Technology and Revolutions in Higher Education

Over the past seven weeks, we have explored various technology advances that can be implemented in the classroom, and some technology was worth discovering. Within the past decade, higher education has made great strides in keeping up with technological advances in order to attract and engage a new generation of learners, as Prensky describes them, “digital natives”. When I first entered the course, my practice of implementing technology into the classroom was limited to Smart-boards, traditional Microsoft PowerPoint presentations, and of course, using computer and online search engines. I thought I was doing well with implementing Kahoot for engaging students.

However, throughout this course, I learned of new products that can be incorporated that actually give the learner freedom to be creative and learn in their own fashion. I was conditioned to the idea of traditional lectures, journaling, and limiting my students to the technology I knew, which limited their freedoms and limited their potential. Later I learned that traditional lecturing is not fully effective in a world where information comes in the blink of an eye. Today’s students can learn about anything with the click of a button. YouTube has almost replaced traditional lectures. In order for us to meet a generation of mostly tech-savvy group of students we as educators must expand our learning and learn from our students.

Prensky (2012) wrote, “Despite all the focus that reformers place on testing, our hardest and most pressing educational problem is not raising test scores, but rather connecting our kids’ education to real life and to the fast-evolving world of the future” (p. 22). For years, traditional instruction relied on basic lectures and video delivery. MacMeekin (2013) made a great point by explaining,” Flipping the classroom is more about getting students to learn beyond the classroom. It is about utilizing resources that they already interact with, such as texting, video games, social media, and so much more. The caveat to this strategy is that many educators are not fully knowledgeable about what technologies exist and the proper training for new technologies is pretty slim or minimized to a trial-and-error experience. Christensen & Eyring (2011) purported, “ To compete in this environment, the traditional university must change what it has historically valued and measured” (p. 391). By establishing new criteria for success, we are choosing not to participate in a race that has already been lost.

The knowledge gained from this course sparked me to reevaluate my philosophy for education and revamp my practices. If we are looking to build creativity and spark innovation in our future leaders then we must learn their level of learning. Traditional lectures are not going to do it. In addition, change must start at the elementary and secondary levels also in order to match students' abilities at the college level. Also, we must allow appropriate training of in-service teachers in order for them to be better prepared in teaching than our tenor faculty. For now, I am going to make the appropriate adjustments in utilizing all resources available and in allowing my students to engage with more applications. For we must allow students to become self-directed and learn at their pace. In doing so, we must remove our old ways of thinking and practices. Lecturing is not the only way.

Tamara Smith M.Ed

References

Christensen, C., & Eyring, H. (2012). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

MacMeekin, M. (2013). Flipping the classroom [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://anethicalisland.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/flipping-the-classroom/

Prensky, M. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom: Hopeful essays for 21st century learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.