UCalgary made the national news, with this segment titled “Calgary professor bans modern technology in his classroom”1.
I really don’t know what to say about this. My gut reaction is something like “if they’re tuning out and checking Facebook in class, that’s data about how the class is going, and banning technology would just hide the symptom rather than actually fixing anything.”
Also, the prof still uses her own tech in every class, with laptop and projector etc… fired up. So, it’s not about technology on its own.
This is about control, more than technology. I’m not sure what to make of that. I don’t know the prof, and have never seen her teach. She teaches linguistics and psychology - perhaps her specific subject matter or teaching style work better without “technology”?
I have a bit of a problem2 with instructors having that much control over adult students. She does allow some technology - students are using pens and paper - but bans other technologies that are deemed disruptive3. As one student says in the segment - they’re paying to be there, and they should be able to make their own decisions about what technologies they use.
Ironically, I also see instructors who fall on the other side of the spectrum, mandating that students MUST USE TECHNOLOGY because of reasons. We’re talking about adult students from diverse backgrounds and contexts, and mandating (or banning) anything may just not be appropriate.
Yes, there should be codes of conduct. Mute your speakers. Don’t use loud clicky keyboards. Don’t sit in the front row and watch Netflix marathons, etc…. But, is “banning” technology really a solution? Does it just emphasize that The Instructor is In Control, and that Students Must Behave? The reinforcement of the power relationship may be doing more to have students “on task” than the lack of modern technologies.
update: Dr. Siedivy wrote an article in the Calgary Herald back in September, I’m still not sold. This feels like conflation of cause and effect. Are students unengaged because they have Modern Technology™, or are they facebooking and tweetaring because they’re unengaged in the class? She talks about her sister being unengaged in her technology company meetings, and “multitasking” on mobile devices instead of being bored. Sounds familiar. But, in meetings/conferences/whatever where I’m engaged, the Modern Technology™ either a) stays closed, or more likely b) gets used to support engagement in whatever conversations are happening. Boredom begets unengagement begets “multitasking”. Banning multitasking doesn’t make people magically feel engaged and included in the activities.
-
although it’s clear that the professor is a woman, so whoever titles segments at Global National obviously doesn’t watch the segments, and has a strong sexist bias when it comes to professors, who are certainly all men of course ↩︎
-
as the manager of the Technology Integration Group, I may have a bit of a bias ↩︎
-
Disruptive as in “causing a distraction”, or Disruptive as in “giving power to those who are not standing at the front of the room”? ↩︎