Get those kids [with their technology] off my lawn


Lectures are boring… sometimes






It’s technology’s fault for [not] being there






15 thoughts on “Get those kids [with their technology] off my lawn

  1. It’s quite refreshing to hear the note of caution in your post. You gave the reader two options for dealing with technology in the classroom: ban it completely, or network all the things, and I believe that many people have felt that way in the face of this enormous tide of ever-sleeker devices, ubiquitous updates, and ever-faster internet speeds. However, I agree with the title of the article you linked just before that: there can be a “third way”. This image of the teacher in a constant tug-of-war with technology for the attention of their students doesn’t have to be the new normal. We can have a nonzero-sum game here, one in which students can bring their devices to class, even use them, *and* the teacher can maintain their attention–within reason, because as Robert Talbert heavily implied in his article, the human attention span is only so long.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks! 🙂

        Yes, I think there is sometimes a false dichotomy in these discussions, which stifles useful conversations about how to use technology. Technology is neither good nor bad in these contexts and doesn’t have to be all or nothing… we need to be discussing how and why we use it.


  2. Thank you for your thoughtful post. I have a few things to say:
    I like and agree with your ontology of the problem : instant gratification from rich media (insta/fb) sends the wrong message to the mind about what is stimulating and what is boring. I also agree that just because we have access to some form of technology doesn’t mean we have to incorporate it in our teaching. I have seen catastrophic cases of this.

    What I’m not so sure of is the long term prospect. If we hold on to what seems to work now, and don’t experiment with the tools(toys?), eventually, we will end up with an archaic system that fails to relate to the younger generation, let alone inspire them. As you mention in your post, the idea of designing things that can only be used in educational purposes (apps or devices) is one way to deal with this, but I find it expensive and restrictive.

    I like to imagine that it is possible to disrupt the digital norms of what is exciting: overtly injecting educational themes into the endless foodstagram feed, or shout outs to interesting researches in the midst of twitter fights. This way all intellectual discussion finds its way to the public, and for some students, it might turn out to be just as fascinating. This, of course is closer to your option 2.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I’m not sure about the long-term solution, either. I have two main thoughts:

    1) teaching boredom. I see this as a larger societal issue, not just an issue in academics. With our smart phones and mobile data, we are being taught through experience that if we ever feel slightly bored, we can entertain ourselves immediately. Societally, we should be teaching appreciation of silence and of simply being and observing the world around us and of engaging our imaginations in moments of boredom by thinking and day dreaming. It’s in these blank spaces that we are able to make connections between ideas or have new thoughts.

    2) Yes, we experiment with using technology! But experiment implies that only a portion on instructors do so in order to determine the impact, there is a design, metrics for measuring success and failure, and reproducible methods. What I object to is the insertion of technology without thought-out reasoning or follow-up with students to determine whether is was beneficial. (I think that this process should exist for all aspects of the course- how else are we to improve as instructors and improve as course designers?)

    In crafting my response to your post made me think more about my initial curmudgeonly reaction of “not all our courses can or should be using this new-fangled social media.” But in thinking about how social media would be pointless in an introductory science course, I starting thinking about how I could teach students how to communicate complicated subjects to non-scientists by crafting twitter posts or teach students how to identify good and bad science using facebook “news” articles. Social media becomes a tool for meeting other course objectives through mediums students are familiar with.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. How many of us haven’t looked around a classroom and watched people type out emails, like Facebook posts, and, you know, watch an entire Youtube video? This is too real, which is why I’m open and real about this fear of mine with my students. I’m open with my students about being that person in my college physics class…and I’m open about being shocked that, after not having paid attention for an entire month, I didn’t get the grade I was somehow expecting on that first test. I’m also open about my desire for them to be open with me. Together, we have conversations about what my students need in my class, why they’re using what they’re using, and whether we need to reconsider our approaches (and yes, “our” includes me).

    As an educator, I have no desire to be some hierarchical figure telling my students what to do, though I’m of course not wanting to encourage them to give in to the draw of tuning out. That being said, I appreciate your point on encouraging communication in the physical world. I agree! Incorporating real-world, hands-on learning works—and works better than absent-minded, passive information-transfer-style learning.


    1. I admit that a large portion of my “no technology in the classroom” feelings stems from my own experiences of feeling distracted by them- including just looking around a classroom and seeing other people watching youtube is distracting to me.
      Yes, I don’t want to dictate to students how they must learn, and I want them to make the right decisions for themselves, but… they won’t necessarily make that decision. And their technological goofing off is potentially leading other students to do the same.


  5. I really loved your emphasis on “encouraging communication in the physical world” in your last paragraph! As a communication scholar, digital learning is a bit of a hot topic in the field, and yet I feel like sometimes face-to-face interaction is not something that can be replaced. As a GTA for public speaking, I can guarantee that students who show up to class and engage with others are more prepared than those who rely only on digital learning. I do think it has a place, but I’m not sure where I fit on the spectrum of digital resources yet! Loved your perspective.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Plus one for “encouraging communication in the physical world”! Humans learn through interaction (with other people, ideas, the world around them, etc.) and reflection on experience. So I think as teachers we always want to be attentive to ways to leverage those interactions for the student’s benefit. F2F communication is hard to beat, but so, too, are thoughtfully curated networks (not a synonym of social media, BTW). We definitely need to talk about how to keep our devices from distracting us during class, but I think it’s equally importantto attend to the quality of the in person interaction. Students can be as distracted during a lecture they are listening to in person as they are during one they watch through the LMS. The problem isn’t (just) the phones and laptops, it’s also the choice of instructional method. Lectures are good for some things, but not for others, so we should be clear in our own minds about why we’re lecturing.
      Also, I think the point about cultivating “boredom” is really important. I’d probably substitute “quiet,” or “revery” for a word that has a negative connotation, but I definitely agree that our ability and desire to be alone with our thoughts and to remain focused on something long form and complicated (i.e. a lecture) has taken a hit and needs help.
      Wonderful title and images here, BTW!


      1. I’ve been in a bit of a reverie over the concept of boredom, and I think that I want to revise my initial post…

        Learning to engage in reverie and contemplation outside the classroom could help students learn to ingest and intellectually process information- including within the lecture format. I know I am not alone in that when I isolate myself from technology I am naturally more engaged in introspective thinking- which leads to creative thinking, problem solving, or just understanding concepts. But the step before that often involves stepping away from other distracting and fun inputs. (I often mute my phone/turn off my wifi or go for a walk when trying to troubleshoot a problem or ingest a complicated idea). In the classroom setting, where the only input is the lecture or discussion or group project, a student can engage in this type of thinking about the topics. However, in order to do so, they probably need to set their technological (and other non-classroom) distractions aside.

        In a typical classroom lecture setting, I think that a student will find being lectured to boring, if they are not engaging in active listening/learning (or whatever the correct pedagogical term). Instead of encouraging students to learn to “be bored,” I would want students to recognize that boredom is often a step to introspective thinking AND that they can alleviate boredom by being engaged in information transfer process.***
        Yes- you’re being told the parts of the atmosphere in this lecture, but how does each new term fit with previous terms? How does this information fit with the information you’ve already learned about chemical processes?
        This concept is at the foundation of those “handwriting notes are better than computer notes” studies. Because instead of transcribing (a passive experience), you are synthesizing when making handwritten notes, because none of us know shorthand anymore. Instead of students scrambling to write down definitions they could look up later in the textbook or slides, they should be thinking about understanding the terms, how they fit into the larger picture of the course/field/understanding of life.

        I’m not saying that we (lecturers) have no role in making classes interesting or engaging to students. We should be helping them understand complex concepts and make connections. I’m simply pointing out that students themselves must be willing and able to engage the material.

        *** I’m not claiming here that all lectures are created equal- let’s assume for the sake of argument that the lecture/lecturer are not “below average” and an entirely pointless waste of time.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Absolutely — I’m sure we’ll talk about a lot of this in class tonight. I think the main thing I want to note here is that,”information transfer” is not one of the four things lectures are good for. (Even though a lot of lectures are premised on that idea.)


        2. I liked your perspective on boredom. Being a student, I have tried to engage myself as much as possible when I would feel bored. The problem was, after certain attempts I would just give up. To blame the lecture/lecturer is not a focus here. However, I don’t know what I could have done more. So, going back to your original post and the statement liked by everyone else here, “encouraging communication in the physical world”. I think the most boring lectures were when I had to hear the lecture continuously for 50/75 minutes. The attention span is different for everyone and unless something is completely mind-blowing, the attention would be lost after some time. If that can be understood and strategies incorporated for that, lectures can sure be fun!


          1. Oh, I agree. Some 45 min classes I can pay attention to almost the entire thing. Others… far less than that. I think our personal interest in the material and the professor make a huge difference.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Yes- hopefully we can teach students to communicate verbally/in person and in writing/online. Both are skills they need, but it seems that tomorrow’s undergrad will probably have the most experience with short, casual written communication. We need to develop that into professional written communication (and technology can be great for that!) and help develop those in-person communication/discussion skills.
      In my experience, in person discussions allow you to share more informally than online chats, because you’re feeding off of others in the room. You go down all sorts of interesting tangents that can facilitate learning. You can share half-formed thoughts that others can build on and asking questions in that type of setting often feels more casual and less accusatory. “Why do you think that?” can be taken all sorts of ways when the in person context is someone making verbal and physical signs that they actually want the answer in order to understand.


Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s