We Know Why You Hate Online Learning – and It Has Nothing to Do With Quality

In some ways, I get why some people are saying they hate online learning. Almost everyone was forced into it – even those that didn’t choose it originally. We live in a time where most people that enter school (or teach at school) are aware that there is an online option. There are a few cases where people want to take or teach online courses when there aren’t any options to do so for the most part. But for everyone else, if you wanted to learn or teach online, you probably were able to choose that. The millions that were forced to switch suddenly last year did so against their first preference, and I get how that frustrates many of them.

Let’s face it – we all know that what has been happening the past two years is often not fully implemented, funded, and institutionally-supported online learning. Most tried hard to make it work, but due to shortages in training, prep time, or funding/support, a lot of it fell short of the true potential of online learning.

Of course, this was also true about face to face learning before the pandemic – even dedicated teachers are held back because of systems that don’t give them enough time, or train them well enough, or give them the money and resources they need. We just act like this is the “Facts of Life” for on campus learning… you take the good, you take the bad, you take them both, and there you have…. a gold standard….?

Nope. Any institutional leader or edu-celebrity that proclaims that on-campus learning is inherently superior to online learning is being disingenuous. They know that reality doesn’t support their claims. They just hate online learning… but not for quality reasons.

The real reason? It’s all about the power and control. Leaders can’t control their students, faculty, and staff remotely like they can on campus. And that control not only brings them a power trip – it also brings in big $$$ for schools when they can manipulate students into spending more money on campus.

And that’s it really: the real reason you have leaders (institutional, thought, and otherwise) claiming that online learning is inferior, and that on campus learning is the “gold standard,” is because they lose power (and the money that comes with that power).

Now – if a student or faculty or even University president proclaims that they hate online learning in and of itself – I get it. We all have personal preferences – I love online learning, but I get why it isn’t for everyone.

But there is a difference between saying one personally doesn’t like it, and saying online learning is inferior, failed, snake oil, etc.

The difference, of course, is research. There really is research showing that there is no significant difference between various outcomes of online learning and on campus learning. Probably one of the best sources to look at for research is the National Research Center for Distance Education and Technological Advancements (DETA) at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee’s “No Significant Different” database:

“This site is intended to function as an ever-growing repository of comparative media studies in education research. Both no significant differences (NSD) and significant differences (SD) studies are constantly being solicited for inclusion in the website. In addition to studies that document no significant difference (NSD), the website includes studies which do document significant differences (SD) in student outcomes based on the mode of education delivery.”

Current, the numbers in that database are categorized as:

  • 141 studies that show no significant difference
  • 51 studies that show “Significant Difference – Better Results with Technology” (online usually being said technology)
  • 2 studies that haven’t been indexed yet
  • 0 studies showing “Significant Difference – Better Results in the Classroom”
  • 0 entries showing mixed results

Maybe it is just my bias… but it seems that the results are starting to trend towards online maybe being… better?

Recently I was in a huge Twitter argument with a group of K-12 educational leaders from the UK that were demanding that I provide an article that proves that online learning could even work at all. They had already ignored two responses to these demands from a female colleague of mine – and still demanded that I provide a link of my own even though I had pointed them to those tweets and the DETA database already. So I just refused to give out any more links to people that weren’t going to look at them anyway – and got attacked in all kinds of horrible ways. But it seems like they were under the impression that I had website addresses to killer pro-online education studies memorized and I was just being a jerk in not spitting them out in a few seconds. Look – asking an online educator to provide one article proving that online learning is okay is like asking a Geologist to provide one study that proves that rocks exist within the Earth. A few might have something in mind, but most of us don’t spend a lot of time memorizing what we see as “proof of the obvious.” Others seemed to think that academics have all the time in the world to respond to tweet #54 demanding that one all-proving link. Look – no one owes you free labor. If you ask for something and they don’t give it, learn to respect people’s time enough to accept that maybe they are as busy as you. Especially if you were the one that came in swinging with the “online learning is a dying evil” rhetoric.

It’s all complicated. I will be the first person to tell you it comes down to personal preferences on whether you should do online learning or not, and for most people its not even an either/or. Different contexts call for different modalities for each person at any given moment. We just need to kill the dated and problematic “in-person learning is the gold standard” BS.

See also:

(Cover photo by Clem Onojeghuo on Unsplash)

Let’s Talk About “Shifting an Entire University Online as Disaster Preparedness”…

With the rapid spread of Covid-19 (aka “the Coronavirus” in shorthand for now), there has been an explosion of discussions about preparing for quarantines and societal closures of various kinds. Among these discussions are moving conferences, courses, and even entire institutions online. I have been tweeting about this for a few days, so I wanted to collect and expand some of my thoughts on this topic.

Since I have a Masters in Instructional Design and a Ph.D. in Learning Technologies, we spent many assignments in courses for both degrees discussing various benefits and pitfalls of online learning, and yes, switching to online in the case of an emergency was frequently covered. It’s a complicated and problematic idea, so this will be a bit dark and complex / rambling post to make.

First of all, let me start off by stating that no matter how well you plan, switching to online will be more chaotic and hard than you can imagine, and it will cause greater damage to disadvantaged students than you will probably notice. Your first and foremost duty is to consider your disadvantaged learners first, and to work on navigating chaos rather than trying to stop it. Because you won’t avoid chaos. Remember – it is called DISASTER preparedness for a reason.

Many disaster preparedness plans I have seen, as well as many conference and institutional reactions to Covid-19, seem to only focus on able-bodied younger people that are not older, immuno-compromised, living with those that are older or immuno-compromised, already affected by food insecurity, homeless or on the edge of homelessness, affected by digital redlining, dealing with disability, held back by systemic discrimination and intersectionality, and so on. The reactions are only taking into account young able-bodied people living with other young able-bodied people, with maybe a link to an external resource that mentions everyone else (occasionally in passing). This is not going to cut it. Please keep your entire population in mind, not just those that will probably be okay no matter what you do.

Next, you need to realize that just because a conference or university can pivot to online, there are still institutional / organizational barriers to the overall idea of online. Some just won’t pivot because they are against online in general. If an institution does not allow remote work options, they probably do so for reasons that other institutions that do so have already dealt with. Its usually an institutional preference to be against remote work at this point, so that will likely carry over to online courses as well. Therefore, don’t assume some big switch will happen in those situations. Besides, how will institutions switch courses over to online if they don’t already have the procedures in place for their employees to go online?

Where I work for my day job, we already allow remote work, and already have a robust array of online courses. We have also been providing LMS shells for every course section, to be utilized even in on-campus courses. The structure is already there for the switch. Yes, I know LMSs are not hugely popular right now – I’m with you on that. But the important issue is that there is a space online there already for every class. It could be in WordPress blogs or many other tools for all that it matters.

But I guess we should talk first about how there are different types of disasters at different levels. There aren’t really any hard lines between these categories (I kind of made them up on the spot)… but in general, you see a few different kinds (and probably more than these):

  • Individualized/localized disasters: This is anything from one or more person getting sick in an atypical way (for them, at least), to something that affects only certain people in one or some locations. Tornadoes are an example of that – living in Texas, we frequently have to consider plans on how adjust courses based on the fact that a portion of our class will be affected and the other portion won’t. These plans have to often create more flexibility for students. But they can also happen out of the blue, and cause portions of your courses to be out of sync.
  • Displacement disasters: These can affect entire cities, regions, states, or even countries. There might be some warning, but the situation does come about very suddenly. Things like hurricanes, floods, and other mass displacement events. In general, your students’ first priority will not be education. They will need to get out, find shelter, food, water, etc. Usually, this will call for cancellation, postponement, etc. I teach online courses for UT Rio Grande Valley. When hurricanes were heading for the valley, we had to postpone even the online courses. People are usually fleeing something, so don’t plan to switch to online right away – or maybe even ever. Do look for ways to find out where your students are and how they are doing. Don’t just lock down the campus and say “good luck!”
  • Quarantine/lockdown/closed borders disasters: To be honest, this is the one that most of us did not think much about in the U.S. until Covid-19. On a global scale, it is probably more common than we realize. Neighborhoods, cities, states, etc could be quarantined, closed down, blocked off, etc due to disease, civil unrest, climate change displacement, even economic issues. Some of these might happen suddenly, while others might happen on a slower basis with time to prepare. I think some institutions think you can just switch your face-to-face courses to video conference tools and be done with it, but it is really much more complicated than this.

Something to remember: not all disasters bring about changes for all learners. Some are already living in disaster conditions. We tend to make disaster plans with the stereotypical “traditional” student in mind – young, flexible, and financially stable people that are so focused on education that they will skip meals or sleep to study more. These imaginary students are also probably perfectly flexible in our minds, so our first plan is that education has to be switched online right away to help them. The truth is, many of our students are already not sure where they will get their next meal or place to sleep. While you are thinking about how to adjust your class for disaster preparedness, why not consider how those changes could go ahead and happen at your institution – as a way to help those that are already in a disaster situation personally?

So… how to make the switch to online – if you are at one of places that do that? First of all, I’m focusing mostly on higher ed here, which might also work for High School classes as well as maybe some Junior High contexts. Not sure if I would recommend K-6 going online – but if someone has found a way to do that without leaving behind disadvantaged students, I am all ears.

First I want to touch a little bit on what will likely happen IF some try to make the switch. I realize that more schools have some kind of “sudden switch to online” plan than many of us think, so it is possible that some schools might go ahead and make that switch. These kinds of plans were a thing for a while, so I know they are out there. Some of those plans are inadequate (probably mainly from becoming outdated), but also probably based on some popular faux-futurist scaremongering and not true trend analysis. But that depends on a lot of things, so that may not be the case your plan. If the plan focuses on one big, easy solution  – its not going to work that well. Look for one that is realistic with the idea that “its gonna be rough, here are several possible options and ideas.”

Even those well-thought out plans can not account for everything, so a sudden or relatively slow-moving switch to online will be mass chaos whether a school has no plan, has an adequate plan, or has a detailed plan. Its just that the detailed flexible plans will make people realize there will be chaos.

The ability to navigate through the chaos will probably depend on the size of your Distance Education / Instructional Design group in relation to the number of classes. Those that have small DE/ID groups will find that even a great contingency plan falls apart without enough people in their DE/ID department. Those with a large DE/ID group will find the chaos much more manageable (even if they lack a solid contingency plan) thanks to having a group of people that know how the tools work, as well as the theory and research and history of how to use it (and how not to).

Places that have found themselves in need of a mass switch to online have also found that humans can manage chaos to some degree even without a plan, and that the switch can happen… it just won’t be something to brag about. What will likely happen – assuming the typical modest contingency plan & small DE/ID group – is that most faculty will suddenly ditch a lot of what they are doing in their on-campus courses. They will just stick with “the basics” for their switch online (whatever that means to them – more than likely email with attachments and synchronous video conference sessions). Which, of course, raises all kinds of questions about what they really do in their class if so much can be ditched last minute. Many will find out that email will work just the same as the LMS for a lot of what they want to do, which will lead many people to live the reality that the technology should not be the focus of course design, even if they don’t realize it.

(One weird thing down the road that I would predict is that instructors with the overall attitude of “I just do whatever” will probably come out looking like stars, and will probably get several keynotes/TED talks/etc out of it. The lack of structure and planning in their on-campus courses will, unfortunately, work out quite well… for once. Meanwhile, the Instructional Designers and Tech Support People that saved their butts by fixing their mistakes behind the scenes will sit in the crowd, ignored…. but showing up still because that is what we always do…. yes, there is a reason I sound like I am speaking from experience… :) )

But let’s also discuss some ways to at least try and steer things towards some better outcomes, even amidst the chaos. Keep in mind I am talking about possible options that may not work out perfectly every time. Disaster response happens in situations when a lot of things like proper design of online courses (which takes a long time to do properly) has to take place in a very short time frame. Nothing is wrong with going with what just works in the moment. These are just some ideas of what to think about and possibly try to incorporate in your plans.

So, if you really are going to go down the path of planning for a mass switch to online, the biggest issue you need to deal with is convincing professors to switch from synchronous methods to asynchronous as much as possible (I always assume everyone knows what is meant by that, but that is not always the case – here is a good summary if you are not totally sure what I mean here). I can’t stress enough how disaster could cause synchronous to break down.

When a disaster strikes, especially like a quarantine, people lose a lot of the control over their schedule. Issues such as “when food arrives,” “when family are available to check in,” or even possibly “when they are able to use the Internet” (uh-oh!) will possibly be out of their control. All parts of life suddenly have to become coordinated, scheduled, and controlled by others, who themselves are most likely doing the best they can to get supplies out with limited staff and mobility. Students will need the ability to work learning around society that is not fully functioning – not the other way around.

The problem with quarantines is that you have a massive strain suddenly on resources in a matter of hours that last longer than the usual cyclical strains. Whether the quarantine is short or long term, there will be possibly be rationing and rolling stoppages of all kinds of services to offset loads on systems (don’t forget how this could also affect cell phone service when local towers become overloaded). So what are you going to do when a quarter of your students don’t have Internet service when you schedule synchronous sessions, and then when those students have Internet, another quarter is hit by rolling blackouts, and so on? Or what about other issues, like those that suddenly have to change work hours to keep income flowing to themselves or their employer due to societal upheaval?

I know that oftentimes, the solution to this is “schedule the teaching session through Zoom or some other tool, but record it for those that miss.” From experience, I can tell you that more and more will start missing because they can, even if they are available. Then they start to not get the same learning experience as others since they can’t ask questions live, or feel as connected to other learners. I’m not saying “don’t do synchronous meetings ever,” but just consider those are not the best way to do online learning by default. There are additional consequences for those that miss that can harm them in the long run, so why not consider ways to make it equitable for all?

Even in the first disaster scenario I described – the individualized disaster – some people say that they will just get a camera and live stream their class. That might work great, but what if that student is in the hospital, and not in control of their schedule enough to be online when your class meeting happens? Are you expecting the hospital (or family caregivers if they are at home) to re-arrange their schedules around your class? Probably not a priority when someone is getting medical help. Just a thought.

Additionally, don’t forget the technical problems that can arise during mass migration to synchronous sessions (which many will be familiar with because they also happen in non-disaster situations as well).  For example:

[tweet 1235011409630593024 hide_thread=’true’]

or

[tweet 1234941983791239169 hide_thread=’true’]

…just for a few examples. There are hundreds to consider. For asynchronous as well – there are pros and cons to both.

While many know that there are major differences between asynchronous and synchronous course design considerations that have to be accounted for in the switch between those two modalities, sometimes we also forget that even switching from on-campus classrooms to synchronous online sessions is also not that simple.

[tweet 1234944981443514370 hide_thread=’true’]

If you have used Zoom or some other video conferencing tool in an online setting, you know that there are big differences between on-campus and online meetings. Just remember that not all of your students and faculty have used those tools in online learning contexts, so they will need guidance on how to do that. Where I work for my day job, they are already on top of that aspect.

There are also many other issues to consider, and this post is too long as it is. Hopefully you can start thinking through all of the unique complexities that a switch to online would run into. For example, are you prepared to let students that are locked in dorms rooms and bored work ahead in courses/programs to fill their time? Are you going to let people use campus tools to organize supply distribution, news updates, just chat if bored, etc if needed? Are you considering the mental effects of long-term quarantine, and how to address that while still in quarantine? There are so many to think about.

And to those that say “how likely is that to happen?” Well, not very to be honest. But that is kind of the point of emergency disaster preparedness. You never know until its too late, so think about it now.

A final note – I am not trying to draw hard lines between asynchronous and synchronous. Asynchronous does not mean you can’t ever have the option of synchronous class sessions. Its not always an either/or. Like I have said, there are also things you have to do because that is all you can in a pinch. These are just some ideas to consider. Keep in mind that there are many great ideas that mix both, like putting students in groups and having those groups meet synchronously. These options can work out very well (especially since smaller groups are easier to schedule common times). Or another idea – you can (and should) meet with individual students synchronously as well.

Don’t draw hard lines. It will be chaos. Plan to be flexible. Good luck, and Godspeed…

(Top photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash)

Updating Types of Interactions in Online Education to Reflect AI and Systemic Influence

One of the foundation concepts in instructional design and other parts of the field of education are the types of interaction that occur in the educational process online. In 1989, Michael G. Moore first categorized three types of interaction in education: student-teacher, student-student, and student-content. Then, in 1994, Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena expanded on this model, adding student-interface interactions. Four years later, Anderson & Garrison (1998) added three more interaction types to account for advances in technology: teacher-teacher, teacher-content, and content-content. Since social constructivist theory did not quite fit into these seven types of interaction, Dron decided to propose four more types of interaction in 2007: group-content, group-group, learner-group, and teacher-group. Some would argue that “student-student” and “student-content” still cover these newer additions, and to some degree that is true. But it also helps to look at the differences between these various terms as technology has advanced and changed interactions online – so I think the new terms are helpful. More recently, proponents of connectivism have proposed acknowledging patterns of “interactions with and learning from sets of people or objects [which] form yet another mode of interaction” (Wang, Chen, & Anderson, 2014, p. 125). I would call that networked with sets of people and/or objects.

The instructional designer within me likes to replace “student” with “learner” and “content” with “design” to more accurately describe the complexity of learners that are not students and learning designs that are not content. However, as we rely more and more on machine learning and algorithms, especially at the systemic level, we are creating new things that learners will increasingly be interacting with for the foreseeable future. I am wondering if it is time to expand this list of interactions to reflect that? Or is it long enough as it is?

So the existing ones I would keep, with “learner” exchanged for “student” and “design” exchanged for “content”:

  • learner-teacher (ex: instructivist lecture, learner teaching the teacher, or learner networking with teacher)
  • learner-learner (ex: learner mentorship, one-on-one study groups, or learner teaching another learner)
  • learner-design (ex: reading a textbook, watching a video, listening to audio, completing a project, or reading a website)
  • learner-interface (ex: web-browsing, connectivist online interactions, gaming, or computerized learning tools)
  • teacher-teacher (ex: collaborative teaching, cross-course alignment, or professional development)
  • teacher-design (ex: teacher-authored textbooks or websites, teacher blogs, or professional study)
  • group-design (ex: constructivist group work, connectivist resource sharing, or group readings)
  • group-group (ex: debate teams, group presentations, or academic group competitions)
  • learner-group (ex: individual work presented to group for debate, learner as the teacher exercises)
  • teacher-group (ex: teacher contribution to group work, group presentation to teacher)
  • networked with sets of people or objects (ex: Connectivism, Wikipedia, crowdsourced learning, or online collaborative note-taking)

The new ones I would consider adding include:

  • algorithm-learner (ex: learner data being sent to algorithms; algorithms sending communication back to learners as emails, chatbot messages, etc)
  • algorithm-teacher (ex: algorithms communicating aggregate or individual learner data on retention, plagiarism, etc)
  • algorithm-design (ex: algorithms that determine new or remedial content; machine learning/artificial intelligence)
  • algorithm-interface (ex: algorithms that reformat interfaces based on input from learners, responses sent to chatbots, etc)
  • algorithm-group (ex: algorithms that determine how learners are grouped in courses, programs, etc)
  • algorithm-system (ex: algorithms that report aggregate or individual learner data to upper level admin)
  • system-learner (ex: system-wide initiatives that attempt to “solve” retention, plagiarism, etc)
  • system-teacher (ex: cross-curricular implementation, standardized teaching approaches)
  • system-design (ex: degree programs, required standardized testing, and other systemic requirements)

Well… that gets too long. But I suspect that a lot of the new additions listed would fall under the job category of what many call “learning engineering” maybe? You might have noticed that it appears as if I removed “content-content” – but that was renamed “algorithm-design,” as that is mainly what I think of for “content-content.” But I could be wrong. I also left out “algorithm-algorithm,” as algorithms already interface with themselves and other algorithms by design. That is implied in “algorithm-design,” kind of in the same way I didn’t include learners interacting with themselves in self-reflection as that is implied in “learner-learner.” But I could be swayed by arguments for including those as well. I am also not sure how much “system-interface” interaction we have, as most systems interact with interfaces through other actors like learners, teachers, groups, etc. So I left that off. I also couldn’t think of anything for “system-group” that was different from anything else already listed as examples elsewhere. And I am not sure we have much real “system-system” interaction outside of a few random conversations at upper administrative levels that rarely trickle down into education without being vastly filtered through systemic norms first. Does it count as “system-system” interaction in a way that affects learning if the receiving system is going to mix it with their existing standards before approving and disseminating it first? I’m not sure.

While many people may not even see the need for the new ones covered here, please understand that these interactions are heavily utilized in surveillance-focused Ed-Tech. Of course, all education utilizes some form of surveillance, but to those Ed-Tech sectors that make it their business to promote and sell surveillance as a feature, these are interactions that we need to be aware of. I would even contend that these types of interaction are more important behind the scenes of all kinds of tech than many of us realize. So even if you disagree with this list, please understand that these interactions are a reality.

So – that is 20 types of interaction, with some more that maybe should have been included or not depending on your viewpoint (and I am still not sure we have advanced enough with “algorithm-interface” yet to give it it’s own category, but I think we will pretty soon). Someone may have done this already and I just couldn’t find it in a search – so I apologize if I missed others’ work. None of this is to say that any of these types of interactions are automatically good for learners just because I list them here – they just are the ones that are happening more and more as we automate more and more and/or take a systems approach to education. In fact, these new levels could be helpful in informing critical dialogue about our growing reliance on automation and surveillance in education as well.

Opinion Polls and the Continuing Mission of Ed Tech

So the news today is that opinion polls found that the general population still finds traditional classes to be better than online ones in a few key areas. I find polls like these fascinating, but not because I think they spell trouble for online learning. These are opinion polls and therefore don’t necessarily spell out fact. What they do reflect is what message is most often heard. And what is currently dominating the message? xMOOCs. So you are probably dealing with some misunderstood terms here.

Anyone in online learning knows that online courses can be just as good or bad at things like “instruction tailored to each individual,” providing “high-quality instruction from well-qualified instructors,” or offering “rigorous testing and grading that can be trusted.” The reality is that those are all factors that depend more on design and instructors than whether something is online or not. Personally I have never been in a face-to-face class that allowed for “instruction tailored to each individual.” But I know many online programs that do. So I am making a case that individual perception is biased – so what?

The so what part is that we still need the evangelists out there, spread the good news of online learning. Not as the only method of learning for the future, but as one that is every bit as equal to face-to-face learning. I think many of us just sit back and think the case has been made and the battle has been won, when polls like this one still show some ground to be gained.

And did anyone else notice that this poll found a much higher satisfaction rate with college in general than the “death of the university” crowd has been preaching? I may to hold off my early retirement plans if this whole university thing survives….

Make Your Brain Happy by Learning Something Online

All I can say is that I knew it all along. Jacqueline Barnes of Litmos LMS says that “our brains love learning online.” Or I guess it would be more accurate to say that research is possibly indicating that certain aspects of the online experience help us to enjoy the learning process a bit more.

A closer look at the research shows that it is not really just anything and everything about online learning that help us learn better, but specific concepts and ideas focused primarily on engagement, social presence, encouragement, and immediacy. What I don’t see in the research is any mention of long lecture capture videos, digitizing standardized tests and uploading them online, 500-slide death by PowerPoint modules, or any of the other standards that we typically see in online courses.

In other words, the bad, boring teaching concepts that have been bad, boring teaching concepts for centuries will continue to be bad, boring teaching concepts no matter how much technology we wrap around them. [ahem…. iBooks 2?]

So many times when I read about certain colleges putting “free courses” online I cringe – when all they are really doing is putting popular lecture captures online. I have tried to watch these free videos and no matter how well spoken or humorous the professor is, I just can’t sit there and watch to the end without my attention wandering.

What these recent studies don’t necessarily say directly – but they still possibly prove – is that our brains are happy when we are actively engaged in the learning process. Passively sitting there and staring at the screen for a long time? Not so much. I hate to admit it, but that is why I have never been able to get into the Khan Academy that much. If you love it – great. I just need more engagement and less “sit and stare.”

College Professors Striking Back at Technology – With Technology?

You just can’t make this stuff up.  Here is the name of a recent article on The Chronicle:

College 2.0: Teachers Without Technology Strike Back

The first thing that any decent intro to educational technology course teaches you is that technology is not just a computer.  Chalk boards are technology.  Books are technology.  “Technology can refer to material objects of use to humanity.” This also includes over head projectors and calculators.

In fact, we have probably all read the quotes from people that were opposed to books way back in the day.  I even remember once reading a quote that talked about how writing on bark was better than chalkboards or something like that.

So how did the professor strike back at technology? But forcing students to use a blue book.  Which is technically also technology.  Confused? So are the students in these courses I would bet. The professor also used an overhead at some point I would be willing to bet, or at least turned on the air conditioning if it got hot.

Worst quote of the article?

“tech-based learning feels more like IKEA—a lower-price, build-it-yourself option.”

Sad. Really sad.  Just taking out technology and talking at students doesn’t make a class high quality.  In fact, I have been in many face-to-face courses that would be a K-mart Blue Light Special if this metaphor is continued.

“In that way, some professors see emphasizing the benefits of chalk-and-talk methods as defending their craft against pressures to cheapen it.”

That is great – I see great value in face-to-face learning.  Just don’t defend your side by cheapening technology-based learning.  Lower-price, do-it-yourself? Give me a break.

For the One Millionth Time, This is NOT Online Learning…

The Chronicle boldly proclaimed today that “Online Learning May Slightly Hurt Student Performance.” How do they know this? A “study found that students who watched lectures online instead of attending in-person classes performed slightly worse in the course over all.”

That sound you hear is the collective world of EduGeeks around the world firmly planting their palm to their fore head. Online lectures are ten times as boring as the face-to-face version, so no wonder they performed so bad.

(that last statement is based on the results of my scientific study of the volume of snores originating from a few online lecture video based courses I know of)

One of the authors even had this to say: “It’s limited evidence, but I think it’s the highest-quality evidence that’s available.”

Sorry, but it is not anywhere near as good as the other evidence out there.  The previous analysis of online learning by the U.S. Department of Education (that this article mentions) actually looked at many different actual forms of online learning. Not the wanna-be online learning beast called video lectures.

UPDATE: just as a note, The Chronicle did edit the original article and title to “more accurately characterize the research.”  The original title is in the link above. Also, the quote from the authors above was also removed, but it was originally there.

The Best Place To Learn IS On The Web

Much has been said recently about how the Web is making us more stupid. I blame Bing really – they said that humans are basically so dumb that we go on search overload if we can’t figure out a simple page of links.  I don’t feel “stupider” than I did before the Internet :)  Maybe I am just so ignorant that I don’t realize how dumb I am.

Finally, however, the New York Times brings some reality… and some actual science… into the debate with “The Defense of Computers, the Internet and Our Brains.”  My two favorite quotes:

“Critics of new media sometimes use science itself to press their case, citing research that shows how ‘experience can change the brain.’ But cognitive neuroscientists roll their eyes at such talk.”

…and…

“It could be argued that the Web, which is the ultimate library of words, video, images, interactivity, sharing and conversation, is the quintessential place to learn.”

And thousands of EduGeek around the world then said… “amen”…

Edit: made some changes, just in case people didn’t get my use of humor with the word “stupider.”