Robert Talbert: Computers, the Internet, and the Human Touch



Robert Talbert

It used to be that in order to educate more than a handful of people at the same time, schools had to herd them into large lecture halls and utilize the skills of lecturers to transmit information to them. Education and school became synonymous in this way. Lectures, syllabi, assessments, and other instruments of education were the tightly-held property of the universities.

But that’s changing. Thanks to advancements in media and internet technology over the past decade, it is simpler than ever today to package and publish the raw informational content of a course to the internet, making the Web in effect a lecture hall for the world. We now have projects such as MIT OpenCourseWare, Khan Academy, and countless initiatives for online education at US colleges and universities providing high-quality materials online, for free, to whomever wants them. It brings up a sometimes-disturbing question among educators: If students can get all this stuff online for free, what are classrooms and instructors for?

Tech author Randall Stross attempts to examine this question in his New York Times article “Online Courses, Still Lacking that Third Dimension”. In the article, Stross mentions “hybrid” courses — courses with both online and in-person components — but focuses mainly on self-contained courses done entirely online with no live human interaction. He correctly points out that learning is an inherently human activity, and technologically-enhanced coursework is successful insofar as it retains that “human touch”.

However, Stross casts the relationship between computer-enabled courses and traditional courses as a kind of zero-sum game, wherein an increased computer presence results in a decreased human presence. He refers to universities “adopting the technology that renders human instructors obsolete.” But it’s not the technology itself that makes instructors obsolete; it’s the adoption of practices of using that technology that does. There are numerous instances of traditional college courses using computing and internet tools to affect positive change in the learning culture of the institution. There are also plenty of cases, as Stross points out, where technology has replaced human instructors. The difference is an administrative one, not a technological one.

Nor is the supposed obsolescence of the instructor all technology’s fault. If universities and individual professors continue to hold on to a conception of “teaching” that equates to “mass communication” — using the classroom only to lecture and transmit information and nothing else — then both university and instructor are obsolete already, no technology necessary. They are obsolete because the college graduate of the 21st century does not need more information in his or her head to solve the problems that will press upon them in the next five or ten years. Instead, they need creativity, problem-solving experience, and high-order cognitive processing skills. A college experience based on sitting through lectures and working homework does not deliver on this point. The college classroom cannot, any longer, be about lecturing if it is to remain relevant.

And notice that an entirely self-contained online course can be as “traditional” as the driest traditional lecture course attended in person if it’s only a YouTube playlist of lectures. What matters regarding the effectiveness of a course isn’t the technology that is or is not being used. Instead it’s the assumptions about teaching and learning held by the colleges and instructors that matter, and their choices in translating those assumptions to an actual class that students pay for.

What we should be doing instead of choosing sides between computers and humans is finding ways to leverage the power of computers and the internet to enhance the human element in learning. There are several places where this is already happening:

- Livemocha is a website that combines quality multimedia content with social networking to help people learn languages. Users can watch and listen to language content that would normally find its place in a classroom lecture and then interact with native speakers from around the world to get feedback on their performance.

- Socrait, a system proposed by Maria Andersen, would provide personalized Socratic questions keyed to specific content areas by way of a “Learn This” button appended to existing web content, much like the “Like This” button for sharing content on Facebook. Clicking the button would bring the user to an interface to help the user learn the content, and the system contains social components such as identifying friends who also chose to learn the topic.

- I would offer my own experiments with the inverted classroom model of instruction as an imperfect but promising example as well. Research suggests this model can provide significant gains in student learning versus the traditional approach to teaching by simply switching the contexts of lecture and activity, with lecture being delivered via video podcasts accessed outside of class and class time spent on problem-based learning activities in teams.

Rather than view college course structure as a pie divided into a computer piece and a human piece, and fret about the human piece becoming too small, let’s examine ways to use computers to enhance human learning. If we keep thinking of computers as a threat rather than an aid to human interaction, computer-assisted instruction will continue to lack the human touch, the human touch will continue to lack the power and resources of computers and the internet, and student learning will suffer. But if we get creative, the college learning experience could be in for a renaissance.

Robert Talbert is an associate professor of Mathematics and Computing Science and director of Dual-Degree Engineering Programs at Franklin College in Franklin, Indiana. He holds an honors undergraduate degree in Mathematics from Tennessee Technological University and master’s and doctoral degrees in Mathematics from Vanderbilt University, where he was a Master Teaching Fellow at Vanderbilt’s Center for Teaching. Robert’s interests include issues in mathematics education and engineering education, the incorporation of active learning and technology-based pedagogy in the collegiate mathematics classroom, and mathematical questions in abstract algebra and cryptography.

Robert lives with his wife, three kids, and a cat in Bargersville, Indiana. He blogs on math, technology, and education at Casting Out Nines and spends far too much time on Twitter at @RobertTalbert.

TAGS: , , , , ,

2 Comments

  1. Justin Gash says:

    I think this article is right on the mark — technology is a tool to be effectively utilized by the people participating in the classroom, not to replace the people in the classroom.

    Though I am just now getting educated on the topic, I would mention that there are numerous hurdles to effectively using communication in our colleges and universities. Even if we were to convince faculty- and staff-at-large that it is worth the time and effort to learn new technologies, it is a whole separate matter as to effectively using hose technologies in the classroom; “best-practices” is a popular term nowadays, but those are only effective if there is money available for computing, the space available for the technology and good assessment tools to evaluate (and reward?) faculty who invest time and energy into promoting and perfecting these technologies in their classroom.

    Robert — Where do you see programming in all of this? Is computer programming an effectie pedagogical tool for critical thinking? It seems like it would be, but I haven’t really looked into it. If so, should this be a bigger part of mathematics curricula prior to college?

    • Justin,

      Sorry for the long time lapse. I do see computer programming as a highly effective tool for critical thinking in general and for learning mathematics in particular. When I was first learning cryptology, I discovered pretty quickly that you can’t understand a cryptosystem fully until you try to implement it in code. And I think that extends to learning anything mathematical. I would like to see programming be taught as early as late elementary school using graphical/media programming tools like Alice, and certainly programming should be part of the fabric of any STEM college program today.

      I’d recommend anything by Seymour Papert if you’re interested in learning more. His book “Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas” is blowing my mind right now.

Leave a Comment


Trackbacks

  1. Computers, the Internet, and the Human Touch | Casting Out Nines
  2. Salman Khan on the inverted classroom | Casting Out Nines
  3. Casting Out Nines - The Chronicle of Higher Education