Keeping the classroom significant
Michael Welsch has a thought provoking article on his site — a reprint from Education Canada — Anti-Teaching: Confronting the Crisis of Significance. In the article he explores issues relating to the needs of today’s students and the lack of motivation that many express with traditional classroom teaching styles. Text books are not read, students don’t find lecture courses engaging, and only do as much work as required to meet the minimum course requirements. While I agree with many of his points, and fully support innovation in the classroom, I fear much of his focus may be too classroom centric.
On the general point of student disinterest, I’m not sure this is anything all that new to higher education. Thinking back to my undergraduate days, some 25 years ago now, many of these complaints seem familiar. Students regularly skipped the big intro lecture courses, crammed at the last minute and took them pass/fail if possible. I had several classes where I rarely cracked the text book. Dr. Welsch’s research finds less than half of the students surveyed do the required reading — that likewise doesn’t seem like anything new.
But I see this type of problem most an issue in those entry-level, required courses. Most programs of study have certain minimum requirements that all students must fulfill. This may include certain key background readings, terminology, or methods. Students come in with varying degrees of proficiency in various areas, so some leveling process is needed to get them all to the same place. In may not be pleasant, but costs and time factors make these large lecture format classes very attractive for getting this baseline in place. Is it a crude, blunt method? Sure. Do the students enjoy it? Obviously not. Is it effective? That’s certainly the key questions, and in most cases, yes. Do we all have to sometimes endure unpleasant requirements to get to the good stuff? Welcome to the real world.
The experience of attending a traditional residential, 4 year college is larger than the classroom. The learning environment doesn’t stop at the door of the classroom. The experience of living in a community of fellow learners of a similar age, with similar interests and similar tasks to complete is a huge part of earning a degree. It seems to me that when we look at technology for the classroom, we should be looking to link up the various parts of this larger learning environment. A course management system that is course-centric doesn’t do it — it is sharply cut off from everything else according to time (a semester) and a specific class (can’t work with students in another section). A student-centric portfolio system allows learning experiences to be gathered and shared across those boundaries. Course plug-ins that allow links to Facebook cut across even institutional boundaries. Discussion forums that link to cell phone text messaging cut across time and location boundaries.
The new network is one where users can combine content and activities from various parts of their lives in an increasingly integrated fashion. And they control how it is combined, and where and when they access it. As we explore educational technologies it seems to me we should be looking for these cross-boundary applications that give our students the control they expect.
And what about the classroom? Yes, there should always be an ongoing effort to improve teaching. And we need more good, motivated and creative teachers, as Dr. Welsch seems to be, to lead the way. But those efforts will be best supported when the larger picture is also considered, one that take the broadest view of the boundaries of the learning environment.
See also:
