News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
At the risk of self-advertising:… You claim “AI is unusual in degree, not in kind” and “It is not clear…
Apropos of Sagar’s wish to foist the A.I. industry by its own petard, this article appeared in print in yesterday’s…
I teach both large courses, like Jurisprudence and Critical Legal Thinking (a.k.a Legal Argumentation), and small seminar-based courses at Edinburgh…
Surely there is an answer to the problem of AI cheating which averts the existential threat. . It’s not great,…
I’d like to pose a question. Let’s be pessimistic for the moment, and assume AI *does* destroy the university, at…
Hear hear
I agree with all of this. The threat is really that stark. The only solution is indeed in-class essay exams,…
This economics professor claims that it improved student performance. I'm curious to hear from instructors in philosophy and other fields what their experiences have been on this front.
Not only do I ban all technology, but I give extra credit for students who place their phones on a table up front at the beginning of each class (the vast majority of students elect to do so). Banning technology can really help discourage rote note-taking and it gets students to be more active in class discussion (I also post notes after class so that students are less afraid of missing something important, and to comply with accessibility laws). I highly recommend it for most classes.
I banned all electronic devices about ten years ago. I tell people if they need to be available for a call put their phone on buzzer and leave the room if they get a call. I ban laptops for the simple reason that I could not control people surfing the web, writing emails, and so on. I have a zero tolerance policy–they can take notes the old fashioned way.
I tell them my reasons, and I can't remember a student ever arguing with me about it.
I banned all technology five years ago in my history classes. It changed the atmosphere in the classroom. Students are more engaged and focused. I highly recommend it!
I, too, ban technology. It has made a noticeable difference in both class performance and class discussion. At the beginning of the semester, I send them links to some articles about the debate concerning technology in the classroom so they have a better idea concerning my motivations (and contrary positions). The one problem that I think has to be addressed involves students with disabilities.
Obviously, students with disabilities have a right to use technology. But if they are the *only* students who are allowed to use it, they effectively have to out themselves as having a disability in virtue of using the technology. This is not acceptable (or so I would argue). So, on the first day I explain that there are *two* ways of gaining permission to use technology: First, a student can tell me that they have a disability–which automatically qualifies them for access to technology. Second, a student who doesn't have a disability but who nevertheless has a strong preference to use their laptop can come and see and try to convince me why they think they should be allowed to use technology–e.g., I always get one or two students per semester who show me their nearly unreadable handwriting.
So, I tell students upfront that I usually grant one or two exemptions for students without disabilities each semester (which is true). This way, when other students see a student using a laptop, they can't draw any inferences about disability since there are two avenues for gaining access to technology in the classroom. This isn't ideal, but it's the only solution I could think of to address the disability concern. I am curious how others address the issue. Simply forcing students with disabilities to out themselves seems completely inappropriate.
This makes it almost impossible to take sufficient notes, especially if it's a required class that I'm not particularly interested in. I do like the idea of extra credit for those who go without electronics, though.
I like Brian's solution to the outing problem, and I'll have to think more about that strategy. I've faced a new issue: electronic readings. Mostly for cost reasons, I've moved almost entirely to readings which are already online or which I can put online. That means that many students read them online. But if they read them online, they have access to them only if they have their devices. I could solve this by assigning a to-be-purchased textbook, but I really don't want to do that. I could solve this by requiring them to print out their readings, but I don't even do that.
I'm sure lots of people think this is no particular problem ("Just require them to print out the readings!" "Textbooks aren't all that expensive!"). But of the hopefully non-empty-set other people who have wrestled with this particular issue, I'm curious what resolutions have been tried, and maybe even what worked?
I've banned laptops from my large lectures for the past eight years or so. When I announce the policy at the beginning of term it is usually met with stunned disbelief. More than one student has protested indignantly that their human rights were being violated (I'm not kidding). One of the reasons I persist with the policy is that many students tell me at the end of term that they believe they have benefited from it. The two main problems with it are (a) singling out disabled students, as Brian pointed out; and (b) the fact that because they have been almost exclusively typing from an early age, some students find taking notes by hand very physically difficult over an extended period of time.
Comment #4 isn't me, I've no idea why it showed up under my name!
I do like the solution to the 'outing' problem, which is a real issue.
Not a criticism, just an observation: it's funny how 'technology' has come to refer only to modern electronic information technologies. Pen and paper are technology too, of course.
When I taught (just some Intro courses, before I left higher ed. altogether), I was conflicted about banning technology, and ultimately decided not to, admittedly because I was reluctant to be strict with my students about much of anything. I didn't want students to dislike me any more than I figured they automatically would, being forced in effect to take a course they had little if any real interest in, save for the purpose of earning credit. (Maybe that would've encouraged negative student evaluations, and maybe those would've threatened what little job security the position afforded; but I suspect this possibility is negligible.) I basically tried to make the course an easy A, in terms of my grading and classroom policies and such, while also doing my best to make the lessons intellectually rewarding to people who happened to take a genuine interest in the material, i.e., by not watering it down so much.
I don't claim this attitude was entirely justified, rather than an expression of various neuroses or personality flaws or an overall immaturity on my part. (It pains me to write this, but I really don't think I had much business being a professor, and even back then I questioned my motives.) But my rationalization at the time went like: "They're adults. If they want to surf the Web rather than pay attention to the lesson, that's their choice, and it probably indicates their lack of seriousness as students anyway, which I have little power to change. And this is just an Intro course at the community college – why be such a hardass to these people I see, many of whom already have a busy and stressful life and just want to improve their situation with a vocational degree?"
But I can acknowledge now that the benefits of a no-technology policy plausibly override whatever points I may have made there, particularly if the students themselves recognize that their educational experience (or at least command of the material) is likely to benefit from the policy, which would be hard to doubt. And the "They're adults, it's their choice" line maybe has more applications than I saw: If they want to skip the class or drop it unless they can surf the Web throughout, that's their choice.
Regarding the point about students with disabilities, I think Prof. Leiter's take (in #4) is largely sound. Make it clear to the class that there are to be three categories of student: (a) students with disability-related reasons to use technology in class, (b) students with non-disability-related reasons to use technology in class, and (c) students with neither, for whom the use of technology in class is inappropriate. However, one weakness here lies in the possibility that students will presume their technology-using classmates to most likely have disabilities – their thinking may go: "Given the stigmas associated with disability, might a (b) student prefer to incur the costs of staying in the (c) category, so as to minimize her chances of being misidentified by classmates as an (a) student – in effect leaving (b) an empty or almost empty category?"
My inclination would be to adopt this policy anyway, since I can't think of a better one. Prof. Leiter writes: "This way, when other students see a student using a laptop, they can't draw any inferences about disability since there are two avenues for gaining access to technology in the classroom." But I would just change this to read "conclusive inferences," if the point above stands.
Sorry, didn't see #8, as I was taking my time typing!
Starting about 17 years ago I banned all electronic equipment, including cell phones. Brought paper and pencil to class for those claiming to be without means to take notes. A draconian policy–first violation, student had to leave the lecture, second they had to leave the class. Only one student fell into the latter category. But the desired effect was achieved: put the focus of attention on the blackboard and individuals remarks.
I've banned phones and laptops in my classroom for at least 5-6 years. Like Cheyney above, I've actually gotten very little push back on the laptop piece. (I should also note that I rarely if ever lecture in class–rather, I expect students to have examined the readings for a class and then class time is Socratic discussion, which isn't really a "note-taking" exercise.) But I do often find a bunch of akratic smart-phone users. The things are just so darn addictive that if they are within arm's reach, they will check a text, etc. First day of class I do an overly dramatic show of turning off my own phone (with the insistence that students take their phones out, follow me in pushing the off button, etc.), but suspect that wears off after a couple of weeks. My child's high school classrooms have a phone cubby–every student has to place his or her phone there before entering the room. But that seems a bit much for college students.
I've banned all such technology for the last 10 years. I have gotten only a very small amount of pushback, in the student evaluations of one class. I have to remind students here and there to put their phones away, but it is very easily worth it. I also provide lecture notes, so there is no need to write down what I'm saying or writing on the board. I say note-taking is for main ideas and questions, if they want to take notes at all. I am much more interested that they pay attention and think about what's going on and participate and tell them so. Combined with telling them that participation can bump final grades, I think this has helped encourage participation a fair bit in bigger classes.
I like the idea of having them turn the phones off at the beginning or bring them up for extra credit, and sending them the relevant research.
I strongly suspect that it improves student performance, and that is part of why I do it, but the more powerful reasons for me have to do with something like respect. I once watched a friend lecture a large class in ethics. I sat in the back, and the room was simply filled with screens, many playing videos, almost all having nothing to do with the lecture. If I were a student wanting to pay attention, and wasn't on my own computer, all these screens with moving images would make it nearly impossible for me to pay close attention. So I think it's disrespectful to students behind you to have distracting material in their line of sight.
I also find it disrespectful to me. I don't love every bit of material I teach, but I take a lot of time deciding what to teach, in what order, preparing the lectures, and making sure I feel well enough to give a good lecture. For me, this takes a lot of time. A lot of professors, including myself, care a great deal about our teaching, and that our students get as much as possible out of it. When I am lecturing a class, I am talking to each and every one of them. So if they are on their phone or laptop, I experience it not very differently than if they were doing so when I was talking to them one on one. I understand that they (or their parents) pay and I get paid. But I simply do not prepare my lectures, or my syllabi, in the way I did the work of the many bullshit jobs I've had in my life. I did those to get paid. I don't teach mainly in order to get paid, and for me the considerations around getting paid mainly lead to my teaching being worse, by my standards (being concerned about student evaluations is almost uniformly a detriment to my teaching, in my view).
It is also, in my view, disrespectful to philosophy, or at least the material you've chosen to teach. If you are assigning the material, you presumably think at least most of it warrants being read and considered. Seeing all those screens absorbing all those students' attention while my friend was lecturing struck me as a mild abomination (if that's not contradictory, which I don't think it is). It kind of reminded me of the time I was at a catholic ceremony to formally make two people godparents to a child. The bishop or whatever had all this serious talk about how the godparents thus took upon themselves the obligation to raise the child to be a catholic should the parents die. But neither the parents nor either of the godparents were catholic; all atheists. Rightly or not, I suspected that the fancy-robed bishop or priest whatever didn't know or care about this. But suppose the bishop had known or had every reason to know. Then to me the bishop makes a mockery of his own religion. A lot of serious-sounding bullshit.
To my mind, a professor looking out at a bunch of screens and phones knows full well that almost none of this is note-taking, and is very likely deleterious to not only the student with the screen, but likely those behind that student. But then why permit this if one thinks one is teaching something worthwhile? Whether or not you think it is worthwhile, allowing the screens sends the signal that you do not. And if you send that signal, how can you expect them to take it seriously? Imagine being an intelligent, ardent student looking at all the screens as the professor goes on and on, either pretending to believe that people are taking notes or signaling that it doesn't matter enough to do anything about it either way. To me, it looked ridiculous.
I'm curious how you think we all managed to take notes before there were any such devices? (And I can assure you that we did.)
I'm with Craig (#6). For a brief period I banned phones (by adopting the method suggested by gb, #1). But I've since abandoned that, because students are increasingly using electronic readings, and I can't see how to justify banning screens under those conditions. I want them to be able to consult the readings in class, and I don't want to require them to print the readings out.
But I'm still very bothered by the issue of students doing non-class-related stuff during classes, of course. So I'm extremely curious to hear if anyone has a way around this.
Bartlett is correct, much of laptop usage in undergrad and law school classrooms is for electronic readings and textbooks.
Why this transition? Because textbooks are hundreds of dollars each, and students are cash-strapped and debt-ridden. Electronic books are frequently deeply discounted, and piracy is popular.
Professors are free to institute their own policies regarding technology use. And the typical professor, so abstracted from the basic economic realities of her students, will probably make bad ones that mostly harm poor students.
Writing is more beneficial for learning than typing:
https://mashable.com/2017/03/15/pen-or-typing-research/#LBvzu2SHliqH
"Professors are free to institute their own policies regarding technology use. And the typical professor, so abstracted from the basic economic realities of her students, will probably make bad ones that mostly harm poor students."
I think this isn't entirely clear. My policy is to disallow laptops in the classroom. My view is that the "A" students in class are smart and can likely be online while listening to the lecture, and are not harmed too much. But there are also low-performing students in class who have trouble understanding the material as it is, and need help paying attention, and for them laptops are a distraction. So my view is that laptops disadvantage the very students in class that need the most help.
"So my view is that laptops disadvantage the very students in class that need the most help."
The weakness of this view, it seems to me, is that it can't qualify any harm to students who couldn't attend the class due to book fees (a not-trivial number of students). And it seems there's an obvious middle-ground to be struck that solves a lot of things — professors provide their own excerpts of whatever materials are needed, and students print them out.
This isn't doable for some fields. But open-source textbooks and professor-generated problem sets are popular among maths professors. Law professors frequently provide their own case excerpts, tailored to precisely the content they want to teach. There are dozens of translations of philosophers online, and most professors have access to a photocopier.
Professors can and should strive for accessibility in classroom materials. The annual 1000+ dollar waste on textbooks causes a tremendous amount of anxiety among students. That anxiety has a palpable effect on classroom performance.
I don't think certain disabilities in universities are stigmatizing, rather they confer a status of affluence. While I am (or rather was because I have secured some lucrative job offers as a result of my studies) a low-income student, a couple of my peers wondered if my disability was a result of a (praised) abused of mental health services that entitle to me, among other things to extended time on high-stakes standardized and other testing. Indeed, when I took the extended time LSAT, the classroom was almost universally filled with wealthy sorority and fraternity members. So, while I'm not denying mental health stigma, I think it operates differently in the collegiate context.
—–
KEYWORDS:
Primary Blog
Leave a Reply to Michael Cancel reply