- HOME
- Table of Contents
- Resume
- Philosophy Statement
- 1. History of Jewish/General Education
- 2. Assessment
- 3. Curriculum
- 4. Language Development/Hebrew
- 5. Personal Development of Teachers
- 6. Collaboration/Community
- 7. Technology
- 8. Learning and Cognition
- 9. Evidence-Based Practice
- 10. Child Development
- 11. Content Knowledge
- 12. Ethics and Values
- 13. Instructional Methods
- Inspiration/Chizuk
- Post-Observation Reflections
“When One Person’s Tech Treasure Is Another’s Trash” by Ben Gose in The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 13, 2011 (LVII, #37, B16, 18)
http://chronicle.com/article/When-One-Persons-Tech/127383/
In this Chronicle of Higher Education article, editor Ben Gose questions whether certain cutting-edge technologies are making a positive contribution in the classroom. For example, he quotes Miami University professor Glenn Platt, who tried wikis and found that the ability to edit others’ writing online was frightening to timid students who hesitated to change a classmate’s contributions. Platt also had difficulty deciding how to allocate credit for material produced by several students. “It’s one of those technologies that everyone jumped on,” says Platt, “and only later realized that maybe it doesn’t do everything we need it to do.” He believes simple tools are best, and now uses the humble Internet discussion board, which allows threaded discussions in which students can interact online and bring their own unique perspectives to the interpretation of historical events.
Eric Mazur, a Harvard physics professor who frequently uses “clickers” to check for student understanding, rejects PowerPoint and interactive whiteboards on the grounds that they add little value to the old-fashioned blackboard and overhead projector. Mazur also scoffs at using smartphones to submit questions in class as an unnecessary distraction from real-time discussion. “It’s the gee-whiz factor,” says Mazur. “People don’t think about outcomes. They’re naïve in the belief that doing what we did before, only this time with technology, must make it better.”
Gose suggests asking two questions when deciding whether to adopt a new classroom technology: First, is it relatively easy to use? And second, does it make something possible that instructors and students couldn’t do before?
http://chronicle.com/article/When-One-Persons-Tech/127383/
In this Chronicle of Higher Education article, editor Ben Gose questions whether certain cutting-edge technologies are making a positive contribution in the classroom. For example, he quotes Miami University professor Glenn Platt, who tried wikis and found that the ability to edit others’ writing online was frightening to timid students who hesitated to change a classmate’s contributions. Platt also had difficulty deciding how to allocate credit for material produced by several students. “It’s one of those technologies that everyone jumped on,” says Platt, “and only later realized that maybe it doesn’t do everything we need it to do.” He believes simple tools are best, and now uses the humble Internet discussion board, which allows threaded discussions in which students can interact online and bring their own unique perspectives to the interpretation of historical events.
Eric Mazur, a Harvard physics professor who frequently uses “clickers” to check for student understanding, rejects PowerPoint and interactive whiteboards on the grounds that they add little value to the old-fashioned blackboard and overhead projector. Mazur also scoffs at using smartphones to submit questions in class as an unnecessary distraction from real-time discussion. “It’s the gee-whiz factor,” says Mazur. “People don’t think about outcomes. They’re naïve in the belief that doing what we did before, only this time with technology, must make it better.”
Gose suggests asking two questions when deciding whether to adopt a new classroom technology: First, is it relatively easy to use? And second, does it make something possible that instructors and students couldn’t do before?