Slashdot Mirror
Professors Banning Laptops In the Lecture Hall
Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that professors have banned laptops from their classrooms at George Washington University, American University, the College of William and Mary, and the University of Virginia, among many others, compelling students to take notes the way their parents did: on paper. A generation ago, academia embraced the laptop as the most welcome classroom innovation since the ballpoint pen, but during the past decade it has evolved into a powerful distraction as wireless Internet connections tempt students away from note-typing to e-mail, blogs, YouTube videos, sports scores, even online gaming. Even when used as glorified typewriters, laptops can turn students into witless stenographers, typing a lecture verbatim without listening or understanding. 'The breaking point for me was when I asked a student to comment on an issue, and he said, "Wait a minute, I want to open my computer,"' says David Goldfrank, a Georgetown history professor. 'And I told him, "I don't want to know what's in your computer. I want to know what's in your head."' Some students don't agree with the ban. A student wrote in the University of Denver's newspaper: 'The fact that some students misuse technology is no reason to ban it. After all, how many professors ban pens and notebooks after noticing students doodling in the margins?'"
It's probably for the best. I sort of slagged off in my 4th semester of Latin and would just look up translations of Cicero online and have it ready if I got called on. Caesar I'd just do, but technology enabled me to be even lazier in the second semester of my Senior year than I otherwise would have been. Not that Cicero is much relevant to my actual career, although the BOFH motto seems to be 'Auc Caesar, Auc Nihil' (and if it's not, it really should be).
That said, I didn't have a laptop at all when I was in high school, let a lone bring one to class. The first couple of years at college, I had eRacks setups in my dorm room and convinced IT to delegate me static IPs, so I could shell to my machine from anywhere else on campus, or get back in through the tunnel set up by the Comp Sci department on the Linux cluster if I were at home. I paid more attention in class back then.
I totally get the point of the ban, and frankly in a lecture hall setting there probably isn't a real need for the laptop as opposed to a seminar or lab setting. If I were to go back to school for another degree, chances are I wouldn't bring the laptop with me to class, however if I were told I couldn't, hell yeah I'd be pissed off.
I am dyslexic, and writing on paper at any decent speed pretty much takes my full attention, but I can type faster than most without thinking about it. I'm sure a lot of other people are like this.
I wonder how long it will be before someone challenges this as discrimination.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Most of my faculty lately have said, "You can bring a laptop if you ask me explicit permission and you vet your notes past me for a few weeks'." AKA, he wants to make sure they're actually using it for that purpose for the first couple weeks.
Classes I've been in with open-laptops policy have been terrible -- I can't pay attention to the lecture because (a) all the clicking/keying around me but, more importantly, seeing (and sometimes even hearing) what they're doing. It certainly is NOT related to the class in any way. I'd see maybe one out of a dozen actually using the laptop in a decent way.
My fiancee found that (with her profs permission, of course) having an audio recorder up close to the guy while he was going through his lecture really helped her. She would write down the general idea of what he was talking about, then later that night listen to the recording and type out more complete notes, using her written notes from class as reference. Doing it twice and hearing it twice helped her retain more.
Granted, this won't work for everyone, but it certainly worked for her.
Living With a Nerd
If students are able to not pay attention, and still do well (enough) in classes, then make the classes more difficult.
I've seen plenty of offline distractions as well(DVDs, local video, games, etc.), though the internet is of course the most common source.
In contemporary campus environments, though, how relevant is the difference? The campus, or at least all the academic buildings, are almost certainly blanketed by wifi, controlled by an IT department that isn't about to start taking "Please shut down all APs accessible in room X during times Y and Z" requests if they can possibly help it; and a fair few laptops either have integrated cellular modems or are tethered to phones with decently zippy internet access.
I'm sure that there are plenty of professors(and not just flakey humanities technophobes, the fact that you were writing formal CS proofs in TeX back when it was new doesn't automatically translate to a working knowledge of contemporary consumer electronics) who don't necessarily grasp the distinction; but I strongly suspect that it is a distinction without meaningful difference in most contexts.
The other issue is that, since most laptops have their screens sticking up vertically from the desk they are sitting on, you get the physically troublesome "wall of monitors" effect, no matter what is happening on those laptops.
I can't write with pen or pencil at a decent speed, if I want to be able to read it afterwards. My handwriting is awful, always was, and no matter how much I tried to improve it always remained awful and slow. On the other hand, I am a decent, fast typist. That is why I bring my notebook to all meetings, or to any course I attend (did you think you'd stop studying after leaving college?). I can imagine what would be if I was suddenly forced to use a inferior solution just because someone abused the efficient one.
In which century are these teachers living, btw?
Hell, when I was in college you could SMOKE in class, and they never banned slide rules. I never took notes myself; I can't scribble as fast as the professor can talk, can't read my own scribbling later, and taking notes took my attention away from what the teacher was saying.
If there were diagrams on the blackboard, I'd scribble those down after class, unless they were replicated in the textbook, and if the teacher said "write this down" then I'd write it down.
The instructor's role is to better explain what's in the textbook, and discuss things that weren't in the book. If I was in school today I might use a notebook as a speech recorder (lots of students then used tape), but a notebook ban wouldn't bother me, I can record on my phone as easily as on a notebook.
Do professors still party with their students at after school functions? In a lot of ways you guys have it better than I did, but in a lot of other was we had it better. College was some of the best times of my life. Especially the Mississippi River Festival. Maybe I'll journal about that, it was awesome.
Free Martian Whores!
I'm older and going back to school with a laptop taking notes in class was not working for me, I was easily distracted by either the program I was using, some technical issue, or fighting for the one power socket in the room and in the end I found I had poor recall and reviewing notes on the computer was, frankly, a drag.
Switching to paper kept me engaged, no technical issues, easy on my eyes to review, and the information stayed with me longer.
Not sure how it is for younger folks but paper note taking works best for me.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Actually, I wonder if you're on to something there. Is this ban a "I don't want to see it ever", or a "If you're disruptive, I'll kick you out"... I mean seriously, we're talking about college. It's not up to the professor if you learn anything, it's your job. If you're off screwing around on your laptop instead of taking notes, then it's your own dam fault. And a teacher that cares that you're not paying attention is one that I'd argue isn't doing his/her job. The reason I say it that way, is that at the end of the course, the teacher is responsible for verifying that you know the material. Not that you learned it in his class.
I had that happen to me in an intro to C course. I'd been programming in C for some years by that point but the school wouldn't let me skip the course (even though I demonstrated advanced knowledge). So after 3 classes, the teacher noticed that I was constantly surfing the net during the time when we were supposed to be working on his problems (He counted attendance). After the third class, he asked me to see him after. When he did, he told me I'd need to do the work if I expected to pass the class. I showed him every problem that he'd given us to do (that I completed in a few minutes). I then explained that I first ventured into C years ago, and felt comfortable with the material. So what did he do? The next class, he gave me a rather hard problem from the end of the course. He said if I can finish it by the end of class, I'd get an A and not have to show up any more. So I got my A, and had one less class to attend.
The moral of the story? Just because someone's goofing off doesn't mean that they don't know the material or that they should be punished. Learn WHY a student is goofing off before punishing them (After all, it could be because you fail at teaching). But then again, that's asking teachers to do their jobs...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
More importantly, doodling may actually improve focus.
Just an FYI, lecture halls usually have 100+ students (easily) and don't go beyond some human up front talking for the _whole_ period only stopping to take a breath from time to time.
It's not a classroom setting, it's a lecture.
I remember once asking my minor advisor how they handled a big lecture hall. My minor was classics, so this person usually lectured to huge classes in ancient history. She told me that she usually picked out 4 or 5 people that she thought would represent a range of comprehension (one smart person, one dumb person, and two or three in the middle). She would keep an eye on those few individuals to make sure that her lectures made sense and that people were following.
She joked that her goal was to explain things in a way that everyone understood, but would be satisfied if everyone but the dummy got it.
I very much agree with this. By the time you get to college, it isn't the teacher's responsibility to ensure that you are paying attention. The professor is supposed to present the material in a way that gets the point across. If you don't want to listen, that is your own problem. In my day, laptops weren't so popular. Probably about 1 in 20 people had a laptop. We still had tons of other things to not pay attention with. Be it Tetris on the TI-86, or just doodling with a pen and paper, or doing your assignment for some other class that is due in 3 hours. If the student doesn't want to pay attention, they won't. They are adults. They should be at least responsible enough to do what needs to be done to learn the material. That doesn't always include going to class and listening to the professor. With the quality of some professors, you could learn more my specifically not going to class.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
You're suggesting it's wrong for a teacher to care about his students and their education?
and does not take into account the different degrees with which different people are able to multitask and/or focus.
I think I heard that same argument in a discussion about people being able to drive and text at the same time. Sure they may get away with it indefinitely, but they're still likely to be in or cause a crash.
Same thing here. you might get away with playing Facebook games indefinitely, but you're more likely to or cause someone else to miss an import point
Back in my university days, not so long ago, this was a huge issue for me; I never brought my laptop to class. I found it very distracting when I was sitting behind someone playing WoW and had a very hard time focusing on what was going on. So I started getting to classes earlier so I could sit in the front row. It made seeing the overhead screens harder, but I was able to pay better attention. I feel vindicated because the people who thought they could multitask were always coming to me for notes and/or help, which I decided when and to whom I gave it to.
Score: Computer Science Degree for me, MacDonald's for multitaskers
When I taught electrical engineering at the college level, I pointed out to students that, given the cost of tuition, and the class being X units (depending on the class) it meant that each lecture was essentially costing them (or somebody), $Y. And that given it was their $Y to spend, I didn't really care how they spent it, but that as long as they were registered for the class, it was a sunk cost, so I recommended they pay attention or try to get their money's worth the best they could.
But, if they felt it was more worthwhile spending that $Y and skipping the class, I told them that was fine - but don't ask me for a review of the lecture afterwards. I flat-out told them if they were out late the night before and fell asleep in the class, fine (as long as they didn't snore). It was their money they were spending (or someone was spending on them) and they could get value from it, or waste it, as they saw fit.
However, I made it quite clear that I wouldn't allow them the liberty to interfere with other student's spending of that $Y. So I was quite stern with students whose cell phones rang, and while laptops for taking notes were fine (and I didn't care about IM either, hell, I would give students a special IM account I setup to ask questions on homework as due dates crept up), movies, games, things that could easily attract eyes (because the eye is naturally drawn to motion, and bright colors can also be a distraction, it's the way we're wired) were out. Loud discussions were not acceptable - not because of me (after all, I'm paid for the students registered regardless of how many of them show up), but because other students are spending their $Y and they deserve the opportunity to use it to actually see and hear the class they're paying for. It was rarely an issue.
If you treat people like adults, most respond in kind. Furthermore, putting it in the perspective of the money being spent by each student made some students realize why I cared about distractions - it didn't distract me, nor did it affect the money I got, nor the time I spent, but it did affect other students who had spent time and money to be there.
I call bull on the stereotype. Last time I "consulted" (quotes because he was both friend of a relative and relative of a friend so it was kinda informal) for a physicist it was to set up some of his OS 9 programs to work properly in OSX's classic mode.
I do not have a sig. You are hallucinating.
I'm rather shocked to be back in Grad School, and to see that everyone is here (without fail) to change careers. The people in my curriculum have zero experience and zero prior study in the field, they just didn't like the job their undergraduate degree got them. The first year of graduate school feels like a condensed version of a real undergraduate degree, for those people who probably should have read a book on this stuff before deciding to jump on the hot career.
I was expecting to find people who loved the subject. Instead, I find people unified in their hatred of whatever else they're doing.
The ______ Agenda
I think it's a matter of personal preference. I, personally, tend to be more of a "witness stenographer" when taking notes with pen and paper. Because I can type faster than I can write, using a computer allows me more opportunities in class to stop and ponder the material.
I don't think there's any hard and fast rule that says that paper is better than computers or vice versa. Forcing students into using what the professor finds more helpful handicaps students who want to find the method which works best for them.
Towards the end of college, I had to take a "general" class to graduate. I ended up taking "intro to music" since I had played in concert band throughout middle- and high-school. The teacher had some hands-on activities planned for the class and figured out pretty quickly that I had a clue as to what I was doing and ended up using me as a TA for the rather large class. It was actually kind of fun helping out, and when I showed up for the final she thanked me for my help, said I had an A, and then excused me.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
Try "liberal arts major".
Err, no. I guess I would have to say I'm now mostly a Mac user (probably 60% of the time, the remainder Linux), and I did a double degree in molecular biology and mathematics.
With the quality of some professors, you could learn more my specifically not going to class.
I totally agree with this statement. I'm a engineering sophomore right now and there are just some teachers who are just plain horrible. I specifically recall one physics lecture where my grade IMPROVED when I stopped going to lecture. This semester, there are some other classes with the same "quality" teaching, which I'd really like to skip, but the professor has an attendance policy. So, my laptop has become my saving grace. Mind, I dont do anything too distracting, usually just surfing the web or working on other assignments. I've come to find that the classes with attendance policies either mean either the class or the professor is worthless.
Charming man. I wish I had a daughter so I could forbid her to marry one. -Arthur Dent
"I pointed out to students that, given the cost of tuition, and the class being X units (depending on the class) it meant that each lecture was essentially costing them (or somebody), $Y. And that given it was their $Y to spend, I didn't really care how they spent it, but that as long as they were registered for the class, it was a sunk cost, so I recommended they pay attention..."
This is an enormously common line of thinking, but I've discovered it to be fundamentally not true (at least where I teach). I've been told that the majority of my students, for example, are on full financial aid (including health benefits & pocket money). So there's some loan they need to pay off arbitrarily far in the future, I guess (and it's safe to say that many can't rationally balance that abstract fact). And in fact they're pocketing cash on top of it, so in some sense mere attendance in my class is their current job. Changes the dynamic a lot.
All the time when I'm telling stories my friends say, "But they're paying for it!", and I sigh and launch into my "No, they're actually not..." routine.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
I actually have in the past with individual professors, and I always came out the victor because there is simply no sane justification for such a policy
Consider yourself lucky that the lack of sane justification is sufficient to stop such nonsense wherever you go to school. In my experience that's rarely in the case.
I could handle blocking wi-fi in lecture theatres.. that helps just a bit.
For what it's worth, I've found internet access to be quite helpful in class. It's not unusual that I've forgotten something the professor assumes you've remembered. This hits me particularly hard in the autumn after a summer away from academia. When I can simply Google "taylor series" for a quick reminder and actually understand what's going on in class I benefit quite a lot more then just sitting there lost.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
The most successful person I've ever known, my father, told me the secret to good grades in school. He would take a tape recorder to class and record the lecture, then after class he would go home and transcribe the notes. He was amazed how much he would miss during the lecture. The other students in his class would complain at test time that the professor never covered the material, but my father always had the answers. There were there in his transcriptions.
When I went to college I attempted this method, but I didn't have the stamina. I ended up with a B/C average when I graduated, but I had a lot of fun. I'm not making seven figures like he does, hell I'm not even earning six figures yet. So was having no social life worth the seven figure salary? Definitely, but how to you train yourself to have that level of self discipline?
The reason transcribing works so well is that during the lecture you miss a large percentage of the material to distractions, then on top of that you only remember a fraction of that. By transcribing the lecture you get exposed at least once to 100% of the material covered, then you can re-enforce what you've covered later when you review the transcripts.
Tools are amoral. The have no character, no conscience.
I kind of like this worldview; the belief in personal responsibility I think improves behavior. But one thing I find interesting is the amount of research indicating that we might not be as "in control" as we like to think we are; psychologists of a certain school call this the "fundamental attribution error." The basic conclusion is that the situation plays a much, much larger role in determining people's actions than who the people themselves are. Applied to the laptop issue, this would mean that perhaps the situation of being in the classroom with your laptop in front of you is more important in determining what you do than are any individual variations in self-control. In other words the laptop isn't neutral; it creates a situation in which people typically react in one of a few ways.
Still, from a rights perspective it may not be the professor's job to prevent people from putting themselves into bad situations. That sometimes people actually do use laptops or tablets to take notes would tend to reinforce this view.
Nope... University professors aren't babysitters, nor should they have to be.
The problem is when flashing graphics from internet surfing and so forth distract other students from being able to pay full attention. The human eye is naturally drawn to motion and the flashing graphics on computer screens will cause others to be distracted by it... especially if it's accompanied by the *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* of someone harvesting their damn crops.
This is not about how laptops effect university professors. It is about how inappropriate usage laptops and internet in the classroom effects fellow students.
If another student is causing distraction in the classroom be it talking during a lecture or playing games or surfing the internet during the lecture, they are taking away from my classroom experience. I am paying for my own classroom experience not Mommy & Daddy. You take away what I am paying for with your inability to pay attention to something for a couple of hours and you are stealing from me.
I am in college to learn. It is not an extension of high school.
Web hosting that doesn't suck!Dreamhost
The problem is that there are different types of learners. Some people learn visually, some aurally. Having some portion of the lecture notes on overhead slides helps the visual learners, but it isn't equivalent to being able to have precise notes that you can read, and people just can't take notes as rapidly by hand.
By taking away computers in the classroom, you unfairly bias grades towards the aural learners to a rather significant degree, so they'll just come up with other coping mechanisms like bringing camcorders, audio recorders, spy pens with camcorders built in, etc. so that they can record things, copy down copious notes, then read them later to study. This doesn't help those students. It merely means that they have to endure the lecture twice, once in person, once while copying it down.
This also means that a lot of those students will band together and have one person record it, so your class attendance will likely drop. Reduced attendance, in turn, discourages the discourse that is critical to higher levels of learning.
If processors were serious about making the learning environment better, they would give the students lecture notes and allow the students to read along if desired while they lecture, then take those notes with them as a study aid. When you do that, ta-da! No more distracted students desperately trying to take notes in class. Suddenly the students interact with you, and proper learning can take place.
Then, if students are still using laptops in class, it's either minimally to note things that the student thinks are important and/or note clarifications from in-class discussion or they're playing games/browsing the net. Either way, at that point, banning computers would be okay, though not particularly necessary.
As for the argument that requiring students to take notes by hand forces them to be selective about what they take notes on, and thus makes them better at filtering, to a large degree, that ability is dictated by biology. Some people (auditory learners) are wired for being able to quickly interpret things through their ears and separate the wheat from the chaff. Others (the visual learners who need the notes in the first place) are not. Maybe this ability can be taught to some degree, but it's more likely that you'll just get all the visual learners taking shorthand classes or using voice recorders, and unless you're training stenographers, you're really no better of than you would be just giving them a copy of the lecture notes in the first place.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I can bring a different prospective to that:
It's been 10 years since my undergraduate degree, and I've finally found what I love. But going into a graduate program, they won't teach me the basics of it. But I can't get a bachelor's degree, because I already have one from a decade ago, and a MA from 4 years ago. Most colleges refuse to accept you for a BS after you already have one. At the same time, most graduate programs will take you, even if your BS doesn't have to do with what you're getting a PhD in.
So I, and a couple of other people, are dropped into a graduate program, doing what we LOVE, but we don't have a Bachelor's degree in the subject. Our backgrounds mean we're woefully unprepared for this, yet there's no other way to do it.
I'd LOVE to be in a condensed undergraduate degree this first year. Instead, there are a couple of us who are pretty much being set up to fail. We were accepted despite lacking a lot of background information. Then we were expected to have a BS in our field, and pretty much failed the first semester because we didn't.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor