First, please note that I have developed, used, and will continue to use video, computer demonstrations, and instructional software in my classes. These and other technologies CAN be useful tools for education. But the current rage for instructional technology is all too often based on a faddish love of gimmicks and a ruthless desire to cut personnel.
Here is my list of complaints:
* Face-to-face contact is crucial for emotional connection, challenge, and growth
* Actually being in a place working with physical stuff is indispensible in order to learn scientific inquiry. Computer simulations of a physics experiment, a squid axon, or a complicated chemical system just will not do it.
* Personal interaction is a powerful aid in the learning of critical thinking, the interpretation of very difficult texts, the generation of new ideas.
* Technology promoters are often arrogantly ignorant of teaching activities beyond lecturing. As if the inadequacy of the lecture-style of instruction automatically means computers are better than classrooms. What about small-group discussions, in-class activities, student presentations, etc.?
* We sometimes hear the incoherent argument: lectures don't work, so let's put the course on video and sell it to other schools! This represents a giant step backwards in the quality of student learning. If Harvard really can put their MBA program onto the internet, then they risk committing fraud because there is no software that can teach teamwork, innovation, or working with people.
* Distance learning is incompatible with connection to the local community.
* Computer technology has the real danger of lessening the opportunities to learn respect for other cultures and other kinds of diversity. There is no face-to-face accountability, no risk of personal confrontation, no physical presence that demands respect. Ask anyone who has seen an e-mail discussion list degenerate into a flamefest.
