If you reply to this long (14 kB) post please
don't hit the reply button unless you prune the
copy of this post that may appear in your reply
down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the
entire already archived post may be needlessly
resent to subscribers.
********************************************
ABSTRACT: Jeffrey Young, in a recent Chronicle
report "When Computers Leave Classrooms, So Does
Boredom," describes the computerless "Teaching
Naked" approach to classroom instruction favored
by José Bowen. Bowen especially dislikes
PowerPoint (PP) presentations. My own experience
is that PP "lectures" *can* be structured so as
to promote active student engagement and need not
suffer from the faults of average PP
presentations: lack of logical outline form;
improper use of charts, graphs, and tables; and
reliance on PP's commercial "Auto-Layouts" and
"chartjunk." As for "teaching naked," José Bowen
appears to be dismissive of the advantages of
clickers for encouraging interactive engagement
and thus increasing student learning. I conclude
that "When Computers Enter Classrooms, Student
Learning May Increase."
********************************************
Jeff Saul, in his PhysLrnR post titled "Re: All
about constructivism," wrote [my insert at ". . .
.[insert]. . . .]:
"I just found the article. . . .[Young (2009) at
<http://chronicle.com/article/Teach-Naked-Effort-Strips/47398/>].
. . .in this week's Chronicle of Higher
Education. I thought this group might be
interested because. . .[the article describes the
teaching approach of José A. Bowen who]. . .
espouses learning through interactive engagement
(particularly using lectures for discussion) and
devalues the use of technology (particularly
Powerpoint) except for making lecture materials
available to the students before class."
Young (2009) wrote [bracketed by lines "YYYYYY"]:
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
College leaders usually brag about their
tech-filled "smart" classrooms, but a dean at
Southern Methodist University is proudly removing
computers from lecture halls. José A. Bowen,
dean of the Meadows School of the Arts, has
challenged his colleagues to "teach naked" - by
which he means, sans machines.
More than anything else, Mr. Bowen wants to
discourage professors from using PowerPoint,
because they often lean on the slide-display
program as a crutch rather than using it as a
creative tool. Class time should be reserved for
discussion, he contends, especially now that
students can download lectures online and find
libraries of information on the Web.
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Regarding PowerPoint (PP), some discussion list
subscribers may be aware of Edward Tufte's war on
PowerPoint presentations, see e.g. "Lousy
PowerPoint presentations: The fault of PP users?"
[Tufte (2006)].
With due respect to Tufte (I own three of his
marvelous books on the visual presentation of
information), and to José Bowen, I think it's
less that "Power Point Cannot Engender
Discussion," or that "PowerPoint Makes Us Dumb,"
or that "PowerPoint Is Evil," than that most of
those who use "PowerPoint" are not using it
properly.
My own experience is that PP presentations *can*
be structured so as to promote active student
engagement and discussion. Furthermore, PP
presentations need not suffer from the faults of
many PP presentations: lack of logical outline
form; improper use of charts, graphs, and tables;
and reliance on PowerPoint's commercial
"Auto-Layouts" and "chartjunk."
As for the advantages of "teaching naked,"
judging from Young's (2009) account, Bowen
appears to be dismissive of the advantages of
clickers for encouraging interactive engagement
and thus student learning - see e.g. Bruff (2009)
and Hake (2008). But that Bowen is as least
*aware* of clickers is apparent in his earlier
article [Bowen (2006)].
Yes, I'm aware that for "Peer Instruction" (PI)
[Mazur (1997), Crouch & Mazur (2001)] low-tech
flashcards appear to be just as effective as
clickers in promoting student learning [Lasry
(2008)]. But as indicated in Hake (2008):
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Clickers:
(a) have contributed to the spread of the PI
approach by providing a relatively easy and
attractive bridge from traditional
passive-student lectures to greater interactivity;
(b) allow instructors to obtain real-time student
feedback in histogram form thus "making students'
thinking visible and promoting critical
listening, evaluation, and argumentation in the
class";
(c) archive student responses so as to improve
questions and contribute to education research.
From a broader perspective, clickers may contribute to the spread of
"interactive engagement" methods shown to be
relative effective in introductory physics
instruction - i.e., methods designed to promote
conceptual understanding through the active
engagement of students in heads-on (always) and
hands-on (usually) activities that yield
*immediate feedback* through discussion with
peers and/or instructors [Hake (1998a,b)].
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I conclude that "When Computers Enter Classrooms,
Student Learning May Increase."
"A clash of doctrines is not a disaster - it is an opportunity."
Alfred North Whitehead
REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.
Bowen, J.A. 2006. "Teaching Naked: Why Removing
Technology from your Classroom Will Improve
Student Learning" (Extended article), National
Teaching and Learning Forum, 16(1); online to
subscribers at
<http://www.ntlf.com/FTPSite/issues/v16n1/index.htm>.
If your institution doesn't subscribe, then it
should! This article was also disseminated by the
"Tomorrow's Professor" list as Msg. 786 on 3
April 2007, online at
<http://tinyurl.com/2xmm5p>.
Bruff, D. 2009. "Teaching with Classroom Response
Systems: Creating Active Learning Environments."
Jossey-Bass. Amazon.com information at
<http://tinyurl.com/5otp9r>. Note the searchable
"Look Inside" feature. See also the description
in Bruff's Blog at
<http://derekbruff.com/teachingwithcrs/?page_id=36>.
Crouch, C.H. & E. Mazur. 2001. "Peer Instruction:
Ten years of experience and results," Am. J.Phys.
69: 970-977; online at <http://tinyurl.com/sbys4>.
Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs
traditional methods: A six thousand- student
survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66(1): 64-74;
online at <http://tinyurl.com/3xuyqe> (84 kB).
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods
in introductory mechanics courses," online at
<http://tinyurl.com/2tg5d9> (108 kB) - a crucial
companion paper to Hake (1998a).
Saul, J. 2009. "Re: All about constructivism,"
PhysLrnR post of 23 Jul 2009 07:14:03-0600;
online at <http://tinyurl.com/nre86n>. To access
the archives of PhysLnR one needs to subscribe,
but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html>
and then clicking on "Join or leave the list (or
change settings)." If you're busy, then
subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under
"Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may
access the archives and/or post messages at any
time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!
Tufte, E. 2006. "Lousy PowerPoint presentations:
The fault of PP users?" online at
<http://tinyurl.com/flbhr/>.
Young, J.R. 2009. "When Computers Leave
Classrooms, So Does Boredom." Chronicle of Higher
Education: Technology, 24 July; online at
<http://chronicle.com/article/Teach-Naked-Effort-Strips/47398/>.
Young's article is accompanied by a 4 minute
video of José Bowen nakedly lecturing on
"Teaching Naked."