We have a lot of discussion about the use of technology in the classroom. I also imagine there are some “out there” who remember “high tech” as having colored overhead transparencies. I also wonder the extent to which there are individuals who really can’t “function” without their PowerPoint presentations. It seems that everyone who makes a presentation uses PowerPoint. I wonder what would happen if these individuals “lost” those presentations. The same thought comes to mind when I attend professional meetings and watch individuals proceed to “read” what is on the PowerPoint presentation. However, I digress.
Although I wanted to remain with the concept of pedagogy and use of technology, and this will be the focus of my “musing for the day,” I want to pose a question to all of us, based upon an article I read in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume 55, Issue 15, page A31 (Tuesday, December 2, 2008). This article was written by Michael Bugeja and was titled: Classroom Clickers and the Cost of Technology.
I am sure that many of us are familiar with the use of “clickers” in the classroom, and many of us have experienced their use in meetings such as the American Public Health Association Governing Council, where “clickers” are used to record votes that are taken in that particular meeting. However, Bugeja has raised the point of the cost of these devices in terms of student fees and the proprietary nature of these devices, as a way for companies who manufacture these devices, as well as for bookstores that will sell the devices to the students, to realize income. He also cited a 2004 document, “Introducing Student Response Systems at MY” a document that is still online at the University of Missouri, in which a “warning is issues related to textbook publishers who include “clickers” with their text as a way to reduce used book sales. Further, if there are different types of “clickers” for different textbooks, the receivers in the classrooms may not be “compatible” with the “clicker” the student has purchased, thus the “clicker” represents a “useless” piece of technology.
Clearly there are “issues” associate with the use of this technology in the classroom, but I wonder if anyone “out there” has actually “purchased” a set of “clickers” and the accompanying technology, and has taken this technology “into the field” for use in community-based programs? I would think that having this technology available, might “protect” the anonymity of responses of individuals who are attending community-based programs that may include “sensitive” topical issues, but it would make data collection and feedback to the participants, more immediate and perhaps accurate.
I, for one, like the concept of using clickers but have not read anything about how health educators may have incorporated this technology into their community program efforts. Do they work?
Kelly House
rodneybbowden
donchaney
bethchaney
billcissell
karllarson
Jody Early
Joan Cowdery
I think it is so easy to go overboard with technology. A good educator (community or ivory tower) should be capable of getting points across without technological aids. While learning and teaching can be enhanced with technological assistance, it is not always helpful. 2 examples…
I implemented a malaria chemoprophylaxis program in Iraq in 2004. In a period of 3 weeks I distributed 15 doses of Primaquine to over 3000 people, documented the delivery and educated each individual on the proper use of the med including adverse reactions. I don’t recall having any technology there… standing in the middle of an aircraft hanger (with a hole in the ceiling from a 2000 lb bomb) I had neither clicker nor powerpoint. Technology or not, I had to communicate effectively with my constituents or someone could have been seriously harmed. I don’t think this type of scenario is atypical for health educators (well except for the war zone and the hole in the ceiling)
A recent faculty study on our campus identified that well over half of the faculty members who use a content delivery system (blackboard, Webct, moodle) were frustrated. They felt that it “wasn’t saving them time or helping them teach”. Perhaps it is the technological platform… maybe it is just an over-relyance on “gadgets” and “spoonfeeding” that make it disenchanting. Who knows…
What I do know is that if you build your skill repetoire around technoligical advancements… sometime you will be left out in the cold (maybe even in a breezy aircraft hanger in Iraq).
TDub
Larry,
Some of us, probably including you, remeber when high tech was the ditto machine and the “purple plague” reproductions. When 3M Corporaion produced the color overhead transparencies for the SHES Study Curriculum, Many considered this a major leap forward. I recall observing many continuing teacher education presentations on the most effective techniques when using overhead transparencies.
The wise use of any technology, whether it is chalk and the chalk board or one like we are using here, involves being sure the learner or subscriber is engaged in the communication process. Does the technology complement the communication process? Or, does it hinder it? Can use of low tech generate the same outcomes with less expense? We know that face-to-face communication has the advantage that body language assists cnveying the intended meaning of the message, but the Internet can reach a hugh audience located around the world.
Some applications of high tech complement the communication process well. Other applications, such as the reading of the slides, deract from the communication process. This is a key reason that every professional preparation program for health educators should include instruction on the most effective ways to communicate. Ideally, these wil be taught by wise professors who are skilled at modeling effective applications of use of technologies.
I agree with both the comments that were posted in response to my “thought provoker.” Overuse of anything is not “good.” I teach a lot of on line classes and for those who think this is a “piece of cake,” they may just not see the big picture. Teaching on line is not easy. it takes a great deal of time to ensure that the students are learning and that what is being posted (gee, have we seen things on HEDIR that raised the “ire” of some folks, who “read” something different into what was posted than the individual who made the initial posting thought he or she was posting), is being “interpreted” the same way by all who read the material.
I think learning can be fun, and try to approach things in that manner. The concept of the “clickers” is “novel” for most community settings so that is why I wondered if anyone had used them with community-based programs.
Yes Bill, I certainly do remember the “purple perils.”
Larry
Larry,
I taught exclusively on line for the last two years before I retired. Prior to that, I taught at least one course on line each year for several years. Also, I taught by interactive television (multimedia) for several years in the 1990s. You are right that teaching with advanced technology increases preparation time and time spent reassuring learners that they can do well using the technolgy being employed. Most students using technology become sophisticated in its use fairly quickly, but some seem to never quite master it.
[kaltura-widget wid="8ukd8xzqo8" size="comments" /]
Kele, the above video didn’t work. You may want to put the URL instead so people can go directly to the video.
The issue is that there are individuals who rely on what textbook publishers “provide” to them as a “reward” for using a given textbook. We all know of individuals whose entire course consists of viewing videotapes and/or CDs, with little done on the part of the instructor. This is not going to “go away,” but moderation is a good thing to kee in mind.
I still haven’t seen anything about the use of “clickers” in community health programs.
Larry,
You are right. Those of us who have had extensive opportunities to observe others perform in classrooms have seen wide variation in performance. Most teachers prepare better and perform better when they know they are being observed by a supervisor or peer. Still, some do not appreciate how poorly they are performing, particularly when they use media without proper preparation and effective followup activities. They appear to accept the cncept that the medium is the message.