Brown is engaged in a technology arms race. Evidence is everywhere — absurdly large flat-screen televisions, a profusion of smart boards and too many multimedia control boxes to count. Though the creation of so-called smart classrooms and smart study rooms is generally positive, questionable acquisition decisions are troubling.
Technology is rightfully a University priority. The Plan for Academic Enrichment included upgrading Brown's technology infrastructure. The IT Strategic Plan (2008-2013) found that "achieving excellence in the use of technology in learning … requires state of the art facilities. The University's classrooms were identified as an area where the existing environment was very much at odds with the premier position Brown aspires to among all colleges and universities." These documents, in addition to the Libraries Technology Plan (2009-2011), make clear the scope of Brown's ambition.
Like any teaching tool, technology ought to supplement and enrich learning, not displace it. That is why the University's technology strategies should include detailed plans and rigorous justifications based on existing needs and education research — both are conspicuously lacking in readily available documents. Such support is particularly important given technology's attendant downsides.
Technology writer Nicholas Carr warns of the danger of the unstudied implementation of multimedia: "Studies pretty clearly show that when our attention is divided, it becomes much more difficult to transfer information from our short-term memory, which is just the very temporary store, to our long-term memory, which is the seat of understanding." Though he acknowledges that smart classrooms can be beneficial "in certain circumstances," he cautions that in some situations they "actually undermine the mission of the class itself."
Increasingly, Brown classrooms and study spaces have been technology-enabled. Fashionable teaching devices such as smart boards have proliferated. Have they served a purpose? Are they well used? It would seem that they are not. Between the Friedman Study Center and Science Center, the Sciences Library is awash in smart boards, but more often than not, student study-groups opt for traditional whiteboards instead. (Simple, cheap and durable, we think the whiteboard is on the cusp of a renaissance.) One tiny classroom in Wilson Hall with seats for just a handful of students is equipped with a massive flat-screen television. Surely viewers — seated no more than 10 feet away — could make do with a smaller screen.
Despite these questionable selections, we appreciate that technology choices are the product of careful work by the Classroom Taskforce. Catherine Zabriskie, director of academic technology services, wrote to the Editorial Page Board, "The selection of a particular technology involves conversations with others outside of CIS — particularly students and faculty — to help us make the choice to best meet the needs at Brown. And we continue to look at the technologies we identify to make sure they serve as enhancements for teaching and learning." This process usually gets it right, but not always.
It is important for Brown to clearly articulate its technology strategy, not only in broad strokes, but also in concrete, specific detail. In the meantime, we hope Brown's love affair with smart boards might soon pass, paving the way for the resurgence of whiteboards.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
