“While technology can increase the quantity of interactions, it does not necessarily enhance the quality of those!”

I agree. Any time I hear of the positive influences of tech in any setting, here it’s education, I always assume that the author is presupposing the quanti = quali argument. I first heard of this from some GBCB grad students last year in a bioethics seminar. I guess at some point in computer related fields, the amount of data can be so large that the size itself becomes a certain quality. (That’s my impression at least). But that relationship between size and value doesn’t necessarily or naturally extend from tech to people. Tech as an intermediary used between teachers and students doesn’t generate or stimulate new curiosity. Tech can certainly help foster growth in curiosity, but only if the teacher has the requisites you’ve listed…

“I see this as a solid analogy to higher education in that if one truly wishes to innovate within their field, they must possess such intense curiosity that they can work the long hours for that 5% improvement that changes their mind. That’s not to say there’s no low hanging fruit in the world…”

James, both the analogy and the imagery of low hanging fruit resonate with me. I think as academics increasingly becomes a corporatized environment, time is money. And diligent research seems to be taking priority over teaching pedagogies. I can appreciate “the shiny colors and whizbang theatrics” that I experienced as an undergrad who had to complete General Education Requirements. I thought Bio 101 was really “neat,” but then realized that the actual field of biology is incredibly nuanced. To be able to research neuroscience, which presented me with shiny colors, you have to go a long way on the education train before you can even approach the low hanging fruit. Actually seeing the workload of a neuroscientist compared to the corresponding creativity-instilling lectures was misleading to say the least…

“…as the teacher you are never on a completely equal level with the students, even as you recognize that your students can be both learners/teachers in various moments, and even as your recognize that you can be a teacher/learner…”

Luisa, I think that you can see this as an opportunity (in a university level class) to articulate your thoughts about teaching. I’m curious why some professors want to have a veil between themselves and their students through which the prof reveals only a little bit of info each class. The better profs I’ve enjoyed having are open to explaining why they dislike/like teaching a specific section etc. For GTAs, deciding how much they’ll share their own anxieties about the class might help students who also feel overwhelmed know that they’re not the only ones suffering. (I can hear people responding by saying that the GTA’s/prof’s role is to act like an expert and to present themselves professionally to students). In my experience, commiserating with students breaks down the artificial seriousness and professionalization that seem to shape classroom settings. That could lead to there being less “at stake” for both students and teachers who enter into that awkward space…