At our institution, we have several smart classrooms, and for the most part, I'm assigned to teach in them. I've been thinking a lot about how I use the computer in the classroom -- particularly since I don't lecture much, and when I do I don't use power point -- and a post at
The Chronicle of Higher Education has me thinking even more about it.
The post is about a new law in California that mandates the availability of electronic versions of all college textbooks. As some people note in the comments section, the very expectation of what a textbook actually is is a little vague in some disciplines (like literature, where we might have students buy a book from a smaller press or might have students buy multiple inexpensive books for a course -- as opposed to science or business, where the students buy a more traditional textbook). I realize that the law is only mandating the availability -- and not mandating the usage -- so I'm not sure I have much of an opinion either way on such a law. I admit that I'm ultimately a little skeptical about electronic versions of books, but I think that's my own love for the tactile experience of a book. Electronic versions of books might very well be a better choice in some fields. I just don't know and I wouldn't want to prohibit someone else's innovation in the classroom.
But that's not really what I'm thinking about. What I'm really thinking about are these comments by a legislative aid:
Senator Elaine Alquist, who wrote the bill, was unavailable for comment. Her legislative aid, James Schwab, who was involved with writing the bill, said that helping students save money was the primary motive. For instance, even today, one textbook with a list price of $173.33 is available electronically for $95.33.
Mr. Schwab also said that the law would encourage professors to integrate technology into the classroom; spark more student interest in science, engineering, and math; and give students marketable skills in using technology.
"Students these days, and kids growing up, will be used to -- and even prefer -- reading stuff in an electronic format," Mr. Schwab said.
I understand the desire to teach students skills in technology and I have no problem with that (though I'm not actually sure how ebooks do that); and I understand the desire to spark interest in STEM fields (though there are a lot of students in those fields -- and I'm also not entirely sure how this helps that, other than making the textbooks cheaper for students wanting to study there. I'd ask for some hard data on whether or not the high cost of science textbooks actually drives people from studying it, but I'm not sure anyone's got any information beyond anecdote).
But what I'm never quite sure about -- and it seems like a lot of legislators and policymakers are interested in this -- is what it means to encourage faculty to integrate technology in the classroom. What does that vague assertion mean? Are faculty -- especially STEM faculty -- really not integrating technology into the classroom? Or is this about encouraging faculty in the humanities to use technology more? And really, just what would we do there?
Part of my response to this may come from the fact that this feels rather micro-manage-y in the vagueness of the statement. The statement also suggests to me that the people behind the law don't actually know what happens in a college classroom.
Hmm. This wound up going in a different direction that I expected. So I guess I have more of an opinion on the whole thing than I thought. And perhaps some of it really does boil down to a bit of confusion/frustration/whatever on my part about vague assertions by people in legislative bodies about how to improve higher education (and I'm not suggesting we don't need improvements -- we do. I'm just not quite sure "technology is good" is an actual answer to the problems we have).