Technology in Higher Education: Classroom Benefits and Gaps

Introduction: The Case for Technology in College Classrooms

Author Linda B. Nilson does not claim that technology suits all student needs, nor does she assert that it is helpful to every type of learner. However, in a survey involving 882 college students from Texas, North Carolina, and New York State, 99% owned a cell phone, 90% owned a laptop computer, and 83% owned an MP3 player (Baker, et al., 2012). Given the overwhelming number of students in this survey — 41.2% female and 58.8% male — who use technology regularly, it can be reasonably assumed that most students would be comfortable with the use of technology in a college classroom (Baker, 2012).

Nilson explains that technology enhances students' productivity and allows them to work at the pace they are most comfortable with. Increasingly, instructors show a willingness to provide students with computer-based tutorials, and many understand that by offering students technology literacy, they broaden students' employment opportunities after graduation (Nilson, 2010). The central thesis of this paper is that while it is not the duty of college instructors to be current on the most advanced technologies, it is vitally important that students acquire technological competencies as part of their major field of study.

Teaching Future Teachers to Use Technology

College instructors should be aware that what students learn about technology through higher education will shape what they carry with them into their careers — especially if they plan to go into teaching. Because young people in elementary, middle, and high school environments must be given the opportunity to develop foundational skills in information and communication technologies, it is essential that colleges and universities teach future teachers those same skills. Author Victor Wang asserts that today's children are exposed to a tremendous amount of technology outside the classroom, and that when they enter a typical middle or high school classroom, they are literally walking back in time (Wang, 2014). Writing in the Handbook of Research on Education, Wang explains that while technological advances have reached today's secondary classrooms, the mere presence of technology does not ensure that students leave with the skills they need to succeed in college and in life (Wang, 2014).

This is where universities that train teachers enter the picture. Wang references a study identifying six barriers that prevent the full integration of technology in schools: (a) resources; (b) skills and knowledge; (c) institutional shortcomings; (d) beliefs and attitudes; (e) inadequate assessment strategies; and (f) subject culture (Wang, 2014). In another study, recent university graduates in teacher training programs were polled on what they had learned and how they felt about the future. These graduates expressed strong confidence in their content knowledge, but the majority admitted they were not as comfortable in the realm of technology (Wang, 2014). Wang concludes that a call to action is necessary: adequate technology training should be required in every college classroom.

A related issue, according to Wang, concerns the assessment of university faculty — specifically, how competent instructors are at teaching and modeling technology use throughout the full teacher training program. One significant problem with Middle Childhood Education courses for pre-service teachers is that their heaviest exposure to leading-edge technologies occurs only in the final semester of the program (Wang, 2014). It is of limited value for a pre-service teacher to use software such as Chalk and Wire to create an online portfolio and then load that portfolio onto a flash drive to show potential employers — simply using technologies to advance one's career application is not the same as being prepared to integrate technology meaningfully into future middle and high school classrooms (Wang, 2014).

Furthermore, university instructors must recognize that merely teaching technology theories falls far short of giving students genuine hands-on learning opportunities. Pre-service teachers need to see both theories and applications modeled in practice, which will in turn give those students the skills to implement them in their own future classrooms.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Classroom Technology

The use of interactive clickers in college classrooms has both positive and negative dimensions. Clickers allow students to provide instant feedback on questions or issues presented by instructors, and are particularly useful in large classrooms. In the past, an instructor might ask students to raise their hands in response to a question; when clickers are used as polling devices, however, a student's vote or response becomes entirely anonymous — unless the instructor is conducting a quiz in which the clicker represents a graded answer (Herreid, 2007).

On the positive side, students show enthusiasm for clicker use, their learning appears to improve, and their attendance rates tend to increase (Herreid, 2007). On the negative side, cheating is possible — one student could use a friend's clicker — and in large classrooms, infrared clicker systems are not always reliable. Additionally, because this technology carries a cost, it is not always practical or cost-effective for every educational context.

Works Cited

Baker, W.M., Lusk, E.J., and Neuhauser, K.L. (2012). On the Use of Cell Phones and Other Electronic Devices in the Classroom: Evidence From a Survey of Faculty and Students. Journal of Education for Business, 87(5), 275–289.

Bertrand, W.E. (2010). Higher Education and Technology Transfer: The Effects of "Techno-Sclerosis" on Development. Journal of International Affairs, 64(1), 101–114.

Herreid, C.F. (2007). Start with a Story: The Case Study Method of Teaching College Science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Nilson, L.B. (2010). Teaching At Its Best. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wang, V.C.X. (2014). Handbook of Research on Education and Technology in a Changing Society. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.