Paul asks: "What can we do to educate the public about the reality of our work?"
At the risk of igniting a flame war, it seems to me that a good portion of the public's misperception of professors' work comes from the fact that there is an entire industry now dedicated to convincing the public and persuading (read: funding the campaigns of) legislators that there now exists a set of "high" technologies that almost guarantee that students will learn difficult (and, more important, salable) skills with practically no effort required on their part. Professors, lectures, even discussions, according to this new narrative, are part of a crumbling, obsolete era. These technologies run the gamut from "clickers" and "smart boards" to "course management systems" and (the most recent hype) Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Each of these technologies confers certain advantages and disadvantages. These advs and disadvs differ depending on the context: things like topic, the population of students, the aim of the education, etc. None of these technologies, however, makes it possible for students to learn if the students don't first dedicate themselves to the task of learning (sometimes called "engagement," but then it runs afoul of the oft-heard claim that the technologies themselves "promote engagement" -- Hawthorne Effect much? -- the mere-tech "buzz" will wear off soon enough). And once students so dedicate themselves, lectures will stop seeming quite so burdensome. The main problem with lectures is not their putative failure as pedagogical tools. (If you want to know something, don't you often go to someone who you think knows about it and listen to them talk about it, uninterrupted, for a few minutes? That's a lecture.). The main problem with lectures is, rather, than no one can turn a profit on them. But they can make a profit on the tech. (Remember what Deep Throat said: Follow the money.) Most of the hype about modern EdTech is, to put it bluntly, a crock of excrement. Most of the so-called "research" in the area is not much better. They are often tiny one-off studies, conducted by tech enthusiasts, that do little or nothing to comprehend the wide variety of contexts in which these changes might take place (e.g., Do we really think that "clickers" in a poor, Latino neighborhood in rural Arizona where nutrition is poor, jobs scarce, and the future bleak are going to have the same impact -- the same meaning -- as they will in a wealthy private school in suburban Boston? Or even in the Boston private school and the struggling public one in nearby Roxbury?). Even worse, much of the big "research" is sponsored (however circuitously) by the industry itself (and its patrons), and should, therefore, not be trusted any more than the BigPharma studies that have been coming under attack in recent years. (Indeed, I would not be surprised to learn, eventually, that the EdTech industry modelled its current marketing strategy on the stunning success BigPharma has had stacking medical journals with "studies" favoring of new, expensive drugs that (in reality) work no better, and sometimes have far worse side-effeccts, than cheaper traditional medications. Don't believe me? Read Ben Goldacre's new book, _Bad Pharma_). I am not by any means opposed to technology in the classroom. Heck, I *created* a lot of the technology used in history of psychology classrooms (websites, Q&A forums, video documentaries, podcasts, etc.). But now we are just being "had." We are being had by salespeople who depend on our deluded belief that we are more "sophisticated consumers" than the Average Joe (just like physicians were duped by pharmaceutical salsepeople who depended on doctors having same deluded belief). We are being had by politicians who are much more interested in who is contributing how much to their next election campaign than they are the "good of the university" or even the "good of the students." (Note, this is not just about the EdTech industry. Billions are being poured in to politicians who are prepared to lower the tax "burden" (such as it is) on corporations and the super-weathy at pretty well *any* broader social cost, and if they can convince the voting public that "new technology" somehow now makes it unnecessary to continue massive expenditures on good public colleges and universities, they are going to jump at it. There is no set of miracle technologies that will (really) transform higher education for ever. Indeed, few of those technologies are really any more revolutionary than, say, "University of the Air" was when it appeared on television back in the 1960s. (Actually, there was a little-remembered radio version that started as far back as 1929). The difference is that now there is an industry and a political class that are keenly interested in dismantling the traditional university for nothing other than their own benefit and profit. We academics need to stop playing the role of little Red Riding Hood and realize that this ain't grandma. It's the wolf. Chris --- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================= On 2013-01-28, at 11:17 AM, Paul C Bernhardt wrote: > And, the attitude presented in that piece (doubtless representing a reality > seen by more than a handful of faculty) is the reason that there is little > sympathy for increasing funding of higher education. > > What can we do to educate the public about the reality of our work? > > Paul > > On Jan 28, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Christopher Green wrote: > >> I steadfastly deny having experienced any amusement while reading this >> satirical piece of the university course syllabus. >> http://www.salon.com/2013/01/26/my_fake_college_syllabus/ >> >> Chris >> --- >> Christopher D. Green >> Department of Psychology >> York University >> Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 >> Canada >> >> [email protected] >> http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ >> ========================= >> >> >> --- >> >> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. >> >> To unsubscribe click here: >> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003&n=T&l=tips&o=23336 >> >> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) >> >> or send a blank email to >> leave-23336-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu >> >> >> >> >> > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=23339 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-23339-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > > > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=23344 or send a blank email to leave-23344-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
