By Jim Shimabukuro
Editor
As we teeter on the brink of the new year, we’re left with more questions than answers. In a way, that’s a good thing, considering the makeshift nature of technology in higher education. As we sidle into 2012, the same old questions will greet us. They’re about a world that’s rapidly changing and about our ability or inability to change with it. Let’s face it. The cat’s out of the bag, but some of us are still trying to lure it back in.
Issue #1: Can current leaders take higher education into the 21st century?
Most indications are no. They’re good at preserving the 20th century model and eager to add some technology glitz to make their brick and mortar campuses look modern. But it will be business as usual, with technology applied to brighten up the old way of doing things. Cost effectiveness will be the public mantra, but savings will be offset by the huge piles of money thrown at the makeover. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of today’s leaders have been formed and rewarded by the brick and mortar learning environment. They define themselves and what they do in terms of campuses, buildings, and offices. For them, technology is something to be brought into and added to their domain even if it means severely restricting and crippling its full potential.
Make no mistake. Change will come, but it will come from new leaders who realize that the paradigm for learning environments has shifted from the ground to the virtual. They realize that educational technology is no longer a single innovation or a group of innovations but a sea change based on the awareness that face-to-face (F2F) pedagogy is a subset of the virtual learning environment — and not the other way around. For these leaders, online is the world’s largest learning environment, and brick and mortar facilities are a shrinking part that’s becoming increasingly irrelevant.
The traditional campus-based college won’t disappear, and it will remain the environment of choice for those who can afford the nostalgia, the privilege of dormitories and ivy-covered lecture halls. But in the wake of the first wave of the digital tsunami, their foundations are eroding. The second wave is building just beyond the horizon, and when it strikes it will further undermine land-locked institutions. The select few on high ground will survive, but the vast majority on lower ground will be forced to migrate to the virtual world.
Issue #2: Are we past Web 2.0 yet?
I think we are. The web has never shut down for maintenance. Not for a moment. It’s continually evolving, changing by the day if not by the hour. Social networking is its hallmark, but that’s slipping into the past. We’ve seen countless definitions of Web 3.0, but they all add up to one thing — the web has changed not only the way we interface with information and interact with one another and the world, but it has changed us. Thus Web 3.0 is no longer about the web per se but about the way it has combined with other technology to alter or extend what it means to be human. To get a sense of the immensity of this e-volution, imagine life without the internet, broadband, Wi-Fi, iPhones, iPads, high-definition digital TV, open courseware, blogs, microblogs, YouTube, Facebook, Netflix, Google, wikis, email, ejournals, enews, and ebooks. I rest my case.
Issue #3. Is the F2F vs. online debate over?
For those who answer yes, the fact that all learning today is blended to some degree means that the issue is dead. For those who answer no, the assumption is that blended and completely online learning are fundamentally different. It boils down to this: All blended courses require in-person attendance in one or more classes or locations at specified times; online courses don’t. For the latter, this single distinction removes the geographical and time boundaries that used to define student and instructor populations as well as pedagogy. One of the obvious implications is that completely online classes don’t require campuses, classrooms, and offices. Until educators acknowledge this anytime-anywhere difference and how it redefines learning and teaching, the debate will continue.
Issue #4. Is multimedia better than text?
Much of our effort in course development is based on the assumption that multimedia is superior to text-only approaches and the path to best practice is paved in video, audio, and animation. The old saw is that a picture is worth a thousand words, that learning is much easier and a lot more fun in multimedia. This is true — to an extent.
The fact is that text is faster, which translates to easier, cheaper, and more efficient. Multimedia takes time, effort, and bandwidth. Furthermore, the cost for equipment, resources, space, software, staff, and expertise to produce it can be outrageous. The point is, when you can kill a bird with a stone, why use a cruise missile. Or put another way, more can be less.
So, is multimedia better? Yes, in cases when showing something is easier than trying to explain it in words, e.g., an exotic new plant or butterfly, a dress, a person’s appearance, a building, a painting, a football play, a procedure for drawing blood, instructions on how to assemble a carburetor. However, this answer has to be weighed against cost effectiveness. If it is ineffective or takes too much effort and costs too much for the desired outcome, then the answer is no. Also, the choice isn’t always either-or. There are times when a simple photo or crude diagram is just as effective as a sophisticarted video.
Issue #5. Is synchronous better than asynchronous?
This issue goes hand in hand with #4 above. In course development, we often assume that synchronous is better. Thus, a huge amount of effort, resources, and expense is devoted to producing and facilitating live video and audio events. Live text chat is also viewed as more dynamic. The problem is that the cost to effectiveness ratio for synchronous is exhorbitant in comparison to asynchronous. When weighed against the anytime advantages of asynchronous communications, synchronicity loses some of its appeal.
Issues 4 and 5, above, are important because they color our definition of best practice. The superiority or necessity of multimedia and synchronicity isn’t clear-cut. In some or even most cases, text and asynchronous may be the better choice. When we consider cost effectiveness and simplicity, they look even better.
Issue #6. Is “net generation” a misnomer for today’s students?
Some say yes when they find that students have difficulty functioning in the college’s CMS or using technology in ways they deem important. The argument is, “If they can’t use technology I select in the way that I expect them to, then they’re technologically ignorant.”
Obviously, facility in learning how to use technology is part of the definition of a netgen, but it may not be the most important. Perhaps more significant is their expectation. Those born or growing up in the last twenty to thirty years are different from previous generations. The mobile web is their primary medium for information and communication, and they expect to participate at anytime from anywhere. If it’s not and they can’t, they’ll wonder why.
Thus, it’s not a matter of how well they use the technology we’ve selected but what they expect in terms of content and pedagogy. Given a genuine choice between traditional and online, they’ll choose online options every time.
These are only six issues that I think will stay with us into 2012. There are many more, and I’d like to invite you to share others as well as your thoughts on the ones I’ve chosen. For me, questions are far more important than answers because if we don’t ask the right ones, even the best answers will be wrong.
Like this:
Filed under: Uncategorized
Great list and commentary. F2F people just don’t understand because they would like to be F2F. It’s like those teachers who won’t accept our software because “It’s too hard for my kids.” Yet, the “kids” jump right in and do it with no problems or questions. So, we have to dumb it down and slow it down so that teachers will accept it. That’s going away soon but cannot say how soon.
F2F can be totally non-existent or virtual but does not have to be physically present. My analogy is with hands-on labs. They’re not just last century; they’re 19th century. Finally, we have the means to break those chains but attitudes change slowly. When I ask a teacher what the purpose of those hands-on labs is, I get very few valid responses.
Multimedia vs. text is a somewhat bogus debate, except for the die-hard people. Text is a part of multimedia. Multimedia need not encompass all forms. It could be a video recording — NBD. Balancing the quality, cost, and bandwidth with the learning benefits is a tricky business. All fancy multimedia is as bad as all text. A simple audio track can do plenty. Back it up with a few images with text words and you potentially have a great learning experience. Just look at the buzz surrounding Khan Academy.
However, the multimedia focus misses the most important aspect of online learning. It can be INTERACTIVE. I’m not talking about quizzes or even adaptive assessments. I mean truly interactive where the student activities produce unique results that depend on those actions. Media will be there, but it all centers on interactivity. One of the early RPGs was Rogue, which had only text graphics and was very popular. Earlier RPGs that I also played included Dungeon and Zork. They were very engaging because they were interactive. Yet, both were entirely text with no graphics at all (not even text graphics).
So, my big addition is more and more interactivity in the future.
Hi Harry. The reason I’ve included the multimedia vs. text issue is that bells and whistles are often mistaken for best practice. Thus, we have faculty spending hours developing powerpoint presentations filled with multimedia graphics, video, audio, and animations. If it helps comprehension, that’s great. But if the same info could be posted in a text-only file with similar results, then the ppt is overkill. We don’t have to sugarcoat everything. Information in text form is sometimes the best approach.
Jim,
I basically agree. I just don’t see as much of a dichotomy as a continuum. In the early days of Powerpoint, people went overboard with fonts, colors, backgrounds, etc. and diluted their impact. You saw (and sometimes still see) the same thing with web pages. Some still have sound and animations distracting from their basic message. With multimedia, a little can go a long way.
Making your learning materials more interactive will be the giant step forward in the near future. Except for skilled programmers, this capability is not widely available, AFAIK. Once money can be made from highly-interactive tools, they’ll appear — I hope.
BTW, I completely agree with the asynchronous vs. synchronous analysis, except that some classes manage to be both. A class might have a synchronous final exam but the rest all asynchronous, for example.
Future learning will be asynchronous (or completely independent), online, interactive, adaptive, and just plain better.
Hi Harry. Interactivity is definitely critical. However, I consider it a Web 2.0 standard. If Web 1.0 is considered static (noninteractive) and Web 2.0 participatory (interactive), then Web 3.0 is ubiquitous and transactional.
If it’s a Web 2.0 standard, why don’t I see more of it — in education anyway? I suspect that our respective definitions of interactive differ.
MMORPG games (and virtually all of today’s professionally created games) are interactive, but what else is?
Hi Harry. You’re right about interactivity. It continues to be a standard even as the web grows. It will always be important. Rather than disappearing, it is being transformed. With mobile and other digital technology, more people and more activities are gravitating to the virtual realm. With this expansion, I think we’ll see increased opportunities for interactive online learning. For online science education, I can imagine that an improved version of the satellite technology that’s used in Google maps could be adapted for use in experiments, giving students an opportunity to observe, gather, and process data. I can also imagine how they might use multimedia such as video and social media to share and discuss their formative progress with other students as well as experts from around the world. Finally, I can imagine students publishing their studies in appropriate ejournals and extending the dialogue even further. The student project team members could be from different parts of the world to add an international dimension. And this is just one example…
Let me rephrase. Another issue that refuses to die is moving the incredible interactivity we see in games to the educational arena. That’s not the same as educational “games.”
Discovery Publishing Group (DPG) just announced a 100% online biology “textbook” that competes with, for example, Pearson’s Campbell. They tout its interactivity, but it’s not at all interactive. Online interactivity must, as a minimum, have the feature that your actions affect your online environment immediately or close enough that it doesn’t matter.
Some do it now with adaptive Q&A, but that’s just a pale forerunner of what it might be.
I’m excited about the no-textbook future when you go online and immerse yourself (mentally, not in the virtual world sense) in highly interactive, adaptive, at-your-own-pace, engaging, effective, and powerful learning software. I’m of the book generation where we immerse ourselves in a good book. That’s the sort of immersion I’m thinking of.
The learning of the future will have short- and long-term goals that you are measured on and score some sort of reward for. It will recognize problems immediately and, to the extent programmed in, will provide remediation. You’ll be able to try again and again until you master the concept being presented. Testing will become antiquated as the very process of learning gets quantified by the software, and everyone has the opportunity to obtain the highest score.
The costs will drop, except for having teachers. Watch out, however, for India. They’re already offering online tutoring services. How long before your teacher is in India? Even without outsourcing teaching, the teaching loads will increase as the amount of oversight per student begins to drop. I’ve already heard of online teachers with 450 students! And, they haven’t any teaching assistants. While that sort of situation must impact education quality, it won’t in the future.
Harry Keller: “Watch out, however, for India. They’re already offering online tutoring services. How long before your teacher is in India?”
Harry, this trend is inevitable. The role of teacher has been unbundling for the last few years, and it’s just a matter of time before we realize that many of the services provided by teachers could and perhaps should be outsourced to paraprofessional specialists. Because of the web, the paras can be anywhere in the world.
It would be interesting to project a scenario in which a single teacher works with 500 students. However, she’s not alone. She has a team of paraspecialists who manage and monitor the learning activities. She also taps into other service options that are provided to the entire school, college, or district.
When this happens, the idea of one teacher-one class will be obsolete, a remnant of the pre-web days.
But, I have personally spoken to a K-12 teacher with 450 students and no paraprofessionals. The software is not fully created yet that can make this teacher’s job easy. With the economy as it now is, this is the reality. Believe me; she is alone.
Harry Keller: “I have personally spoken to a K-12 teacher with 450 students and no paraprofessionals. The software is not fully created yet that can make this teacher’s job easy. With the economy as it now is, this is the reality. Believe me; she is alone.”
Harry, this is exploitation and misuse of online technology at its worst. This 450:1 ratio is cutting corners with no thought to quality. Hopefully, people won’t assume that this is the only model for online learning.
To make the most of the virtual learning environment (VLE), the teacher’s role and instruction in general will have to change. Simply dumping the old into the new or vice-versa isn’t going to work. VLEs invite new pedagogy, and we won’t know what our options are until we’ve migrated.
Not disagreeing; just telling it as it is. BTW, this approach exploits teachers AND students. Really unfortunate.
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 2:25 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 2:37 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 4:03 [...]
[...] In a way, that’s a good thing, considering the makeshift nature of technology i…Via etcjournal.com GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 4:12 [...]
Thank you for #4 which I totally agree with – provided the text is written in such a way to facilitate learning, engage the reader and promotes crtical analysis. It should, in my view, also require the learner to participate in conversation (whether that be synchronous or asynchronous) and conduct additional (perhaps directed) research.
Clive, yes, definitely. Text can and should generate response, critical thinking, and action — learning. And it does when crafted properly. I think we sell our students short when we assume that they can’t learn as well via text, that they need pictures, videos, etc. to learn. In my mind, a student hasn’t mastered a concept until s/he can clearly explain, manipulate, apply, or evaluate it in writing.
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 1:08 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 2:22 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 2:51 [...]
[...] More: Online Learning 2012: Six Issues That Refuse to Die « Educational … [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 4:31 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 9:03 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 9:42 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 10:17 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 1:03 [...]
[...] See more here: Online Learning 2012: Six Issues That Refuse to Die « Educational Technology and Change Journal [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 2:34 [...]
[...] it. Let’s face it. The cat’s out of the bag, but some of us are still trying to lure it back in.Via etcjournal.com LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]
With respect to #6, I can’t wait to see how the “net gen” uses their Facebook Timelines! With their affinity for Facebook, I’m hopeful to find how we might harness their energy and enthusiasm for the inane things they currently do on Facebook in order to encourage them to use social media for LEARNING!
My current efforts to encourage administrators to enable teachers to use social media have been frustrating as I’ve reported at:
http://blog.LearnStream.info
Maybe the “net gen” will show them the way? The “net gen” may have high expectations for “anytime, anywhere” BUT I wonder IF they have very high expectations for collaboration and cooperation in their learning? I think NOT because we have NOT encouraged cooperation or collaboration in their learning…that must CHANGE!
Hi, Thomas. I think that’s the key — educators need to “[encourage] cooperation or collaboration in [students'] learning…that must CHANGE!” The netgen are used to cooperating and collaborating with peers on informal, nonacademic activities via social networks and mobile communications. We need to move them toward doing the same in more formal academic environments. Still, my guess is that, regardless of what we do as teachers, the netgen will use social networking in backchannels with classmates to enhance and facilitate their learning.
Up until now, I believe part of the reason for poor performance in collaborative activities has been the lack of universally accessible media to facilitate it. I can’t imagine any college student today without anytime-anywhere mobile web connection. And they’ll use it to work with classmates — even if we don’t.
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 9:51 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 11:35 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 11:47 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 2:02 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 4:17 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 4:19 [...]
[...] Online learning Six Issues That Refuse to Die. excerpts chosen by wiley witch [...]
I feel online learning has a role in supplementing traditional education and not completely replacing it. That way the best from both worlds can be available to students giving them more of an edge in the job market
Hi, Jose. Many are surprised when I agree that blended approaches that combine F2F with online strategies are very effective for many if not most college students. I don’t see this as inconsistent with my insistence on distinguishing between blended and completely online. I don’t advocate one over the other because I believe they serve different populations.
The problem is that when we ignore the difference, the completely online segment is shortchanged and ignored. Furthermore, when we view them side by side, the F2F segment seems so much more engaging and dynamic. It’s like the online portion of a conference that’s primarily F2F. The online simply can’t compete.
Just as there will always be a place for F2F conferences, there will always be a place for blended approaches.
However, technology is changing our world, and in the process it’s changing us. By the day, we’re not only turning to but expecting to turn to virtual alternatives to F2F interactions and transactions. The reason is that digital is much more convenient. We don’t have to travel to it. It’s available to us, 24-7, from anywhere at anytime. It’s the difference between having a remote vs. having to get up and walk over to an appliance to turn it down or up.
For those who value this digital independence, completely online classes are a godsend. Just as we’re continually improving blended approaches, we need to continually improve completely online strategies. However, this won’t happen if we lump them together. Blended will automatically receive most of the resources and attention.
The concept that you cannot replace F2F with online learning is understandable but ignores many realities. Of course, you can find many people who are uncomfortable with completely online learning. Furthermore, those lacking sufficient self-discipline will fail in a totally online environment as it is today.
The advantages of online learning come from such ideas as learning to mastery, adaptive learning, and self-paced learning. Technology makes the virtual environment potentially as personal as F2F. Breaking the chains of synchronicity in learning is so desirable that totally asynchronous online learning will someday be the norm, and all will accept it and even wonder why anyone resisted.
In the meantime, while online technologies develop, yes we cannot recklessly abandon F2F learning.
Another dimension to this discussion relates to the age/maturity of the students. It will be some time, even decades — if ever, before our youngest learners can leave the F2F environment.
So, I would say that Jose is partially correct, that today’s online technologies are not ready for total F2F abandonment and that F2F must remain for our younger learners for the foreseeable future. However, that’s no reason to stop working on online technology. Instead, it’s good reason to redouble our efforts.
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 3:31 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 3:48 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 10:29 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 10:44 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 5:54 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 9:26 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 10:55 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 12:30 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 7:21 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 9:41 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 8:32 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 9:49 [...]
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } etcjournal.com – Today, 7:25 [...]
[...] Online Learning 2012: Six Issues That Refuse to Die « Educational Technology and Change Journal [...]