every branch of the sciences there would be a public teacher or professor appointed as its trustee."

Taylor argued that graduate education must be restructured at a fundamental level to move away from the ultra-narrow scholarship. Among other things, he called for more cross-disciplinary inquiry, the creation of problem-focused programs, with a sunset clause, as well as more collaboration between all educational institutions, and the abolition of tenure. One week later, the outcry from fellow academics filled the entire letters page on the Sunday New York Times. One of his own colleagues at Columbia said it was "alarming and embarrassing" to hear "crass anti-intellectualism" emerge from his own institution. Another academic accused Taylor of "poisoning the waters of higher education."

The Model of Pedagogy

Whatever the merits of Taylor's call to restructure higher education, I think he is right to call for a deep debate on how universities function in a networked society. Yet I think he misses the most fundamental challenge to the university as we know it. The basic model of pedagogy is broken. "Broadcast learning" as I've called it is no longer appropriate for the digital age and for a new generation of students who represent the future of learning.

In the industrial model of student mass production, the teacher is the broadcaster. A broadcast is by definition the transmission of information from transmitter to receiver in a one-way, linear fashion. The teacher is the transmitter and student is a receptor in the learning process. The formula goes like this: "I'm a professor and I have knowledge. You're a student you're an empty vassal and you don't. Get ready, here it comes. Your goal is to take this data into your short-term memory and through practice and repetition build deeper cognitive structures so you can recall it to me when I test you."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: students, internet, digital, digital, twitter, college, facebook, university, learning, pedagogy, online university

Don Tapscott is the author of 13 books on new technology in society, most recently Grown Up Digital. He recently completed a $4 million dollar investigation of the Net Generation. He is Chairman of the think tank in Genera Insight and an Adjunct Professor at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The essay is it own antithesis
Posted by: notabilia on Jun 19, 2009 2:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All fine and good, making basic points with all the mono-focus of a lecturer, and about as informative as a walking tour for prospective loan-signing parents.
The elite liberal arts colleges are a monumental failure. Its graduates are the ones who push the paper in the Pentagon, who signed on to the colossal fraud of Wall Street, who run the obnoxious ad-stuffed, pro-corporate Silicon Valley, who have increased economic inequality in the US to the point where there are no more jobs except for rentiers and cubicle depression babies. Forget the whole sordid enterprise - trillions of person-hours wasted perpetuating either fake neoliberal "concern" or apprentice money-grubbing. And yeah, I "graduated" from one of those monolithic embarrassments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Antithesis Posted by: samba
Prof Bob
Posted by: ProfBob on Jun 19, 2009 3:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With a doctorate in 'philosophy of education' who has attended 2500 hours of university lectures and seminars--and has also lectured and run seminars in three different countries--I agree and disagree with the author. If knowledge transfer is the only objective of education, maybe Google can do it. But I firmly believe that being exposed to a great teacher is the most important part of education. I have experienced only five such professors. One, after taking his one lecture class for credit, I audited his class seven more semesters. He was one of the two most influential people in my life. The other was my mother!
Knowledge is essential, but using that knowledge effectively to improve oneself and the society must be the goal. Once the students have some knowledge, the give and take of seminars has worth--as does working in the community.
Teaching in Europe now, I have found that the knowledge base of the students is not as great as I found in major universities of the U.S. But my experience is that there are HUGE differences in the schools called universities around the world. The curricula of many are absolutely appalling.
We need better knowledge transferrence---but more important, we need outstanding teachers whose lives transcend factual knowledge

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes! Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: Prof Bob Posted by: gilliani
Can we turn education into a video game?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 19, 2009 3:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe. But will it do something more than just change the style?

I read this essay as an assertion that a change in style can also become a positive change in substance. If so, I find little evidence to support the contention.

Instead, the argument is that students who have learned to use the pc before they get to the university will contest classroom experiences that do not use the pc. Support for that would be evidence that we have demonstrated at the high school level the benefits of pc learning.

Maybe that is happening, but except for pc's providing opportunities for long-distance learning (my children who have taken online courses scoff), I am aware of no evidence that shows anything other than, yes, students are attracted to pc's.

Where are the professors who are not authority figures who want us to be just like they are and know as much as they know? Having just completed a late-in-life second M.A., indeed, my teachers were little different from those I had 50 years ago. However, it was the best education experience I have ever had. Maybe because I am 50 years older than the first time around?

PS. And except for some Power Point presentations, not a video game in sight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Much more than computers
Posted by: blueglass on Jun 19, 2009 5:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don’t think the main issue is using computers in education, per se (although I do use computers a lot when I teach my courses). The issue is that passively listening to lectures has never been a good way to learn. In the past, people who learned a lot from lectures did so because they figured out (or much less likely were taught) how to listen actively, to ask their own questions and find their own answers, to integrate new concepts and information with what they already knew (as the author discusses). Or, usually students could get by by memorizing and taking tests that didn’t demand actual understanding.

What’s different now is that so many students have been exposed to other models, usually outside the classroom. The computer has facilitated this exposure, but that doesn’t mean that the main issue is whether or not computers are used in the classroom. The main issue is whether or not thinking is happening in the classroom, and whether the structure of the class demands thinking and learning, as opposed to reserving thinking and learning as optional extras for those who are especially interested and adept at facilitating them for themselves.

Class size is a huge factor, though. I teach at a small college (not rich or highly prestigious), and I continually fight to keep our math classes at around twenty. That way students can solve problems in small groups and I have time to get around to each group, to ask questions that challenge them to engage more deeply with the material. I can get to know the students, and those who fear math can make a personal connection and often come to trust me, which allows them to let themselves be more challenged. There’s no way that I could get to know most students in classes of size 200.

Teaching for genuine understanding is also slower and makes the instructor more vulnerable. I have find out what students actually understand, which is often disappointing, compared to what I thought I "taught."

So many of my students emerge from high school thinking that understanding has nothing to do with school learning. They are used to being told when they ask, “Why?” in math that the teacher doesn’t have time to answer their question, to just memorize the procedure for the test, because they have to “cover” all the material. They suspect – too often accurately, I fear -- that the teacher doesn’t really know how to answer their question. Lectures allow instructors to control the material and stay in their own comfort zones.

In any case, thanks for the article, which raises many important points.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Much more than computers Posted by: shanaza
The big universities are about research, not education - that's a good place to start
Posted by: Jasonix on Jun 19, 2009 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When we reform education, the first issue we have to tackle are the absurd college rankings that laud research universities with huge endowments, even though most of the teaching is done by grad students and the institution's primary focus is research. People are wising up to the fact that students educated at liberal arts colleges and master's-level universities are better-educated than the products of Princeton, MIT, and Yale (George W. Bush, anyone?), although I'm sure the research done at these institutions is stellar.

The U.S. News rankings need to be thoroughly discredited in the eyes of grad school admissions staff, employers, guidance counselors, and parents. (It's disturbing enough that a magazine that's arguably part of the conservative media apparatus is ranking our colleges - one of the ranking system's defenders is the National Review, which suggests that the conservative movement knows the U.S. News rankings are shaped by their world view, and are part of their efforts to influence society.)

The future of education is going to have to be multi-disciplinary if students are going to be competitive in the job market. I studied journalism in school. Today, I read books on cognitive psychology, neuroscience, computer programming, information science, and graphical design just to stay in my career track. And most of the reading I do isn't even in books - the Web is becoming my main source. I also think that we're going to have to move beyond teaching social skills indirectly through sports and clubs and start teaching them directly as an applied science (this kind of teaching - usually done around the dining room table - has been part of the hidden curriculum for rich families for centuries).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not to be a contretemps, but..
Posted by: cmdrcero on Jun 19, 2009 5:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While in grad school I tended to try to turn most courses into an "animated conversation." Late at night at a departmental party, one of the first-year grad students drunkenly said to me "I wish you would shut up and let the professor who I am paying and who knows more than you do speak."

Strangely enough, that comment has always stuck with me. Now that I am a professor myself, I've come to realize that hey, I do know a lot more about the subject matter than my students do and there are times and courses where the tried and true lecture format works fine. For certain required courses that bring the students up to speed on the facts, theories and histories of a scientific field, the lecture format works best--even when teaching small courses at one of the countries top universities.

But as for those advanced seminars like the one my younger friend criticized my behavior in--well, in those I still believe in the decentered classroom. What and how you teach matters a great deal to this question. I'd give this article a 'D' because it doesn't make such basic distinctions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not to be a contretemps, but.. Posted by: Beached Whale
some courses do well using computers only...
Posted by: ellie on Jun 19, 2009 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but core classes do require some human direction... here's a few observations:

in my classes, we do not use textbooks... students go on line and read, get to go to the library for classic works (feel an old, well worn printed book) or get an email link for an interesting article pertaining to our class (ok, sociology is a little broader then most disciplines, as I tell my students, we 'borrow' from every discipline to examine a social phenomena, a little bit of something for everyone)...

we use email extensively, students can type out questions and I can respond... we all have an exact record of the topic...

textbooks are becoming so expensive that many profs. refuse to use them, bring on the book reps that are as bad as used car salesmen in pushing their products... high pressure sales... then to add insult to injury, if you do use a textbook, all the instructor materials are now focused in facebook etc, going through their portal of course... forget that idea!!!

if you allow students to only do on line courses, they have little face to face time with classmates and if they take a 'wrong turn' it becomes so embedded that they will fight to the death with you before you can get them to understand the error... (no, 1+1=3!!! no it's 2)...

try not to order a text without the 'required' cd workbook... the new game is put a good chunk of the book on the cd, the important stuff, so you are trapped...

textbook freedom allows us the time to actually work in small groups, share information and I can jump in when the look of confusion or being lost crosses our students faces... the 'huh???' doesn't translate well unless face to face... it's called collaboration...

we are one of the most heavily wired universities in the country, on the top of the tier 2 private universities and the tools we have are amazing to use... but it is up to us as faculty to filter out the on-line junk and direct our students so they learn what they need to learn to meet the requirements of the course description (herding cats sometimes)...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everything Cannot be Done Digitally
Posted by: LJAllen on Jun 19, 2009 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I agree with a good portion of this article, it should have clearly noted that everything cannot and should not be done online, on computers, etc. I have taught History at a Junior College for the last two years. What I have discovered is that 99% of my students are technologically savvy but possess no critical and analytical thinking skills whatsoever. They can text messages and program computers, but a good portion of them cannot reason at all. Over half of them can barely conjugate a verb. Technology is fine, but the question becomes what technology are we talking about?

I agree that universities would do well to incorporate more technology, if for no other reason than to draw in those students who are particularly attracted to the digital world. However, the real dilemma is to get students to actually use the very credible academic databases that currently exist online. The reality is that many of them over rely on unreliable sources. I encounter too many students who expect some database or some website to do their thinking for them. There simply is no complete substitute for intensive classroom discussion and debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paolo Freire
Posted by: drdanj on Jun 19, 2009 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with a lot of this, just an oddity noted: In spite of quoting Kant, the author writes as if a lot of these ideas are new. Most of what he talks about as the model of pedagogy, e.g., "broadcast learning" was already well critiqued by Paolo Freire decades ago.

Oh, and geez, just a little more copyediting in an article on education would be nice, e.g., "In 1998, none other than, Peter Drucker . . . ."

Daniel Jordan, PhD, ABPP
Dean, Social & Political Psychology
International University for Graduate Studies
St Kitts & Nevis, BWI

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Paolo Freire Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: Paolo Freire Posted by: Beached Whale
The digital age lacks depth
Posted by: wbblack on Jun 19, 2009 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This dude makes some good points, but I don’t think it just a question of the digital vs. the hardbound age. It has to do with how a teacher teaches. I did some teaching at the university level in the early 90’s. The internet was still a baby then. I ran interactive classes. I used film, TV, music and magazines. I didn’t lecture much. I asked a lot of questions. My classes were about getting at what the students thought. We often worked in groups. I think now how much more fun and collaborative stuff I could do with the internet. It makes me want to quit my job and go back to academic sharecropping aka adjunct professor. But back then I often got criticized for my student centered methods. My academic classroom visitors didn’t get it. I learned that intellectuals are not the smartest people I ever met.

One issue that I have is that from what I can tell from the younger people I know and read on the web there’s a lot of shallow knowledge. People know a lot of information, and they can make connections but many of the connections they make are out of context. Folks do a lot of information grazing. They seem to have a hard time thinking deeply about subjects. Hyper textual understanding is good for making connection but is weak when it comes to understand subtle complexity. That’s pretty dangerous if you think about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If higher education is stuck in the Middle Ages, then let the boys
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 19, 2009 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wear skirts, pantyhose, and heels and dance around on campus. Hey, guys back in the Middle Ages wore skirts, tights, and heels if not high ones. But let's face it. Education is turning to online and professors around the world get to teach online without even having to leave their countries. I even heard that exams are going more online these days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the Professors Not the University
Posted by: Triton on Jun 19, 2009 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I taught at the graduate level I always stressed to my students that they were taking a particular course for at least two reasons. One was to learn the information and the other was to learn to learn. I could provide them with the information and the history of its acquisition. They would have to learn to learn on their own. The very best students were the bright ones who were "knowledge junkies". That is to say, their intellctual curiosity took them, on their own, farther and deeper into the subject than the ordinary student goes and they delighted in learning as well as applying new knowledge.

A very wise friend taught me a great deal about the role of the Professors in teaching at the university level. He developed a classification system which goes a long way to explain some of the deficencies in our system of education. First come the Professors who are truly interested in teaching and are dedicated to their subject and to the education of their students. Second are the Afessors who are indifferent to both the presentation of their subject and to the needs of their students. Finally there are the Antifessors who have no interest in teaching their students and are dedicated to insuring that if the students learn anything, what they learn is both dated and wrong. There are some Professors, many Afessors and only a few Anitfessors, Unfortunately they are not identified as such in the catalog of courses.

Teaching at the University is not the path to academic advancement. It is a secondary or tertiary goal. The primary responsibility of the faculity is to obtain grants. not only do the grants provide funds for academic research but they are a major source of funds provided to the University to cover its charges for overhead expenses.
What is missing and sorely missed, is an opportunity for professors who are seriously interested in teaching to have a significant role in the design of courses and the manner in which information is conveyed to the students.
Even the best of institutions might benefit from a consideration of these issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not just the pedagogy
Posted by: profmarcus on Jun 19, 2009 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Universities are not only mired in the middle ages in terms of their teaching models, they are some of the most feudal bureaucracies on earth. One would think that universities, particularly the prestigious ones, would operate on the same cutting edge principles they say they espouse. Hardly. Petty fiefdoms are the rule and god help any student who gets in the way of the righteous university underling with a taste for power. "Out of touch" doesn't begin to describe the university mindset. They might as well be in a parallel universe altogether.

And, yes, I DO take it personally

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to manufacture good citizens
Posted by: PaulK on Jun 19, 2009 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Good morning! In our quest to make you into good citizens, this week we shall examine that wingnut paranoid screed, 1984. The Cliff Notes are in the bookstore and your term papers are for sale online. My grad student will grade it. The Dean wants me to bring in some grant money, so don't bother me. You can download a lecture given by someone better than me. There's no money or guaranteed job in becoming a good citizen, so go party for eight years of high school and college. Just don't get caught having sex or drinking beer. Don't ask, don't tell."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brevity is a Virtue
Posted by: Gravitas on Jun 19, 2009 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did he mention anything about shorter attention spans among the younger generations. This article is way too long!

I agree and disagree with his info. He makes a fundamental mistake of attacking traditional academia on the first page, so he probably threatened and turned off the very audience he was aiming to reach. However, he does make some good points in the middle of his essay. But he is big on ideology and short on research to back it up. For instance:
"Schooled on Google and Wikipedia, they want to inquire, not rely on the professor for a detailed roadmap. They want an animated conversation, not a lecture."

I am a college instructor and that is not true for all students. Some of them are so used to only acting online they can't carry on a conversation. Others are simply introverts. Another post above made a point that some students want to hear the instructor, not each other. And there are studies that back this up.

There is no one size fits all eduction period. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. Some parts of traditional education do work. Lectures and passive learning has its place. Yet it is clear that in a changing society, education should adapt too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well said. Posted by: Beached Whale
The Knowledge Club
Posted by: tlwinslow on Jun 19, 2009 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Universities, which arose during the Middle Ages as extensions of the Church then went through an evolution breaking them away and making them often into enemies of the Church and State, have turned in the 20th century into horrible bloated tax money hogs and islands of non-thinking parasites, for instance, Wayne Churchill in the 9th rate Univ. of Colo., ugh.

The Internet is the future of education, and a smart U.S. president would launch an Apollo project to digitize all education and shut down the classroom system, along with most schools, leaving only a few for sports, labs and socializing, and firing 90% of the teachers and 99% of the administrators, let them eat cake and get real jobs.

In each course, only the top three teachers should be allowed to design a digitized course and tests, the rest of the duplication being eliminated as a waste to the taxpayers.

I wrote about this way back in the 1980s and nobody listened. My article is on my Web site
tlwinslow.weebly.com. Will anybody listen now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Knowledge Club Posted by: EncinoM
valuable, but one sided analysis
Posted by: Drclaw on Jun 19, 2009 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
alot of what the author says is true-students do not learn particularly well in a lecture format, in lots of cases, for lots of reasons. Nothing new here, but it's an important critique. On the other hand, the author has given the impression that uni's have no knowledge of this fact, and don't care about pedagogy, or the use of new technology in a pedagogically appropriate way. It also places the burden solely on universities, and is not very thorough in the analysis of technology.

The charatcerization of uni's as unconcerned is quite false. Universities are not always, or simply, dumb dinosaurs (although there is considerable variance in how universities and faculty, and even students, deal with this problem). With the encouragement of my (public) uni-I developed an entire problem based course (see the great book by Duch on pbl) in biology that is lecture free. Students collaborate in groups, find their own information, solve the problem on their own, use social networking or other collaborative tools, etc. In fact, we have an entire office with a multi-million dollar budget that is devoted to enhancing teaching in this way, and makes recommendations and gives guidance on every aspect of pedagogy from class room design/technology to problem based tools such as I described. We have a professional ethnologist who helps design curriculum. Princenton has developed a two year alternative science curriculum using the same approach, that combines biology, physics and chemistry into a single 2 year course over 4 semesters. I could give you 20 more examples of such innovative programs without much trouble.

Why do we not do this more-well, for one, it is hard. Interestingly, it is hard for students as well as teachers. Students in my class report greater satisfaction, but also a greater work load. The course is open to all, but it is highly self-selected, and even then students drop it because they don't like the learning model. One thing the author fails to appreciate is that technology brings some new things, but does not really solve the problem of an old learning model (the expert tells, the student "learns"). It has only, to some extent, replaced one type of expert (the teacher), with another-the internet. ALL STUDENTS in my course spend the first 3 weeks complaining about how it would be a whole lot easier if we gave them the answer!! They have to be re-exposed and encouraged to learn using inquiry. Students are used to the expert-novice paradigm from both their primary and secondary education, and from the growth of the internet as a source of "expert" information. We'll need to address these problems too; doing so only at the uni level will be too late in the game for many learners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To hear a lecture by an esteemed professor
Posted by: nate on Jun 19, 2009 9:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just earned my degree -- and my best class was a course in Chaucer. The professor lectured -- and we sat and listened. His seminar was overflowing -- some of us sat on the windowsill. Sometimes he lectured beyond the hour -- and we stayed. At the end of the course, we applauded. It was the best class I ever took.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ludicrous
Posted by: BR on Jun 19, 2009 9:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is exactly the sort of ludicrous education-consultant babble that ruins education. It is marred by serious flaws in reasoning and (purposely?) misdirected ire.

Throughout the article, the author inadvertently testifies to the importance of a high degree of personal interaction between students and teachers. As he rightly notes, large lectures do not facilitate this sort of interaction and are miserable learning environments. Yet, nowhere does he justify why online technology is the best fix for this problem. Such technology has serious drawbacks. It is significantly less efficient in conveying information than simple face-to-face communication (think about how difficult it is TO GET TONE RIGHT ONLINE!!!! ;) ). Both students and teachers end up doing much more work to communicate. This would not necessarily be a problem if online technology were not so expensive. Between creating and maintaining an online pedagogical infrastructure, universities would spend billions more than they already have (and continue to funnel the money to the trustees' cronies). The chief reason for the author's enchantment with technology seems to be his assumption that old = bad. He never addresses the fact, however, that the basic neurophysiology of the human brain has not changed in -- what -- hundreds of thousands of years. There is little reason to suppose that online technology fundamentally changes the conditions of our evolutionary development. Why not spend those billions on reducing the student-to-teacher ratio at all institutions of higher ed to the ratios found at Amherst (ie - hire more teachers)?

The author also tries to cash in on the widespread animus against teachers in our culture. After over a decade teaching at the university level, I can tell you that it is not the professors who are clamoring for larger lecture classes: it is the public. The public places businessmen in charge of universities at the trustee and top administrative levels. These businessmen have spent lavish sums on money-pit sports programs, Club-Med-style dorms and -- wait for it -- superfluous information technology. All the while, they have also been slashing the costs of instruction with large lecture classes and cheap instruction (did you know that about 70% of the faculty are now temp-workers?).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now I've seen it all
Posted by: Zio Apollo on Jun 19, 2009 10:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every now and again, a contemplative academic resurrects a learning program from an old John Dewey book, or a business person attempts to inject business models into education. Ultimately, promoting that one education program works best for students borders on deft ignorance of classroom dynamics.

What about the returning students whose age ranges between 40-70? I don't know about Tapscott's classroom experience, but my 10+ years of teaching at the college level suggests that 30% of the students in my class aren't as digitally savvy as Tapscott states. And with the remaining 70%, many don't have convenient access to a computer.

So, according to Tapscott, colleges should retool pedagogy so that students that can afford a computer, dedicate time to surf the Internet, and be without the responsibilities of family, or working two jobs, should benefit. That is pedagogy that is elitist, and has never worked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taking Courses Online
Posted by: dudelette on Jun 19, 2009 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm taking courses online. The ages of the students seems to make a huge difference in how much they get out of the class. Although the author is pushing the idea that the digital generation is the one that needs the change in teaching, I find that older students are usually more engaged online and put in more effort on the reading, papers and forums. Maturity seems to help with the greater responsibility placed on online students. Younger students probably need more actual face-time to do well. They structure of going to a physical class, whether that class is strictly lecture or more Socratic, helps the transition from high school to undergraduate programs.

One thing I would like in my classes is for the professors to post video of lectures, instead of just the prepared text. I don't know if it's a budget issue, or just the instructors' choice, but I'd like to hear the lecture sometimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Want a COOL university that was WAY OUT IN FRONT?
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jun 19, 2009 11:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
apply to ATHABASCA University.

It was WAAAAY out in front, a global leader in distance web-facilitated learning.




perspective, people.


Perspective.

The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEDT
A truly *international* talkshow, for the 'boots-on-the-ground' activist!

FREE podcast

"... tolerance of intolerance is cowardice..." - Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
"We, two, form a Multitude" - Ovid.

"Violence can only be concealed by a Lie, & the Lie can only be maintained by Violence." ... "Any man, who has once proclaimed Violence as his Method, is inevitably forced to take the Lie as his Principle" – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Education----and assholes
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jun 19, 2009 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the myths that needs to be busted is that higher education makes a better person---somehow.

If someone is an asshole, all that a higher education does is create a better educated asshole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ducation----and assholes Posted by: shanaza
» RE: ducation----and assholes Posted by: grangersmith
Tenure is the main issue
Posted by: pjblog on Jun 19, 2009 11:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Universities have to eliminate tenure in order to move forward. Tenured faculty receive jobs for life for very little work and these faculty seldom teach classes except at the graduate school level if ever. Once granted tenure, they are never evaluated for performance and thus collect nice big incomes with benefits based on four years work they did in their 20's, never having to compete for positions 'today.' The US university system has to do away with tenure to allow more modern, up to date teaching, instead of the 'notes from 20 years ago' that most undergrads are given today. Eliminating tenure will also save hundreds of millions of dollars on inflated salaries, benefits, and other nice giveaways to old fossilized faculty members.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» tenure is a shibboleth Posted by: Drclaw
just some thoughts
Posted by: antistokes on Jun 19, 2009 11:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...online for free by some of the world's leading professors on sites like Academic Earth. "

Well yes, certainly information should be free, or entropy will win- this
is something i learned in my undergrad statistical thermodynamics. i don't care,
quite frankly, about better procedures
to benefit plastic surgery. But i really do not think that any company should have a
patent on breast cancer genes!!!

"The University of Phoenix enrolls over 200,000 each year.""

This is very nice! And totally fine for book learnin'. But, it does not replace LAB COURSES.
You CANNOT learn lab safety without actually being in a lab (I say this as a former lab TA).
And, sorry, but labs (and lab equipment) costs money. I know people who have tried to make
chemicals without with benefit of a lab course, and they have HURT THEMSELVES!! Sometimes, there's no real substitute for showing a student the correct way to use the the equipment!

"There is no "one-size-fits-all" for statistics – everyone in the lecture hall is
either bored or doesn't get it."

Awwww. Who's a psyche major who get bored by a little math? It's adorable (and i say this
as someone whose best friends have a degree in psyche-- degrees that they, yes 'the psyche
majors', routinely mock)-- but it's also why the biologists and chemists and physicists don't give the psyche (psyche people--- actually in about 100 years you will be getting respect, but you
need to wait for imaging tech to catch up) any "respect" (respect i think equals funding here). Hm, sorry, that was a hell of a run on sentence. Also the math kids, but they never give any lab science any respect
(as one of my --graduate-- math friends said,"my lab is in my head"; I told him his toys cost less than my toys). This perhaps is due to the fact that the poor math kids, whose work much of lab science is based on, don't get even a small percentage of "lab" science funding---they can't say directly that their work will "cure cancer" or whatever the disease of the moment is right now.
And yet, understanding branches of math is probably one of the most important of human endeavors- but we can't see the
immediate point, so hey, let's not pay them! (That WAS SARCASM!)

"As Seymour Papert, ....."The scandal of education is that every time you teach something, you deprive a child
of the pleasure and benefit of discovery.""

Hmm. Well, there is also something my PhD (in chemistry/drug discovery) adviser called "reinventing the wheel". Half the point of science is to not have to repeat time consuming experiments, but to
learn from what other scientists have done. Don't waste valuable time and reagents doing something someone has already proved-- unless, of course, you really, really doubt their peer-reviewed results (and this has certainly happened-- healthy doubt is a part of science!).

"Their verdict: Nothing much has changed since the early nineteenth century, when the blackboard was introduced as a brilliant new way to help students visualize information."

Perhaps, but the blackboard, where the prof is forced to slow up and actually write things down, is in my mind waaaaay better than the powerpoint lectures that they just skim though! (I have been though BOTH-- tiny, tiny private college and huge ass state run research orientated University!)

"Why not allow a brilliant grade 9 student to take first-year math, without abandoning the social life of his high school? "

....absolutely correct. You don't need to be aware of lab hazards when you take math. I graduated from high school in 2000, and several of the students in my graduating class took classes in math at the local university. I would not be surprised if that number has increased.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: just some thoughts Posted by: shanaza
» RE: just some thoughts Posted by: antistokes
Another silly sub-heading for Alternet.
Posted by: -matti on Jun 19, 2009 1:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How "natural" can it be to "grow up digital"?

Or have microprocessors start washing up on the beach and fiber-optic cable start growing from trees and I've just failed to notice?

Sheesh!

At least it disuaded me from reading an article that, from the comments, I can see was just another mindless "Web good" self-reassurance machine for the children of the "digital age".

Computers are the solution to the problems of education!

Of course!

That's why Socrates or Newton were so stupid and why the average 15-year-old Suburban cubicle-slave pupa is so smart, right?

The Internets solution to the problem: more Internets!

Genius!

-matti.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» um, ok. but.... Posted by: antistokes
Otto
Posted by: otto on Jun 19, 2009 1:47 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McLuhan said that the printing press in the 16th century destroyed the university education system; it changed the cultural mode from a "spoken word" mode to a "written word" mode.
When students could learn by their own reading and research, they could challenge their public lecturers and often make them look like morons. As a result, written exams came in rather than oral ones...and students couldn't defend themselves when papers were checked and marked privately. He predicted that modern technology (radio & television) was turning us back to an oral culture rather than a written one (in which what's written becomes much more important than the spoken word), and that universities needed to get ready for that. I don't think he was quite as aware of the internet at that time. He also told us students at the U. of Toronto that our exam system was basically a "journalistic efficiency" contest...whoever could write the best essays in two and a half hours did the best.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

completely off the mark
Posted by: inverse_agonist on Jun 19, 2009 1:48 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The beginning of the piece notes that college enrollments are at an all-time high. This is because college degrees have become necessary for many of the decently-paid jobs that people seem to want. Consequently, there are MANY people in college who neither have the skills nor the desire to be there. This explains a lot about why college students aren't interested in their classes. People who want to hear lectures listen to them. People who don't, don't. It would be a mistake to change try to make teachers more "interesting" than Facebook or whatever. The driest lecture is interesting to someone interested in the subject. We should stop requiring people to go to college for no reason, rather than turn colleges into playgrounds.

I agree that there are huge problems with the lack of opportunities for Ph.D. graduates (grant availability and university preferences for hiring adjuncts play a big part in this). However, graduate school in the sciences is largely about self-directed inquiry. You spend time searching through the literature, think of a question, and try to go about answering it. In the process, you speak one on one with your advisor and fellow graduate students. There's a distinction between graduate and undergraduate pedagogy that's being glossed over.

Increased "multitasking" is not a good thing, because multitasking diminishes performance of both tasks. There is a cost to switching between tasks. This is the reason that phone conversations impair driving (even with hands-free devices) and distracted people are spacey on the phone. You can't follow a complex argument while doing more than one thing at a time. Working memory has a limited capacity.

The piece quotes a physics professor talking about the necessity of assimilating information, learning to apply it, and so forth. This is not new. It's the reason math classes have homework. It's more boring than a webcam-based collaborative integrated high tech classroom of the future, but it does a good job of forcing people to apply concepts.

It's true that science advances rapidly, but it's also true that forcing people to take "boring" classes about the fundamentals of the field allows people to make sense of what they find in literature searches. At some point you might need to know about the role of potassium in action potentials or the name of the 9th cranial nerve, but people won't necessarily seek this information out on their own, or know that they should in the first place.

The problem with catering to students' every whim is that students like things to be easy, and conditioning people's teaching careers on student ratings makes universities universally dumber. Spend some time reading rateyourstudents.blogspot.com for discussions of how "student-centered learning" is ruining academic standards.

Nowadays, we have a generation of students who mostly can't even take notes. They get upset if you don't provide copies of your PowerPoint slides ahead of time, so that they actually have to listen to the lecture. Taking notes requires "deeper processing" of the information than passively listening to it, a point which is lost on the techno-enthusiasts.

The real issue is that we should stop making people go to college when they don't want to be there, can't afford to be there, and don't learn anything they'll use in their jobs. Leave universities to people who want to be there and people who will use things they learned in college in their work (e.g., engineers).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: completely off the mark Posted by: Beached Whale
follow your own advice
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Jun 19, 2009 2:34 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
article makes some good points. but author himself is the guy at the lecturn with a passive (presumed audience). what a lot of words to say a few things that could be summarized in two or three paragraphs. today's ipod twitter generation wouldn't sit through this endless pile of words. cut it down-Way Down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Real education is intellectual
Posted by: archives@uwyo.edu on Jun 19, 2009 4:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It involves the play of ideas, mostly for fun.
Bacon was right when he said education requires TALKING, reading, writing, and thinking. It wouldn't be bad to get your hands dirty once in awhile as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A major part of higher ed is learning to work within a framework.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jun 19, 2009 4:13 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The better you work within a framework, the better you will do in school and in life, on average.

Of course, there are also those who are successful outside the framework didn't need it in the first place. Brilliant folks tend to do brilliant things no matter where they go. They will benefit from the establishment or from the fringe, with the establishment or without.

Oh, and there is the last group: those that blame "the establishment" for not having come down to their level...yet. Oh, those insensitive bastards!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I couldn't even make it to the end of this article
Posted by: holypigeon on Jun 19, 2009 5:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
> They learn differently best through non-sequential, interactive, asynchronous, multi-tasked and collaborative

I would argue that this has resulted in short attention spans, the inability to apply critical thought, lack of objectivity, and very poor writing skills (the "sentence" quoted above demonstrates at least two of these qualities).

There’s a lot of information out there but not enough knowledge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

collaboration
Posted by: geometeer on Jun 19, 2009 9:16 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Sharing notes in an exam hall, or collaborating on some of the essays and homework assignments, was strictly forbidden."
True.

"Yet the individual learning model is foreign territory for most Net Geners, who have grown up collaborating, sharing, and creating together online."
I wish that were true, for writing in particular.

A very high proportion of today's non-fiction, from research papers to business plans to manuals, is multi-authored. I am part of a company (www.textflow.com) that aims to reduce the pain of that. Whenever I talk about the limits of Track Changes, etc., to knowledge working stiffs their eyes light in hope: but students have not experienced the problem, as they are penalised for practising what their jobs will need. Preaching against plagiarism is as useless as preaching abstinence, when people need to learn the good ways to get close.

The structural problem is not only the broadcast information model Tapscott dislikes. It is also that the university is required to attach individual grades to the individual eggs it lays, and has no way to recognise good collaboration. In a vain attempt to stop bad collaboration, it damages vital skills.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Electro-culture and University Education I
Posted by: Mikael on Jun 19, 2009 11:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Inspired" by this article, I looked up the YouTube video, "A Vision of Students Today"; I must say that I can hardly recall a more boring four and a half minutes. Any four and a half minutes of any lecture by, say, Noam Chomsky, would be a better investment of time than any four and a half minutes of Twitter or Facebook "education". Leaving aside the author's inconsistencies and lack of either originality or depth, I agree with most of the his criticisms of current university education. I have been teaching in universities for 42 years now, and have taught in the United States, Canada, Iceland, Italy, France and (most recently) China. So while the evidence for my views may may be anecdotal, my anecdotes are many and various. The problem with university teaching is not that there are classes, and professors and blackboards and all of that awfully old-fashioned kind of stuff. The problem is that university administrators and faculty members don't generally care much about university teaching. And if they don't care about it, why should students take it seriously? I agree with the author that American universities (which are the only ones that the author appears to have any knowledge of) are bilking their students by offering second-rate teaching at astronomical prices. The value of a Harvard degree (or put in your favorite university or college) lies almost solely in its function as an entrée to employment. You may get inspiring teaching at Harvard (etc.), of course, but you have to look for it and you have to know how to recognize and appreciate it. Many of the students in "A Vision of Students Today" were simply expressing their lack of any real dedication to learning. They tell us that they are simply interested in other things. There's nothing wrong with that, but then why are they wasting tens of thousands of dollars a year paying for a "university education"? (Perhaps they wouldn't do say if they were really paying for it themselves, but that's another story.) But I digress. The criticisms that I agree with - heartily! - are at bottom not criticisms of traditional university teaching but of bad teaching (i.e. bad teaching from the traditional academic viewpoint). And bad teaching is rife and getting rifer. In my experience, a teacher who is serious (as the French say) and adroit and who challenges the students is as inspiring today, to anyone who wants to be educated, as anything has ever been (or, I surmise, as anything that ever will be). That's not a teacher who reads up his old notes to his class of 200 in an amphitheater. But since so many educators and administrators have signed on to a stupid and self-serving vision of education - the transmission of information - teachers are not encouraged to be serious or challenging. (Many of them studiously avoided challenges themselves, in their own apprenticeships, and consequently have little to offer to their students or the rest of the world.) If this, the currently dominant ethic, remains in place, university teaching will, indeed, render itself obsolete, for the reasons that the writer indicates. That will, however, represent the end of serious higher education, not its progress or modernization. The writer traces student disaffection with university education to the electro-autodidactic background of today's students. But the fact is that there has always been a significant segment of the university student population that has had little interest in learning, even from dedicated and inspiring teachers, and even when university students were fewer and came principally from elite backgrounds. Today, with mass university education (to whose challenges the universities have not successfully risen), that disaffected segment has grown in size. But neither its existence, nor its complaints, are in any way new, and they have little or nothing to do with the informatic upbringing of today's students.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Electro-culture and University Education II
Posted by: Mikael on Jun 19, 2009 11:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The informatic revolution presents new opportunities (not presently well exploited) for strengthening university education as traditionally conceived. It also presents new opportunities for destroying or circumventing such education, and, especially, many new diversions. For instance, now students can "Facebook" (is this a verb?) or play electronic solitaire right in class (if they bother to come to class), instead of having to wait for lunch breaks or week-ends. This replaces the more creative daydreaming, or the technologically less advanced passing of notes; but it is original only in its technology and not in its character as amusing diversion from boredom. So, one source of disaffection is bad teaching, about which universities don't seem to care, and another is native student disinterest in education, whatever may be on offer. University students today are generally too young and have too little responsibility for their own lives to rise to the challenges presented (or that ought to be presented) by university education. In my 42 years of university teaching, the best students I have had, speaking in terms of groups, are Icelandic students. By the best, I mean those who have approached university education with the right attitude and have consequently gotten the most out of it. And the reasons for this appear to me to be simple: they begin their university studies at age 20, and have before that time generally taken control of their own lives. (This is regrettably changing, but has not yet changed.) Most of them support themselves, most have established their own households, and many even have their own children. The Icelandic social system makes this possible in a way that is unimaginable to most Americans. Students in a position of personal independence and responsibility obviously approach their education with a different attitude than anomic, hormone-driven adolescents. Students proud of getting through their courses without doing any real work (at which the teachers must connive) would do well to "get a life" before coming to the university. But there is also a question of student culture, which varies from university to university (I could here compare different universities within Iceland). There are an increasing number of colleges and universities where an academic culture is not encouraged. The "market" for students presents itself as larger if it is not restricted to students genuinely interested in getting an education. Thus, universities neglect traditional teaching and scholarship in favor of football teams, electronic seminars for business managers, university degrees in what I call the "anecdotal and keyboard sciences", and the like. Is it then any wonder that a student who finds him- or herself trapped in an actual classroom with an actual teacher and expected to read (gasp!) actual books (gasp!) turns in frustration to Twitter and Facebook? I mean, education is soooo Twentieth (Nineteenth, Eighteenth, etc.) Century!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A few possible facts, a lot of assumptions
Posted by: melloe2 on Jun 20, 2009 12:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I taught various tech / engineering / Math subjects all over the World, including to non English students through an interpreter. 10 years at a University. I find the article mildly interesting for the first page, but mostly inane. Science, Math, and technology has to be a combination of Give out data, operate with that information, and test the results. A lecture and Lab are the best platform, but not only one for learning in this area. Always thought many topics on the other side of the campus could benefit from more of the later to where appropriate.

Where to start about the article?
For starters, I am not sure that a lot of what is on the net is useful learning, e.g actual facts or accepted theories. So there is probably a lot of unlearning to do. Some information is better first developed in the lecture format in an establish organization with some safeguards. Interaction can play a role in learning, even if it is just the physical presence of the Professor ( or some classes the Grad student < ) and his or her gestures and voice. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see this in on line classes to any degree

Just because a student feels good about something is not always an indication of useful learning. Had a Professor who said "Actual Learning Hurts".. but the same individual often said, "This will be fun."
When he first said that, I wondered about it, but saw what he meant when I thought about it. Some new ideas may challenge ones preconceived notions, e.g hurt a little. OTOH, some ideas actually fun.

My sunopsis
One size does not fit all but all need the lecture first IMNSHEO.
I will leave the many real and imagined faults of colleges and Universities for those with the power to do anything about it. They sure enough never listened to me or my committee when inside and now outside.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gee guys... came back this morning to read new comments and...
Posted by: ellie on Jun 20, 2009 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
found a few common threads throughout this discussion... most of the posts are from various faculty from all over the world... amazing on its own merit!!!

we are basically grumpy about how our students expect to be spoon fed and given all A's because that's what they all got in high school or we're going to sick mommy and daddy on you for being mean... especially if they had to stretch a bit and do some work...

love the comment "...learning hurts...this will be fun"...

we do not fear the extinction of our disciplines no matter how much grumbling is done, but welcome useful technology and innovation... we all learn, not just students...

as a group of the lowest paid, least respected group in society it seems sometimes, we faculty do what we do because we love it, it's not all about the $$ to us (our institutions may be a different story)...

now if only our students would put down their gadgets long enough to absorb some information (yes you in the back row with the laptop keys going a mile a minute on twitter with the ear buds on hooked to the ipod)...

don't we all feel a little better knowing that we're all basically arguing the same subject in different discipline languages... sort of like the grumble sessions we all have when passing each other in the halls on our way to teach another class... we're in it for our own discoveries and the wow factor when a student 'gets it' (which happens once in a while)...

wikipedia is not the be all end all for academic research (snark), to the dismay of our students...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LOL
Posted by: Sgellero on Jun 20, 2009 1:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the INTERACTION at the University that counts. If you are around brilliant peers, your education, overall, is better.

It is the rare individual in the upper strata of society who has not had a classical higher education.

Been that way since ancient times. And those who value true education know it.

Digital will be OK for the masses, though. They'll never know what they missed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LOL Posted by: grangersmith
» yes, but.... Posted by: antistokes
» RE: LOL Posted by: Sgellero
Missed some critical issues
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jun 21, 2009 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I used to do technical training films. The one thing about the lecture/classroom method is that it promotes sloppy subject-matter analysis. I can't tell you how many lectures I reviewed that contained questionable, misleading, half true, or just plain wrong information. By doing nothing more than video taping the lecture and having it peer reviewed, the content would improve substantially. getting competent lecturers, using modern visual aids and animation, etc. would do even more. And that doesn't even explore the possibilities of sophisticated learning analysis or student/media interaction.

The issues about learning style, interest, etc. are important, but first things first. We live in a video age. Lets move on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Second issue: cost/benefit analysis Posted by: ReallyBearish
Overhyped story
Posted by: Daidactic on Jun 21, 2009 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a law lecturer in the UK, may I say that this story is not so much about the digital age as the lack of interactivity is American and many UK universities. What is described as a lecture ina lecture hall is a travesty of education ehich has more to with the fact that lecturers are rarely taught to teach in the first place, hence the reading out of notes in a boring fashion.
As someone who was using the Internet before the Web was invented and who took to it like a duck to water, I do think that this story does not make much sense - at one point it is suggested that professors at other universities could teach students by,er, giving them notes! LOL! I have created some interactive learning programmes for my students - that would at least start to fill the bill on the so-called digital learning model suggested but to my knowldge there is not a lot of that on the Web.
Unfortunately, the writer does not see any down side to the web - but there is and I first spotted it in 1997 when a student handed in an essay which was clearly copied from the web. This is plagiarism and proves that NO learning has taken place.
Interactvity is not even the whole picture as a good lecturer can enthuse and inspire a desire to learn and ask questions in the lectures and encourage students to discuss them there and then - the only advatage I can see of the web in this would be to allow video-conferencing but there's not a lot of that around either. So let's stop overhyping the digital mode - its useful and I encourage my students to use it but it cannot ultimately replace a good teacher. Remeber - Education comes from the latin - to draw out of a person their best potential.
A law lecturer in Cymru, UK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Overhyped story Posted by: antistokes
Professor of social science(Ret.)
Posted by: GAYF on Jun 22, 2009 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

KJWER I K
Posted by: ruruben on Jul 7, 2009 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MKV to AVI ,Professionally convert your mkv files to avi format, other popular video and audio format supported

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement