Peter Blodnik’s Weblog

One innovative technology which I was recently able to use as a learner in a University Systems Physiology course. The technology was a ‘data acquisition system’ which converted body functioning data such as heart rate, nerve response, and lung volume, into electrical signals which were then converted into digital information and displayed on a screen. This technology was innovative because it allowed us to study these physiological processes outside of a textbook. This observation of real, relevant data made the lessons we were learning more in depth.

One technology I was able to use in my teaching experience to improve efficiency, was used in a third grade classroom. The technology was a computer program called ’study island’ which we used to teach basic arithmetic to the students. The program allowed each student to work at their own computer, and complete tasks at their own pace. The end result was a game that the students earned for their achievement, which reviewed the topics they had learned. The results of each lesson were automatically pooled, for the entire class, graded and sent to the teacher, and each students’ parents, as a progress report. The reduced paperwork and grading time certainly increased the efficiency of the class. The ‘games’ which also encouraged further learning, made the students want to complete the lessons as quickly as possible, which also increased efficiency.

As a learner, I was exposed to a situation where technology encouraged community learning. The ‘clickers’ system is now used by several of my university professors. Teaching in large classrooms, the clickers were used to survey the class with short, simple questions. As in the ’study island’ program, student responses were automatically averaged and put in easily interpreted statistics. Using this system properly, professors are able to respond to what students know, and what they are/ are not understanding in the lesson.

The general trend that makes these technologies ‘good,’ is that they can on some level all be considered as helping innovation, efficacy and community. Some clearly better than others, however the best technologies probably do all three.

I have used the ‘clicker,’ system in several courses at Rutgers university, and sometimes it is used poorly. Most often, i feel, the problem is that the instructor is not properly trained in using the technology. In these cases, the clickers take too much time too use, the results of the responses are not used to guide instruction, and the results are not collaborated to make comparison across the class. Here this technology only becomes a waste of time and a burden on the class. I suppose the take home lesson is to know how, (no matter how obvious this sounds), to PROPERLY use the technology you have.