next »

[bwatwood]

http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i38/38a03302.htm

Elayne Clift certainly had issues with teaching online, but it appeared to me that she attempted this course without changing any of her practices, and teaching online is fundamentally different than teaching face-to-face.  I am as old-dog as Clift, but I also have been teaching online for 14 years at a variety of institutions, and see things a little different than she does.

A "virtual community" is only an oxymoron if the faculty does not instill a sense of community through her or his own social presence in the class.  Using social media and collaborative activities, a community can not only form but be very strong.  Social networking tools can lead to a rich communication not only within just the course but with discipline experts worldwide.  We recently held a webconference with our class and guest speakers, and we also opened it up to the world through Twitter.  Others in the field from around the country joined the webconference and began interacting with our students in the chat box.  You could not duplicate that in a physical classroom.

As to lack of quality, that is more an indictment on the institution and the faculty than on online learning.  In my most recent class that I co-taught with another, several students used the term "life-altering" to express their appreciation for the quality of learning they found in our class.

The comments about money and time suggest to me again that Clift attempted to be the single expert on the stage rather than co-opting her students into the learning process.  I find the time distributed nature of online learning works well for me, but much of my focus is on helping students learn how to learn and teach each other.




I was lead author of a white paper published by our Center for Teaching Excellence on online teaching> http://bit.ly/11DBMx. It focuses on the practice of teaching online, and may offer an alternative view to the one espoused by Clift.  Please add to the conversation - we would be interested in your thoughts.

[untenurated]

If you want responses, you'll need to link to the article you are discussing. [Added free link above-mods]

[inthelab]

Well, you asked for it.  I agree with Clift vis-a-vis the educational experience, though I've never taught on line.

As faculty in a science field at a med school, I would find it difficult to create a class in which students "learn" from each other.  They need to master a body of knowledge, computational skills, laboratory techniques.  These are the reason they enrolled in the program and come to class.  There are some subjects for which "learning to learn" just doesn't cut it.

As a parent of one in college, I'd be on the phone to the Board of Trustees if professors and TAs are not teaching the classes for which I pay tuition.  I suspect other parents feel similarly.

At some point, kids and parents will merely say, why pay money when there are free websites (and archived courses, with syllabi and tests).  The virtual classroom will lead to a virtual degree.

[bwatwood]

Thank you to the moderator for providing the link. 

To "inthelab", I would concur fully that some subjects are not suitable for fully online classes.  I do not want the surgeon operating on me to have learned using only computer simulations!  I have taught online in the fields of education and business, and the fit is much better there.

But I disagree with the view that online course simply means online content.  MIT has put all of its content online, but that does not mean one can get a MIT degree simply by viewing it.  What makes for a learned education is the facilitated process of interactions between faculty, students, and content.  We live in an age of unprecedented access to information, so the old model of teaching which assumed information is scarce no longer works for me.  By learning to learn, I am really suggesting that our role has shifted to teaching critical analysis of that vast array of information so that it is relevant and meaningful to our students.

[weanders]

I completely agree with your analysis Britt.

The problems identified all have solutions, which have been explored by other practitioners. Like the traditional classroom, online teaching should be cyclical; design, delivery, evaluation, and redesign. I would suggest Elayne take the feedback from the students, look at the learning objectives she was trying to achieve, and then explore tools and techniques to teach them online. I think their may have been a disconnect between delivery, learning activities, and goals. The combination can lead to a very frustrating experience.

It was unfair of Elayne to generalize her experience regarding communication, community, and quality. To me these were all issues with her online design and delivery. I think you could make the same generalizations after teaching a poorly designed face-to-face course.

In the end, I don't think teaching online is for everyone (much like taking online courses). In order to be successful you need to be comfortable with the tools and be open to exploring different design and delivery methods.  The online environment may not be the best solution for all topic areas as well.

[inthelab]

Who is Britt?

[emapey]

Plane pilots learn with simulations. I agree that online teaching is not for everyone

[weanders]

Sorry - I meant bwatwood

[inthelab]

Plane pilots learn with simulations. I agree that online teaching is not for everyone

My brother had a pilot's license for years and he did not learn on a simulator but from a flight instructor.

[desert_rat]

First, let it be known that I am very open to CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions....

My chief complaint (I have taught an online MBA course each semester for 4 years, "Accountng for Managers") is that I see a dichitomy between "training" and "education".  Sure, I can use an online course to "train" people to use accounting, both cost and financial, but are they really "educated" in the ways of accounting?

Some of my very BEST classes were classes in which a real, live student asked a question that took us, the class, off on a tangent.  We (almost) always stayed on the overall topic of accounting, but we explored some of the larger questions (such as "mark-to-market accounting", much in the news of late).  But in my online class, with its asymmetrical communication, such discussions don't occur.  Hence, "education" is sacrificed in favot of "training".

I also don't find on-line nearly as stimulating-  I am not forced to think on my toes, I can take time to research tough questions (which rarely get asked anyway).

My experience is that my online students just want to jump through the requisite hoops to get a grade, they are not interested in really LEARNING about the topics.  Of course, that may be more a reflection of our MBA students, a pretty poor lot....

[bwatwood]

Who is Britt?

One of my Twitter friends recognized the "bwatwood" and called me by my given name, Britt.  But if you click on the bwatwood to the left and then my blog Learning In a Flat World, you will have a better idea who I am.

One of the things I love about networked learning is how conversations (and learning) flow across multiple avenues.  We have been having this discussion today in the Chronicle Forum, at the College 2.0 Ning site, and on Twitter.

[beatitude]

My chief complaint (I have taught an online MBA course each semester for 4 years, "Accountng for Managers") is that I see a dichitomy between "training" and "education".  Sure, I can use an online course to "train" people to use accounting, both cost and financial, but are they really "educated" in the ways of accounting?

Thank you!--I just posted the same complaint on the "Teaching Online" thread in the Discuss Chronicle Articles forum

[zuotang_zhang]

It is one of the best articles that look at the traditional face-to-face teaching in a positive way. Yes, it is true that this unreal teaching method has at least the five shortcomings mentioned in the article, but please give considerations to regions in underdeveloped countries where face-to-face teaching is currently not possible. So it might be save to say that distant education does have its advantages.

[polly_mer]

Who is Britt?

One of my Twitter friends recognized the "bwatwood" and called me by my given name, Britt.  But if you click on the bwatwood to the left and then my blog Learning In a Flat World, you will have a better idea who I am.

One of the things I love about networked learning is how conversations (and learning) flow across multiple avenues.  We have been having this discussion today in the Chronicle Forum, at the College 2.0 Ning site, and on Twitter.

That flow is fine, but then you have to realize that many of us are not involved in those other venues.  So worse than being the slacker in the back of the classroom who might overhear something by proximity, we are left out entirely.  Indeed, how could I possibly know that what I am seeing is only one tiny part of the conversation?  People here on the fora get irked about conversations that spread across threads; however, the possibility exists to browse by person and therefore follow the whole conversation.  I'm ok with getting excited about something and therefore engaging everyone you meet with that topic, but you have to help us out by putting in context things that are pulled from other venues.

I haven't done any online teaching, but many of the complaints in the article ring true to me.

While some people find the anonymity enabling and are able to bond with their cybergroup and engage in true confessions, I find it extraordinarily difficult to communicate with people for whom I have no face, no persona, no body language, no in-the-moment exchange.

While I am heavily involved in two online communities and keep tabs on another two, one thing that I find very frustrating is the unevenness of engagement among people--people who are involved voluntarily for a particular purpose.  I can't imagine that engagement would increase among disinterested students who can ignore anything short of smacking the desk in front of them with a ruler.  Cyberinteractions can be as intellectually engaging as offline interactions, but the effort to do so can be much harder than jumpstarting interactions in the physical classroom.

2. The lack of immediacy in communication is maddening.

This one hits a huge chord with me.  Dragging a discussion out over a week is a huge frustration with online communication.  We're in the heat of a discussion and you just wander away from the computer for a day?!  How can that possibly be the same as spending an interesting half hour on a tangent that is relevant, but wasn't the scheduled topic for the day? 

Learning takes place through the give and take.  I'm ok with waiting a few minutes for someone to type out a reasoned response, but the long gaps of hours or days in a discussion tries my patience, particularly if what I'm trying to do is teach someone something.  If we're together in the classroom, I can say, "What else could you try?", and have a two minute conversation to get the students on track for help with a particular problem or concept. 

Like the article author, for an online class, I can't see how the delay of hours or days is workable within the time constraints of needing to cover a specific amount of material in the semester.  Unless a component of the class is everyone regularly being logged in simultaneously for a block time, the online class is a poor substitution for the dynamic of a classroom discussion.

Zuotang_Zhang is right that distant education is important to reach students who cannot get classes any other way.  However, the article makes a good case for why online classes should not be bandied about as being an adequate replacement for face-to-face classes.  Some topics do lend themselves to being taught online and some people can make those topics work in ways that provide a valuable education.  Taking advantage of additional online resources and having stimulating asynchronous discussions can be a boon to students over the traditional classroom for some areas.  However, online does have some drawbacks and mentioning those drawbacks so that peole get a fuller picture of online classes is a good thing.

Consequently, I would like to see more discussions on how to incorporate different parts of online interactions to complement the traditional classroom and fewer screeds by true believers in either camp.

[bwatwood]

Some great points, polly mer!

Another aspect that fascinates me.  Last night I got my hard-print copy of the May 29th edition of the Chronicle and finally saw Clift's article on a physical page.  Interestingly, the Chronicle printed it as one of a two-part commentary.  The first article was Gina Greco's "A Reaffirmation of Why I Became An Educator."

http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i38/38a03301.htm

In other words, the Chronicle offered up two perspectives, but I had only seen one online.  Seeing the two together makes for a more balanced discussion.

polly mer stated: "Consequently, I would like to see more discussions on how to incorporate different parts of online interactions to complement the traditional classroom and fewer screeds by true believers in either camp."

In only complementing the traditional classroom, does that not dismiss out of hand totally online learning as a valid practice?  But I agree with polly mer that online interactions can indeed enhance traditional classrooms.  I encourage my face-to-face students to bring their laptops to class and use techniques such as web-based polling and student-generated backchannel to engage my students.

But like Gina, I love teaching online, feel connected to my online students, and know that I am making a positive impact in their lives.