Appearance (or should I say packaging?) is overrated, but it is all we are focusing on these days—the presentation, the form, the look. As a teacher, I am sometimes frustrated by the demand or expectation that every lecture I give must be entertaining and that it should use the latest technology, or whatever is in vogue.
I wonder whether people in the audience (be they be the public or students) realize the amount of time that is needed to produce some interactive elements or to build some simulation exercises into a lecture. The use of multimedia in teaching is quickly becoming the norm, but it takes a tremendous amount of time to get the prep work done.
Some would argue that it is only the initial setup that is time consuming, that after that’s done it becomes easier. Not always. Imagine that you have produced a video clip and made a certain point (fact or argument, it doesn’t really matter). Later on, you want to revise your statement based on the latest research findings. What do you do then? Redo the entire video shooting or just make a corrective statement at the end of your clip?
I once watched a TV program about how a researcher in one of the local universities was trying to use virtual simulation, using computers to help children who were autistic. I cannot convince myself that this is a good idea at all. Imagine all the resources and effort required to produce a virtual simulation environment. But a child does not need a game. The child needs a person who loves, cares about and understands him or her and his or her condition, someone who is able to teach things and be patient when the child fails to cope with the demands of the situation and becomes withdrawn. Also, there is no guarantee that the skills one has learnt in a simulation environment can be transferred into real life.
Yes, I am aware that we must move on, that it is only with repeated use of technology that we become proficient. But the essence is not in the novelty of a communication technology. The essence is about the human connection. Nothing can replace it, not Facebook, not Twitter.
Nobody these days seems to be able to sit through lectures and concentrate on the knowledge—the substance—shared by the speaker. Yes, I am aware that, to learn, students need to be interested. Anything that is multimedia is, of course, interesting, more interesting than the words or syllables that make up the sound of words.
But, as a teacher, I do not believe it is my business to put on a show in every class I teach. Is that really necessary? What is the role of students in learning? Is it to learn only if the subject matter or the presenter is interesting? Unfortunately, what is interesting is different for different individuals.
I believe I need to motivate students to learn. I believe that, sometimes, my time is better spent on efforts to make the content of my talk cutting-edge knowledge. When time is short, my choice is always the substance, not the form.
