From the Chronicle of Higher Education, an article by Jeffrey Young: "College 2.0: Teachers Without Technology Strike Back."
I think that the article confuses matters by lumping together people with many different aims. Which I guess is sort of the point of all "technology in college" conversations. Different applications require different pedagogical approaches. There's no sense pointing out "Luddites" unless you can show the way that a particular technology would increase their effectiveness. A college's investment in teachers is a whole lot more expensive than the investment in clickers, projectors, online courseware, and the rest.
Nevertheless it's entertaining to see cherry-picked examples of professors proudly rejecting technology:
His professor made students write short papers and then gave extensive feedback, which forced them to hone their arguments and express themselves more clearly. And he made them write out the papers in longhand, in blue books, during class. "There's something about the immediacy or exigency of it," Mr. Leeds said. "When I took those written exams, I found that I made connections that I didn't know I knew—it shook up my brain cells like a supernova."
So today Mr. Leeds requires his students to write short, in-class papers. In blue books. By hand. Just like his favorite professor did.
From the comments:
No wonder some people would rather go to jail than to college.
Many have the same attitude about Powerpoint, I know.
