Technological advancement is not only transforming human life in Healthcare, Sports, Communication and Travelling but also providing extraordinary breakthrough in the field of academics, learning and teaching. This advancement has very positive impact on job descriptions and career of professors.
The relationship between technology and academic profession is demanding examination of how well technology is impacting on work routine, career and challenges in higher education of faculty members because Emails, Computers, World Wide Web, Online lectures, Multimedia classrooms & Experiential learning are become routine of faculty member’s life.
It is very significant to note that not every individual faculty member is good adaptors of technology, change and its uses. Every individual has different level of acceptance. some are good perceiver and positive sense of technology in his/her field some may need support to even understand it and experience those advancement. These differences have very well explained by ROGER’S model by pointing out different phases of adopting processes.
o Innovators
o Early adapters
o Laggards
o Change agents
o Opinion leaders
Those who are very brisk in adopting technology changes and resources are innovators and early adapters. Most of us not even very brisk and need assistance to become habitual of these changes and innovations even resist in adopting these new tools.
Mass students are now easy for faculty to teach by use of information technology add-on. Conventional faculty role has been changed through technology now faculties have much time to interact with students and listen their feedbacks and result that in developing supportive role as student to take more time for their learning and developing. Now teachers have to be more focused on interactive technology driven materials and technical knowhow. To best engage students with counseling skills and knowledge of group dynamics are necessary for faculties now.
Not every faculty have positive feelings about technology driven teaching and role of technology in academics but sense of optimism should be developed among faculty about the advantages of technology driven education system because these exciting tools will generate a bright future for students and entire world.
References
Austin, A. E., and Baldwin, R. G. Faculty Collaboration: Enhancing the Quality of Scholarship and Teaching.ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report no. 7. Washington, D.C.: Graduate
School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University, 1991. Batson, T., and Bass, R. “Teaching and Learning in the Computer Age: Primacy of Process.” Change, 1996, 28 (2), 42–47.
Bowers, C. A. “The Paradox of Technology: What’s Gained and Lost?” Thought and Action, 1998, 14 (1), 49–57. Boyer, E. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990. Bromley, H. “How to Tell If You Really Need the Latest Technology.” Thought and Action, 1998, 14 (1), 21–28.
DeSieno, R. “Netlaw: The Faculty and Digital Technology.” Educom Review, 1995, 30 (4), 46–48. Finn, C. E. “Today’s Academic Market Requires a New Taxonomy of Colleges.” Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 9, 1998, p. B4.
Gappa, J. M., and Leslie, D. W. The Invisible Faculty: Improving the Status of Part-Timers in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
Gilbert, S. W. “Making the Most of a Slow Revolution.”Change, 1996, 28 (2), 10–23.
Green, K. C. “The Coming Ubiquity of Information Technology.” Change, 1996, 28 (2), 24–28.
Green, K. C. “The 1997 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education. ”[http://ericir.syr.edu/
Guernsey, L. “Those Who Publish On Line Fear They Suffer in Tenure Reviews.” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 6, 1997, p. A21.
Guernsey, L. “Historians Form New Organization on Technology in Teaching and Research.” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 8, 1998, p. A30.
Kirshstein, R., Matheson, N., and Jing, Z. Instructional Faculty and Staff in Higher Education Institutions: Fall 1987 and Fall 1992, NCES 97–447. 1993 National Study of Postsecondary
Faculty, NSOPF–93. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 1997. Lynton, E., and Elman, S. New Priorities for the University: Meeting Society’s Needs for Applied Knowledge and Competent Individuals.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
Neal, E. “Using Technology in Teaching: We Need to Exercise Healthy Skepticism.” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 19, 1998, pp. B4–B5. “An ‘Online’ Experience.” Change, 1995, 27 (2), 28–45.
Plater, W. M. “Future Work: Faculty Time in the 21st Century.” Change, 1995, 27 (3), 22–33. Rogers, E.Diffusion of Innovations. (4th ed.) New York: Free Press, 1995.
Saltrick, S. “A Campus of Our Own: Thoughts of a Reluctant Conservative.” Change, 1996, 28 (2), 58–62.
Simpson, R. “The Overwhelming Nature of Higher Education.” Innovative Higher Education,
1998, 22 (4), 267–269.
TECHNOLOGY’S IMPACT ON FACULTY LIFE AND WORK 21
Van Dusen, G. C. The Virtual Campus: Technology and Reform in Higher Education. ASHEERIC
Higher Education Report no. 1. Washington, D.C.: School of Education and
Human Development, George Washington University, 1997.
Van Dusen, G. C. “Technology: Higher Education’s Magic Bullet.” Thought and Action, 1998, 14 (1), 59–67.
Young, J. R. “Rethinking the Role of the Professor in an Age of High-Tech Tools.” Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 3, 1997, p. A26.
Young, J. R. “Skeptical Academics See Perils in Information Technology.” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 8, 1998, p. A29.
No comments:
Post a Comment